Live data from Hacker News

Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

washingtonpost.com

81–90 of 211 posts

Re: Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

#81
post #63
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes he is. The information he released in the latest round of "secrets" gave away informants to people that can (and will) kill them. The story I've heard is that Wikileaks attempted to contact the White House, so the two parties could go through the documents and remove references to informants. The White House declined the offer. Has any evidence emerged to suggest this is untrue? Wikileaks failed to remove actual…

"The story I've heard is that Wikileaks attempted to contact the White House, so the two parties could go through the documents and remove references to informants. The White House declined the offer. Has any evidence emerged to suggest this is untrue?" Right, so like little children that aren't responsible, they released all of the names instead. "See above." see above

[deleted]

Re: Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

#82
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I'm fine with that. Assange isn't killing people. 3-star generals are." Yes he is. The information he released in the latest round of "secrets" gave away informants to people that can (and will) kill them. If he gave information about locations of jews to the Nazis, would we say it was freedom of information? "Government can function with much less secrecy than it currently does. WL is serving a public need in chall…

>Yes he is. The information he released in the latest round of "secrets" gave away informants to people that can (and will) kill them. Specific examples would be great. >If he gave information about locations of jews to the Nazis, would we say it was freedom of information? The jews weren't attempting to occupy Germany at the time so probably not the most fitting comparison. >That's because Obama knows the importance…

We'll probably have to wait for him to leak more memos for specific examples. All we know for now is Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid says they are using the data to punish informants. If we want to be really cynical we could assume Mujahid is a CIA creation for delivering US propaganda. It makes sense though. The Taliban holds villages hostage to get this type of information. Why wouldn't they just look at the memos?

Re: Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

#83
post #73
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikileaks publishes leaked information. They don't steal information. By the time information gets to Wikileaks, it's already been leaked. Wikileaks just tries to verify the information, determines the value in publishing it, tries to protect their sources and the people the leak might affect, then perhaps publishes the leaked information. What they're doing is precisely journalism.

"What they're doing is precisely journalism." Journalists have a responsibility. If a couple of people have leaked information, the likelihood of anybody actually seeing the information is close to zero. Wikileaks has a huge audience that now includes most major media outlets in the US. This is the difference.

> If a couple of people have leaked information, the likelihood of anybody actually seeing the information is close to zero.

In the Internet age, I find the concept of that laughable. If you want to show something to a great number of people, just post it on a social news/bookmarking site. Sending your info to Wikileaks is a hundred times as responsible an act as just letting the information spread virally would be.

Re: Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

#84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>1) Wikileaks is really pissing people off This is because what they're doing is effective. Ineffective things don't piss people off and trigger military disinfo campaigns. The author of the WPO blog article is an AEI member, a player in the neocon agenda: not some random pundit. >2) Assange has more power than many 3-star generals I'm fine with that. Assange isn't killing people. 3-star generals are. >3) Anarchy is…

> I'll take a self-promoter over a murderer any day. How is crap like this getting upvoted? New Guys, here at Hacker News we vote up and down based on intelligent, civil, primarily unemotional comments. Calling out "neocons" and randomly throwing "murderer" around is not what we vote up here. Please think, a lot of us are ex-Reddit and we don't want Hacker News to become Reddit, or else we'd be at Reddit.

The use of "murderer" could be argued, but I fail to see what's in any way controversial about calling a member of the AEI a neocon. According to Wikipedia "AEI is the most prominent think tank associated with American neoconservatism".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute

Re: Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

#85
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Theres nothing wrong with pointing out that one way is just as bad as the status quo. Neither way is perfect - but that's far different from your equivocation. "Hundreds of people" possibly identified through the Wikileaks release pales in comparison to the tens or hundreds of thousands collaterally killed by the U.S. military.

Unless you can prove that the military is unnecessary and their absence would not prevent more bloodshed than they cause then I would say my equivocation is right on the money. So to echo the previous poster do you have an alternate solution to the military that doesn't involve an impossible mass change to the entire worlds mental and emotional state. The military is an unfortunate but necessary evil that involves bl…

Unless you can prove that the military is unnecessary and their absence would not prevent more bloodshed than they cause then I would say my equivocation is right on the money.

I disagree. Rather, I would suggest that the burden of proof should rest on those who claim the right to kill others, rather than those who wish to deny others that right. Which is to say, unless you can prove that the military is necessary and its non-existence would result in more deaths than its existence, it should not exist.

Re: Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

#86
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If he gave information about locations of jews to the Nazis, would we say it was freedom of information? Godwin's law so soon in this thread? Not helpful.

"Godwin's law so soon in this thread? Not helpful." Don't know your history? not helpful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law

It's directly applicable.

Re: Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

#87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'll take a self-promoter over a murderer any day. How is crap like this getting upvoted? New Guys, here at Hacker News we vote up and down based on intelligent, civil, primarily unemotional comments. Calling out "neocons" and randomly throwing "murderer" around is not what we vote up here. Please think, a lot of us are ex-Reddit and we don't want Hacker News to become Reddit, or else we'd be at Reddit.

The use of "murderer" could be argued, but I fail to see what's in any way controversial about calling a member of the AEI a neocon. According to Wikipedia "AEI is the most prominent think tank associated with American neoconservatism". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute

[deleted]

Re: Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

#88

Wikileaks is the only place in the world where you can be a whistleblower without the threat of censorship or persecution. Sounds like two of the best things to happen to democracy in a long time.

Meh, just go pick a wireless hotspot to upload it to any of the file-share sites and post links on 4chan/Fark/Reddit/etc. Or send it to Cryptome.

Re: Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

#89
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>1) Wikileaks is really pissing people off This is because what they're doing is effective. Ineffective things don't piss people off and trigger military disinfo campaigns. The author of the WPO blog article is an AEI member, a player in the neocon agenda: not some random pundit. >2) Assange has more power than many 3-star generals I'm fine with that. Assange isn't killing people. 3-star generals are. >3) Anarchy is…

When you call those prosecuting the US/NATO side of the conflict in Afghanistan "murderers", you run the risk of implicitly taking the side of US/NATO's adversaries, who in this case are the Taliban. Here's what I'm wondering: when did it become fashionable to stick up for the Taliban? The Taliban aren't the Sandinistas. The Taliban aren't the North Vietnamese Army. They aren't even Hezbollah. It is conceivable --- e…

Please. Calling soldiers shooting children murderers doesn't mean I like the Taliban, it means I don't want our soldiers murdering children. Really, this isn't complicated.

The Taliban might have been evil, but it doesn't mean that the replacements will be any better. As near as anybody who isn't a jackass can tell, the US has inserted ourselves into a pair of century (millenia?) long sectarian conflicts. Government barely exists 100 miles from the Kabul. These warlords were fighting each other before the Taliban, somewhat subjugated by the Taliban, and will be fighting each other again after we finally leave. All we've done is inflicted horrendous collateral damage on whoever happened to get in our way while mouthing trite bullshit about democracy. In order to leave the citizens of the country in a position that will be, at best, no better than under the Taliban. And probably much worse. We've killed how many in order to install some thug and his drug / warlord brother atop the heap?

As for Wikileaks, after Bush decided to run black prisons and endorsed the torture at Abu Ghraib, I frankly stopped believing anything out government says. Obama, with his support of the Afghanistan war and Bush era spy laws, has more or less endorsed Bush' view of civil liberties and demonstrated that the US government is worth the trust of exactly nobody. I'll believe what the government says when Bush is executed for war crimes, and there are a long line of US Generals up there with him. In light of those facts, Wikileaks is a force for good. Since we've demonstrated that morality and probability of success have no impact on our decisions, perhaps Wikileaks can damage the war effort enough to get us out of Afghanistan. Frankly, the less Americans trust their government, the better.

Re: Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

#90
Interesting Op-Ed, but I think it's criticism is misplaced. Wikileaks in this case is a provider, much like YouTube. Although their intended goal is to bring to light embarrassing and/or immoral actions by governments, they have no contractual obligation to the United States. Holding them accountable for information provided by 3rd parties seems a stretch at best, and if successfully prosecuted, all news media should be wary.

The op-ed's criticism should really be placed on the provider of these documents, and those that decided he could be trusted with a security clearance. He had a contractual agreement with the government, was informed of the consequences of breaking his oath, broke it, and should be prepared for the consequences.

The government knows the best way to prevent future cases like this: prosecute the leaker to the fullest extent they can. If the leaker is executed as a traitor, everyone with clearance during war-time will carefully consider breaking their oaths knowing that it will cost them their lives. Harassing and intimidating publishers will have little to no effect on future leaks, and is probably a waste of the governments time to pursue.

Post reply on HN