5 ms·
They do, they don't release material that could potentially cause bodily harm to specific individuals. could some of the leaks potentially lead to the Taliban
by mixmax 16y ago
They do, they don't release material that could potentially cause bodily harm to specific individuals.
could some of the leaks potentially lead to the Taliban uncovering an agent and murdering him? possibly, but not likely. The New York Times or Washington Post could probably be accused of the same.
These are hard questions for Wikileaks, as they have been for the rest of the press for decades.
- p858snake 16y agoThey only thoroughly checked about ~2000 of the documents according to a speech Julian gave on Lateline (Australian TV Show), They [wikileaks] did offer the US government a chance to check though and blank any names they found but they did not accept the offer.
- rick888 16y ago"They only thoroughly checked about ~2000 of the documents according to a speech Julian gave on Lateline (Australian TV Show), They [wikileaks] did offer the US government a chance to check though and blank any names they found but they did not accept the offer." Why take the chance? Why not blank out all the names? They don't seem to care about the potential loss of human life.
- chc 16y ago"Why take the chance?" is just fearmongering, not a rational argument. Every time you get in a car, you could cause numerous deaths. Why take the chance? Giving the government the chance to redact is a much greater precaution than any of us take when operating deadly machinery. The question is why the government, which was in a position to know their sensitive nature, didn't blank out all the names.
- drivebyacct2 16y agoI'm crazy about the idea of wikileaks but the Journal's article brings up good points. These documents are unlikely to fundamentally change peoples' opinion on the war(s), yet the documents have already been found to name afghan informants by full name, village and father's name.
- cma 16y agoSounds like a case of "collateral damage." Our military's stance is that such damage is completely ok no matter what proportionalities are involved.
- rick888 16y agoRight. So seeing a questionable video involving a few asshole US soldiers means that it's perfectly okay for hundreds more to die needlessly. what the hell kind of reasoning is that?
- cma 16y agoI said it was our military's stance, not my stance.
- drivebyacct2 16y agoI understand your point, but isn't the idea to be better? It's hard to argue that information should be free when the direct results of this will be human casualties. I mean, that's how it is being played and will be played. Note, I'm speaking literally when I say "hard to argue". I think it's the correct ideal and I think our government could use doses of unexpected transparency but it's the Fox News I'm thinking about.
- jacquesm 16y agoI wrote about exactly that: http://jacquesmattheij.com/In+defense+of+wikileaks http://jacquesmattheij.com/In+defense+of+wikileaks
- rick888 16y agoyou're wrong. The messenger had a responsibility with the information they received. They willingly gave out the information with no regard for the people in the documents. The difference between Wikleaks and the actual person that leaked the information is that Wikileaks has a large audience. They could have removed names, but didn't. Now the blood is on their hands.