Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 211 posts

Re: Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

#191

Post by elblanco »

plinkplonk wrote: post #185
elblanco wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) The United States (along with other European countries including Russia and other non Islamic countries like India) is a terror target irrespective of what it does in Afghanistan. If you are an American, you are (in the abstract) a terror target already and have been for a long long time. The odds of you specifically dying in a terrorist attack are (and always were) very slim. Absolutely no disagreement from me. B…

I suspect we agree more than we disagree. The remaining differences are about whether there are only three options- "passive" == "do nothing but wait for the next attack" and "active" == full fledged war wasting trillions of dollars and lasting decades or "c" improving the life of th average Mohammed which in practice devolves to full fledged war and subsequent "nation building". Your analogies all suffer from being…

I think that we probably do agree more than we disagree.

Cheers.

Re: Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

#192

Post by elblanco »

Ardit20 wrote: post #189
elblanco wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever read anything about conditions inside Afghanistan under the Taliban? I mean this as a serious question because by your response you seem absolutely ignorant.

Common, they not in the business of burning people for - - - reading! You know they have a war to fight and that probably keeps them very busy. Also, by freaking burning a person is a sure way to make enemy of the entire village, so they better go and find some other village. And I think they probably depend to a great extent on the goodwill of the village which probably shelters them and does not hand them over to t…

http://www.rawa.org/rules.htm

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2007238,00.htm...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/abuse-of-afghan...

http://www.dhushara.com/book/sakina/stoningetc/immol.htm

Re: Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

#193

Post by Ardit20 »

mcgraw wrote: post #183
Ardit20 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It did absolutely need to be said. Perhaps not the names of the informers, but as he says there is some media manipulation going on. Have you actually read the leaks? I haven't. I haven't got a clue what is in them. The Washington Post could tomorrow say whatever it likes in regards to its content.

>> It did absolutely need to be said. You are free to express your view, but unless you have a star worth it's value on your collar, I don't think you should be making such bold claims. Leaks like this are a destraction that commanders, and the troops, don't need -- it only takes 'one' leak to turn this coin inside-out. Ok, Look at it from the U.S./Ally angle. Do you think we just randomly come across top-ranking off…

Yes I understand that. I do not think that the names of informers or any personal data really should have been published. There was hardly any need for that. The value is in the actual things done or said and I doubt it really matters by who as we know they are from soldiers down there documenting these events uncensored.

So obviously the names should have not been leaked, but I doubt that was in any way intentional. I would personally wonder how is wikileaks to know who are the informers - but perhaps they should have been more careful and not leaked any names at all.

That such a mistake, possibly due to negligence and ignorance was made - lets remember it is a really new organisation and quite inexperience and no one has done this before so they are kind of pioneers - does not justify the imprisonment of the person, or the shutting down of the website.

The rest of the leak was useful and has focused the attention of the public and also perhaps has highlighted that things are a bit of a mess. So, if the results is that the war ends no later than it absolutely needs to and your friends get to come back home perhaps sooner than otherwise and that the government is put under pressure to get things right there, then I think that's a good thing.

I do however think the fault is ultimately of the government even if something bad does happen. This information did not need to be kept secret, except of course for the names of the informants, and they should have been put in the public domain by the government itself.

Re: Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

#194

Post by grandalf »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #159
grandalf wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've had a lot of insightful comments about this isssue, and although I tend to disagree with your conclusions, I think the quality of your analysis/argument has been superb. I'd respond with only two points: First, if Assange makes it harder to keep things secret, then less will be kept secret. This will have good and bad consequences, but I think it's safe to say that strict control of information (secrecy + focu…

I upvoted you because I agree all the way to your last sentence, and your reply works with or without it. Here's an interesting thought experiment. What if Assange were releasing secrets about how the agriculture department did experiments in the 50s that ended up killing farmers? Hell, everybody would be hailing him as a hero. How about if he were releasing docs about how people were killed because they threatened t…

I apologize for my hyperbole in the choice of words "mass slaughter" to describe the war. The intent was to describe the war only in terms of its casualties rather than in terms of its stated or unstated political goals (since this is the nerve that Wikileaks touches).

I don't disagree with your points, and I think you articulate some aspects quite well. True Assange is a political figure. He is also the founder of an institution. To date we have not seen the rise of a virtual institution with this sort of political significance, nor have we seen one that exists independently of a state or party.

We seem to disagree on the issue of supporting Wikileaks as an act of civil disobedience. In my opinion, we are not morally obligated to obey unjust laws. Of course, we may be made to suffer the consequences of disobedience, but I do not (as you seem to) imbue the law with any special moral significance just because it's the law.

Let me remind you that it is illegal for the US to propagandize Americans. I'd argue that some of the information that is being declared "secret" is simply information that the government wants withheld for propaganda purposes.

So without Wikileaks, what check or balance exists to prevent this misuse of secrecy for propaganda? I'm curious if you think this is a reasonable question to ask and what you think the answer is.

To address your broader critique of Wikileaks, I'd argue that Assange is building a very ambitious institution, and it's currently imperfect. Some of your critiques apply only to the young incarnation of Wikileaks and (I'd expect) will go away once/if the institution manages to gain additional credibility, experience, and stability.

One quote of yours really intrigues me: Getting folks thinking about the particulars of the information distracts them from the larger picture by making them emotionally, well, irrational. This suggests that you think that a member of the public judging the appropriateness/worth of the war would be more rational if he/she ignored all the messy noise offered by the leaks and focused only on the government's official story of how/why the war should continue. If not, then I'm curious how you'd advise the rational citizen to assess the status/progress/worth of a war effort such as the current US involvement in Afghanistan.

Re: Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

#195

Post by Ardit20 »

elblanco wrote: post #192
Ardit20 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Common, they not in the business of burning people for - - - reading! You know they have a war to fight and that probably keeps them very busy. Also, by freaking burning a person is a sure way to make enemy of the entire village, so they better go and find some other village. And I think they probably depend to a great extent on the goodwill of the village which probably shelters them and does not hand them over to t…

http://www.rawa.org/rules.htm http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2007238,00.htm... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/abuse-of-afghan... http://www.dhushara.com/book/sakina/stoningetc/immol.htm

Yeh sure man they are really bad people, but none of the article is about reading, or maybe it is because I only skimmed them.

I did say that there is a serious point there, and suggested that you make it. Coming up with such things as they killed him in a nicer way, the Taliban would consider him to be his friend after burning his daughter, rather than probably thinks he really hates them and will inform on them on any chance he has, so really I doubt he is the kind of person the taliban would hardly suspect that he would inform on them, and taking the extreme action of burning a person for reading really are not serious points.

Re: Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

#196

Post by mcantelon »

elblanco wrote: post #181
mcantelon wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Until the situation is improved to the point that we can be reasonably sure that the festering cancer of the Taliban is no longer a threat to you and me, we have to try and improve the conditions there. Realistically, the Taliban is only a threat to you and me if the US state apparatus allows it to be (for strategic reasons, such as justifying the invasion of a country like Iraq, or economic reasons, such as feeding…

> Realistically, the Taliban is only a threat to you and me if the US state apparatus allows it to be So wait, let me get this correct. Your world-view is that a decade of NATO actions in Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban, capture/kill Al-Qaeda and emplace a system of stable national governance, improved civilian security and improved economic conditions (regardless of how bungled or successful that process has be…

> is not the process of Western state apparatuses attempting to take groups like the Taliban off the threat list through proactive policies

My guess is if the US didn't want the Taliban to exist they wouldn't have trained them and sold them arms (http://nyti.ms/ddOTcu) in the first place. Zbigniew Brzezinski puts it fairly bluntly: "The secret operation was an excellent idea... What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?" (http://bit.ly/tPpQJ).

>You have just gone on my list of people who suffer from an insatiable thirst for Hollywood conspiracy theories. Enjoy the time-cube. http://www.timecube.com/ You'll feel right at home.

The belief that an empires acts for the benefit of civilians is about as believable as the idea that oil companies act for the benefit of those who buy petrol. Grown-ups have beliefs founded in history, not fantasies promoted by vested interests.

Re: Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

#197

Post by rick888 »

derefr wrote: post #83
rick888 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

"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."

I'm glad we agree that both are equally irresponsible.

Re: Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

#198

Post by tptacek »

Ardit20 wrote: post #148
tptacek wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right. Calling people who shoot children murderers doesn't make you a supporter of the Taliban.

What on earth were you saying then?

That one should be careful not to defend the Taliban, who unlike the NVA or Sandinistas have no legitimacy and are objectively evil. That giving material support to the Taliban is something to be avoided, not cheered on.

As a greater stretch, I also object to the notion that the conflict in Afghanistan is illegitimate. I've no doubt that it's been prosecuted badly, and to the extent that "badly" involves corruption and murder of innocents --- while I might not be happy to see this happen --- I can understand the moral calculus behind leaking information about criminal activity in the conflict.

But opposing the conflict for it's own sake, because "it's not about defense", strikes me as dangerously close to tacit support for the Taliban.

Re: Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

#199

Post by tptacek »

rbanffy wrote: post #167
tptacek wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why it matters that the US helped bring the Taliban to power. Help me understand why our culpability in the rise of the Taliban doesn't make us more obligated to eradicate them. Please understand, I think that this article we're all commenting on is all the way at the crazytown other end of the spectrum on this issue. The notion that the US should be allowed to kidnap people in friendly countries a…

> I don't understand why it matters that the US helped bring the Taliban to power. For one, I think they would be better off had the Soviet Union succeeded invading it. They would have some industry, mining operation, separation between religion and state and so on. It's not like the Taleban ever were "freedom fighters". The Soviet Union would get rid of the Taleban for free. It's, in fact, the kind of poor judgment…

My understanding: it's largely a myth that the Taliban is the direct creation of the US government.

The Taliban are themselves a direct and overt reaction to the warlordism and banditry that followed the Communist puppet regime in Afghanistan. They were formed to remove the status quo that American support for the Mujahideen created.

I understand some of the power politics involved in, for instance, disfavoring Massoud and arming Hekmatyar and how decisions (and, more importantly, negligence) in handling that stuff hurt the west in the long run. Still, though.

It's a drastic oversimplification to say that the US created the Taliban.

It also seems pretty irresponsible to suggest that the world would have been better off if the Soviets had succeeded in surpressing Afghanistan. It very well might have been worse.

Re: Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

#200

Post by [deleted] »

tptacek wrote: post #36
mcantelon wrote: post #15

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN