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

31–39 of 39 posts

Re: In defense of Wikileaks

#31

Post by rhizome »

hugh3 wrote: post #12
retree wrote: post #3

A good article. Too often I feel the debate about wikileaks has become polarised. On the one hand you have those saying everything should be open and available. And then on the other hand you have those who say that nothing should be leaked because it puts people at risk. There is no doubt that, in the world, there are some very unpleasant people who want to harm/kill other people, and for that reason surely some thi…

I'd trust Julian Assange a lot more if I thought that his goal were actually some sort of obsessive-compulsive desire for openness of information, rather than fighting against US interests.

You don't need to trust Assange, he's only providing facts.

Re: In defense of Wikileaks

#32

Post by anigbrowl »

potatolicious wrote: post #27
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 favo…

Ironically, this kind of misplaced self-assurance was what led us (qua 'the west') to trash our own standards on issues like torture and human rights in the first place.

Though Assange has a propagandist air which I find troubling, these leaks basically strike me as a good thing. The accumulated insults to conscience and intellect over the course of the Iraq war have long eclipsed any legitimate strategic interests that were at stake. I think a period of review and self-examination is in order.

Re: In defense of Wikileaks

#33

Post by baddox »

potatolicious wrote: post #27
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 favo…

I don't detect any implication from the author of an absolute dichotomy. It's fine to disagree with specific leaks for certain reasons (personal safety of someone named in the leak, for example), but I believe (and I think the author would agree) that Wikileaks as an entity is performing a valuable task.

There's a difference between questioning the wisdom of a specific leak and calling Wikileaks an anti-[US, military, etc.] criminal organization that must be stopped.

Re: In defense of Wikileaks

#34

Post by dennisgorelik »

greyman wrote: post #8

There is also a good summary of the leak in this Spiegel article -> http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-72402... (in English). It's quite revealing just how brutal the war in Iraq has been, with all parties willing to commit atrocities (al-Qaeda, Iraq police and U.S. army). It's definitely a much stronger image than media have been serving to us about the war. Also, for those who feel some sympathy…

That's such a good article from Sipegel. I submitted it as a separate article on HN:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1835767

Re: In defense of Wikileaks

#35

Post by anigbrowl »

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 .

Have you looked at any of the data? IDing someone specific from what wikileaks has made available would be pretty tricky, so I'm not sure it's reckless in that respect. Plus there are arguments that a good many people have been harmed by the concealment of this information too.

Re: In defense of Wikileaks

#36

Post by rokamic »

anamax wrote: post #13
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.

> A man in that time, speaking out like that? Wow. Why are you surprised at such stuff from the 30s? (There's similar stuff from the 1910s, the 1890s, 1860s and even that wasn't novel.)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I was of the mind that the 30's were a poor time for a person to speak out against their government, with reprimands handed out in full. Maybe, because that is my impression of today's reality and I am projecting that onto my vision of the 30's.

Re: In defense of Wikileaks

#37

Post by potatolicious »

anigbrowl wrote: post #32
potatolicious wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 favo…

Ironically, this kind of misplaced self-assurance was what led us ( qua 'the west') to trash our own standards on issues like torture and human rights in the first place. Though Assange has a propagandist air which I find troubling, these leaks basically strike me as a good thing. The accumulated insults to conscience and intellect over the course of the Iraq war have long eclipsed any legitimate strategic interests…

I'm still on the fence about WikiLeaks. Assange gives me a bad vibe - and the handling of the "Collateral Murder" video was hamfisted and strictly unprofessional. As you said, the propagandist air bothers me greatly.

There's leaking the truth, and then there's the deliberate omission of one truth for another in order to advance an agenda (in this case, the complete omission of the after-action report that states without a doubt that the insurgents in the video were armed, and a RPG was present in the group).

The mass leak of Iraq War documents recently is much more balanced (if only by law of large numbers), and has done some to assuage my concerns about WikiLeaks' responsibility as an organization. Nonetheless, I cannot help but shake the feeling that WikiLeaks is acting in its own interest as opposed to ours, and with an egotist like Assange in charge, I'm not sure how responsible we can trust them to be.

Re: In defense of Wikileaks

#38

Post by leot »

mcknz wrote: post #15
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…

This isn't really a question of secrecy -- you can be on any part of the political spectrum and still agree that troop movements and strategy should never be made public. This is more about disinformation -- if any entities (al-Qaeda, NATO, North Korea, the US) intentionally release false reports, they deserve to be called on it. For all the talk of asymmetrical warfare on the part of al-Qaeda and its ilk, and how th…

... indeed, it is a bit rich to hear the US DoD, which appears ok with causing 10s of thousands of deaths in support of its (questionable) strategic aims, taking moral umbrage at the possibility that the behavior of another party might in the same way cause a few hundred.

Re: In defense of Wikileaks

#39

Post by anonymous245 »

rokamic wrote: post #6

I believe that human beings are more likely to misbehave if they think they can shield what they are doing from public view. I do not agree. I think that people are more likely to misbehave when they want to misbehave, regardless of a shielding mechanism.

For a politician "shielding from public view" is the same as "shielding from consequences". Do you agree?

If you still disagree with the quote, then you're saying that people will misbehave regard of consequences.

Post reply on HN