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

In defense of Wikileaks

walt.foreignpolicy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 39 posts

Re: In defense of Wikileaks

#21

Post by [deleted] »

rgrieselhuber wrote: post #20
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #14

But unless you're willing to believe that the people in charge are always right and that their lies are therefore justified (and if you think that, you haven't been paying attention), you ought to be in favor of any mechanism that brought more facts to light. First, I'm a huge fan of leaking information. We have a thousand times too much secrecy as we can stand already. People who leak things -- especially things tha…

> That doesn't mean that what Wikileaks did is right: in fact if they get somebody killed? Has there been a single report that this happened the first time they leaked the information? The article itself said "Robert Gates has acknowledged that earlier Wikileaks releases did not in fact compromises sensitive information or methods".

[deleted]

Re: In defense of Wikileaks

#22

Post by cromulent »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #14

But unless you're willing to believe that the people in charge are always right and that their lies are therefore justified (and if you think that, you haven't been paying attention), you ought to be in favor of any mechanism that brought more facts to light. First, I'm a huge fan of leaking information. We have a thousand times too much secrecy as we can stand already. People who leak things -- especially things tha…

The context of this article is the Iraq War Logs, and certainly comments relating to the executive's need for secrecy in relation to security are relevant. In some areas, a balance is needed. Would anyone be served by leaking the nuclear launch codes? I think I would rather some things were secret.

However, it's fairly common now to associate Wikileaks only with their leaks relating to the US war interests. They leak a lot more than that. I guess you leak what you can get, and the more secretive the information, the bigger the leak is.

I'm very happy that they leaked the proposed Australian internet censorship blacklist, even if it meant they were subsequently placed on it (I'm sure mirrors will sort that one out).

Re: In defense of Wikileaks

#23

Post by hugh3 »

rgrieselhuber wrote: post #20
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #14

But unless you're willing to believe that the people in charge are always right and that their lies are therefore justified (and if you think that, you haven't been paying attention), you ought to be in favor of any mechanism that brought more facts to light. First, I'm a huge fan of leaking information. We have a thousand times too much secrecy as we can stand already. People who leak things -- especially things tha…

> That doesn't mean that what Wikileaks did is right: in fact if they get somebody killed? Has there been a single report that this happened the first time they leaked the information? The article itself said "Robert Gates has acknowledged that earlier Wikileaks releases did not in fact compromises sensitive information or methods".

Has there been a single report that this happened the first time they leaked the information?

Would we know, if there had?

Also, isn't justifying reckless behaviour on the grounds that it hasn't killed anyone yet a bit of a weak justification? The average drunk driver hasn't killed anyone yet.

Re: In defense of Wikileaks

#24

Post by binaryfinery »

hugh3 wrote: post #11
chaostheory wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've already made the point that I'm about to make. That book is from the 30's, it hasn't made the best seller lists in decades; nor am I aware if it's required reading for most classes. People need a modern reminder like Wikileaks.

People need a modern reminder like Wikileaks Is there really a lack of suspicion of intelligence agaencies going about? Roughly one out of every three movies currently being made is something about the US Government being secretly involved in dodgy clandestine activities. How many movies have the "twist" that the real bad guys turn out to be some corrupt US Government official? Want to make a short list? Count up the…

No, thats just in the movies. That stuff doesn't happen in real life. Jeez. Get a grip. Its the movies! You gotta learn to tell the difference between reality and fantasy buddy. What are you, a leftie conspiracy nutjob?

At least, thats the response I get around here from people.

Re: In defense of Wikileaks

#25

Post by rgrieselhuber »

hugh3 wrote: post #23
rgrieselhuber wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That doesn't mean that what Wikileaks did is right: in fact if they get somebody killed? Has there been a single report that this happened the first time they leaked the information? The article itself said "Robert Gates has acknowledged that earlier Wikileaks releases did not in fact compromises sensitive information or methods".

Has there been a single report that this happened the first time they leaked the information? Would we know, if there had? Also, isn't justifying reckless behaviour on the grounds that it hasn't killed anyone yet a bit of a weak justification? The average drunk driver hasn't killed anyone yet .

Would we know, if there had?

Given that, if this happened, the military has every incentive to make sure we know about it, I believe we would the minute it happened.

Also, isn't justifying reckless behaviour on the grounds that it hasn't killed anyone yet a bit of a weak justification? The average drunk driver hasn't killed anyone yet.

Whether or not this is reckless behavior is the entire crux of this debate.

Re: In defense of Wikileaks

#26

Post by hugh3 »

rgrieselhuber wrote: post #25
hugh3 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has there been a single report that this happened the first time they leaked the information? Would we know, if there had? Also, isn't justifying reckless behaviour on the grounds that it hasn't killed anyone yet a bit of a weak justification? The average drunk driver hasn't killed anyone yet .

Would we know, if there had? Given that, if this happened, the military has every incentive to make sure we know about it, I believe we would the minute it happened. Also, isn't justifying reckless behaviour on the grounds that it hasn't killed anyone yet a bit of a weak justification? The average drunk driver hasn't killed anyone yet. Whether or not this is reckless behavior is the entire crux of this debate.

Given that, if this happened, the military has every incentive to make sure we know about it, I believe we would the minute it happened.

The military can't keep track of every civilian who goes missing in Afghanistan.

Also, even if they did know, making a big deal out of "omg one of our informers is dead" would (a) require them to acknowledge that so-and-so was indeed an informer, (b) give ideas to terrorists (who are nothing if not attention seeking), and... this next one is the most important one... (c) severely discourage future informers from coming forward.

Re: In defense of Wikileaks

#27

Post by potatolicious »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #14

But unless you're willing to believe that the people in charge are always right and that their lies are therefore justified (and if you think that, you haven't been paying attention), you ought to be in favor of any mechanism that brought more facts to light. First, I'm a huge fan of leaking information. We have a thousand times too much secrecy as we can stand already. People who leak things -- especially things tha…

I found that particular quote to be incredibly disingenuous:

> "But unless you're willing to believe that the people in charge are always right and that their lies are therefore justified (and if you think that, you haven't been paying attention), you ought to be in favor of any mechanism that brought more facts to light."

This reeks of "if you're not with us, you're against us" bullshit. So, because I am not in favor of complete carte blanche leakage of everything using whatever immoral means necessary, I'm suddenly a sheep that believes the government is always right?

No thanks author guy, I live in a world with shades of grey as opposed to some juvenile form of black and white.

Re: In defense of Wikileaks

#28

Post by greatgoof »

hugh3 wrote: post #19
rokamic wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was going to question that idea too. That book you just brought to my attention is amazing. A man in that time, speaking out like that? Wow.

Remember, there was a huge strain of aggressive pacifism in the US in the 1930s, which is how the US stayed out of World War 2 until 1941. Come to think of it, there was a pretty huge strain of aggressive pacifism in England as well, which is how Hitler got as far as he did. The 1930s was pretty much peak hour for pacifism. We'd just had World War 1 to remind us that war was a terrible thing, and hadn't yet had World…

I'm not so sure about the Aggressive Pacifism. From the Wikipedia article about the book --> The book is also interesting historically as Butler points out in 1935 that the US is engaging in military war games in the Pacific that are bound to provoke the Japanese. "The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the United States fleet so close to Nippon's shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles."

Re: In defense of Wikileaks

#29

Post by hugh3 »

greatgoof wrote: post #28
hugh3 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember, there was a huge strain of aggressive pacifism in the US in the 1930s, which is how the US stayed out of World War 2 until 1941. Come to think of it, there was a pretty huge strain of aggressive pacifism in England as well, which is how Hitler got as far as he did. The 1930s was pretty much peak hour for pacifism. We'd just had World War 1 to remind us that war was a terrible thing, and hadn't yet had World…

I'm not so sure about the Aggressive Pacifism. From the Wikipedia article about the book --> The book is also interesting historically as Butler points out in 1935 that the US is engaging in military war games in the Pacific that are bound to provoke the Japanese. "The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the United States fleet so close to Nippon's shores. Even as pleased as w…

Well, I didn't say that everyone in the 1930s was a pacifist. Obviously plenty of people weren't.

Wikipedia on 1930s pacifism: The British Labour Party had a strong pacifist wing in the early 1930s and between 1931 and 1935 was led by George Lansbury, a Christian pacifist who later chaired the No More War Movement and was president of the PPU. The 1933 annual conference resolved unanimously to "pledge itself to take no part in war". "Labour's official position, however, although based on the aspiration towards a world socialist commonwealth and the outlawing of war, did not imply a renunciation of force under all circumstances, but rather support for the ill-defined concept of 'collective security' under the League of Nations.

Re: In defense of Wikileaks

#30

Post by [deleted] »

rgrieselhuber wrote: post #25
hugh3 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has there been a single report that this happened the first time they leaked the information? Would we know, if there had? Also, isn't justifying reckless behaviour on the grounds that it hasn't killed anyone yet a bit of a weak justification? The average drunk driver hasn't killed anyone yet .

Would we know, if there had? Given that, if this happened, the military has every incentive to make sure we know about it, I believe we would the minute it happened. Also, isn't justifying reckless behaviour on the grounds that it hasn't killed anyone yet a bit of a weak justification? The average drunk driver hasn't killed anyone yet. Whether or not this is reckless behavior is the entire crux of this debate.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN