7 ms·

OK, then propose another way. If there's a gate, there's a gatekeeper. There is no doubt in my mind that I would rather have Julian Assange and the Wikileaks

OK, then propose another way. If there's a gate, there's a gatekeeper. There is no doubt in my mind that I would rather have Julian Assange and the Wikileaks staff be that gatekeeper than the U.S. government and military, who have a track record of keeping horrifying, god-awful secrets regarding their own misconduct.

zaphar 16y ago
U.S. government and military, who have a track record of keeping horrifying, god-awful secrets regarding their own misconduct. This is true. However Assande and Wikileaks have put over a hundred peoples lives directly in danger through their leaks as well as potentially thousands more. Which effectively puts them all the way on the other end of the spectrum. Your saying that putting 100's of peoples lives at risk in the interest of shining a light on Government secrets is acceptable. Are you sure that's what you mean to say? Theres nothing wrong with pointing out that one way is just as bad as the status quo. Telling people they can't object without proposing a solution won't change the fact that your solution is still wrong.
- mcantelon 16y ago
  >This is true. However Assande and Wikileaks have put over a hundred peoples lives directly in danger through their leaks as well as potentially thousands more. Some examples of this would be great.
  - zaphar 16y ago
    Read the article one intelligence officer and hundreds of Afghani informants have been revealed to the world including the folks who want them dead. Before the leak their potential killers didn't know who they were now they do. Assande has no intention of not revealing more information of the same sort in the future.
    - mcantelon 16y ago
      There are no specifics mentioned and the article the AEI member links to doesn't have much in the way of specifics either. If the US military is concerned about those involved in the death trade having their identities revealed they would do well to make Wikileak's public role redundant and tell the truth about their actions.
      - elblanco 16y ago
        Who exactly do you think the "informants" are? So say I'm a dirt poor farmer in Afghanistan. I spent most of my time being terrorized by the Taliban (say for example, they burned my sister alive after they found out I taught her how to read). Now the NATO forces arrive, kick those assholes out, along the way they shell my barn and accidentally kill my brother. I'm pissed off, but on the balance, I know the NATO forces feel bad about my brother and they at least tried to get him some medical care (which is pretty different from the Taliban's response to my sister's last gurgling breath which was to drag her behind a truck and hang her burnt body in the middle of the village as a warning to everybody). So when SGT Smith asks me, "do you know where any Taliban are around here?" I tell him. Because someday NATO will be gone and I can finally get around to growing something in the piss poor soil of my farm and get on with my life. While the Taliban hunted us ragged when they were in charge. Now I find out that my name and coordinates to my village were released into the wild and the local Taliban commander found out about it. I and my family are running for our lives and all some thoughtless jerk on a message board can say about it is that it serves me right.
        Ardit20 16y ago
        What he still has a family? - I say this lightly because it clearly is fiction. Firstly, the Taliban must be very busy if all they do is go around burning little children who learn how to read. Also, this breadwinner must be quite relieved that his son was killed in a nicer way. Seeing as the Taliban took the trouble to burn his daughter just for reading, I suppose they would consider the father to be their friend, because, well they only burned his daughter. Of course in no way would they think that he hates them to the gut and would happily go along to the guys who kill people in a nice way. I am sorry, there is a serious point there, but do try and make it.
  - rick888 16y ago
    "I hate to put people on the spot with "well, what would YOU do." But Daniel's post implies that there is some wise oversight that can expose just the right secrets, without exposing the dangerous ones. I don't think that's realistic, unless he has some particular scheme in mind. I think the choice is between total control and some degree of anarchy, and I would take as much anarchy as I could get on that spectrum." How about not including names? They obviously knew it was an issue because they attempted to contact the government to have some of the names removed. Instead of doing the right thing and removing all names, they released them all with this "any deaths are worth the information" attitude.
- mquander 16y ago
  Yes, that's definitely what I mean to say. In my short lifetime, hundreds of thousands of people, many of them civilians, have died in Iraq. Tens of thousands, many being civilians, have died in Afghanistan; we continue to kill several civilians per day. We have spent God knows how much money to date on both combined. They have completely undermined our moral standing in the world. Those are not potential costs. Those are the real costs of our military's actions, and I honestly can't imagine how anyone could defend them as being justifiable or reasonable. Nothing we even dreamed of accomplishing is worth that much. That seems to me like a really big destructive force, and barely anything stands in opposition to it. It's a lot bigger than 100 Afghan informants who are at risk of retribution. If anything can put the fear of God into the people responsible for making these decisions, it's worth a huge price, and I think that shining a huge light on the military's actual actions is a pretty good start. Wikileaks fucked up badly, in my opinion, by not redacting identifying details from the documents. They will indeed have some blood on their hands if retribution arrives. However, it seems to me like the benefit of Wikileaks' continued operation dwarfs the cost of their fuckups. I hate to put people on the spot with "well, what would YOU do." But Daniel's post implies that there is some wise oversight that can expose just the right secrets, without exposing the dangerous ones. I don't think that's realistic, unless he has some particular scheme in mind. I think the choice is between total control and some degree of anarchy, and I would take as much anarchy as I could get on that spectrum.
- OpieCunningham 16y ago
  > 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.
  - zaphar 16y ago
    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 bloodshed for as long as people stay people.
    - gloob 16y ago
      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.
      - zaphar 16y ago
        I'll bite. There exist in the world countries and people who would like to kill me (not me personally but me as in the citizen of a rival nation/ethnic group/race/...). The military prevents them from doing so. Therefore the military is necessary. History has numerous examples supporting this fact.
    - OpieCunningham 16y ago
      The Iraq war is often considered a war that never should have taken place. Is it possible to prove that it cost more lives than it saved? No. Should that be the beginning and the end of the justification for the war? Absolutely not. Your rationality rationalizes 100% war 100% of the time. I cannot prove that any person in some location is not planning on attacking, therefore, by your logic, all people are better off dead - for my safety. Clearly that rationality is illogical. Specific to the point you were attempting to make previously, however: you cannot prove that the possible identification of hundreds of people is equal to the known death of tens of thousands of people, though you claim they are equal. In fact, a sane analysis of the two points shows that they are not equivalent.
- mkramlich 16y ago
  Between Iraq and Afghanistan over the last 10 years arguably the US military has put millions of lives in danger, against their wishes. If releasing some documents might lead to a 100 deaths that would not otherwise have occurred is evil/criminal then how does that not pale in comparison to the field deployment of hundreds of thousands of soldiers and weapon systems in a foreign country which go on to cause 1000's of deaths that would not otherwise have occurred. If Assange's actions are reckless to any extent surely the US government's actions have been 100x+ more reckless and damaging.
  - elblanco 16y ago
    How many people would Assange have to put in harm's way before it stopped being ok?
    - mkramlich 16y ago
      No the logic is, let's get the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan first, and let's stop killing innocents/civilians in Afghanistan, and then, maybe, we'll worry whether it's "right" or "wrong" to publish these pieces of paper.
      - elblanco 16y ago
        You're a genius, you should publish a strategy paper and send it to President Obama on a realistic strategy for counter-terror operations that don't involve killing people. Please put a link up on HN because I'm sure the community of experienced Generals here would love to give it a read.
        mkramlich 16y ago
        Dude that's rude.
- vegai 16y ago
  What if putting a hundred's lives at risk saves a hundred thousand?

zaphar 16y ago

U.S. government and military, who have a track record of keeping horrifying, god-awful secrets regarding their own misconduct. This is true. However Assande and Wikileaks have put over a hundred peoples lives directly in danger through their leaks as well as potentially thousands more. Which effectively puts them all the way on the other end of the spectrum. Your saying that putting 100's of peoples lives at risk in the interest of shining a light on Government secrets is acceptable. Are you sure that's what you mean to say? Theres nothing wrong with pointing out that one way is just as bad as the status quo. Telling people they can't object without proposing a solution won't change the fact that your solution is still wrong.

mcantelon 16y ago
>This is true. However Assande and Wikileaks have put over a hundred peoples lives directly in danger through their leaks as well as potentially thousands more. Some examples of this would be great.
- zaphar 16y ago
  Read the article one intelligence officer and hundreds of Afghani informants have been revealed to the world including the folks who want them dead. Before the leak their potential killers didn't know who they were now they do. Assande has no intention of not revealing more information of the same sort in the future.
  - mcantelon 16y ago
    There are no specifics mentioned and the article the AEI member links to doesn't have much in the way of specifics either. If the US military is concerned about those involved in the death trade having their identities revealed they would do well to make Wikileak's public role redundant and tell the truth about their actions.
    - elblanco 16y ago
      Who exactly do you think the "informants" are? So say I'm a dirt poor farmer in Afghanistan. I spent most of my time being terrorized by the Taliban (say for example, they burned my sister alive after they found out I taught her how to read). Now the NATO forces arrive, kick those assholes out, along the way they shell my barn and accidentally kill my brother. I'm pissed off, but on the balance, I know the NATO forces feel bad about my brother and they at least tried to get him some medical care (which is pretty different from the Taliban's response to my sister's last gurgling breath which was to drag her behind a truck and hang her burnt body in the middle of the village as a warning to everybody). So when SGT Smith asks me, "do you know where any Taliban are around here?" I tell him. Because someday NATO will be gone and I can finally get around to growing something in the piss poor soil of my farm and get on with my life. While the Taliban hunted us ragged when they were in charge. Now I find out that my name and coordinates to my village were released into the wild and the local Taliban commander found out about it. I and my family are running for our lives and all some thoughtless jerk on a message board can say about it is that it serves me right.
      - Ardit20 16y ago
        What he still has a family? - I say this lightly because it clearly is fiction. Firstly, the Taliban must be very busy if all they do is go around burning little children who learn how to read. Also, this breadwinner must be quite relieved that his son was killed in a nicer way. Seeing as the Taliban took the trouble to burn his daughter just for reading, I suppose they would consider the father to be their friend, because, well they only burned his daughter. Of course in no way would they think that he hates them to the gut and would happily go along to the guys who kill people in a nice way. I am sorry, there is a serious point there, but do try and make it.
- rick888 16y ago
  "I hate to put people on the spot with "well, what would YOU do." But Daniel's post implies that there is some wise oversight that can expose just the right secrets, without exposing the dangerous ones. I don't think that's realistic, unless he has some particular scheme in mind. I think the choice is between total control and some degree of anarchy, and I would take as much anarchy as I could get on that spectrum." How about not including names? They obviously knew it was an issue because they attempted to contact the government to have some of the names removed. Instead of doing the right thing and removing all names, they released them all with this "any deaths are worth the information" attitude.
mquander 16y ago
Yes, that's definitely what I mean to say. In my short lifetime, hundreds of thousands of people, many of them civilians, have died in Iraq. Tens of thousands, many being civilians, have died in Afghanistan; we continue to kill several civilians per day. We have spent God knows how much money to date on both combined. They have completely undermined our moral standing in the world. Those are not potential costs. Those are the real costs of our military's actions, and I honestly can't imagine how anyone could defend them as being justifiable or reasonable. Nothing we even dreamed of accomplishing is worth that much. That seems to me like a really big destructive force, and barely anything stands in opposition to it. It's a lot bigger than 100 Afghan informants who are at risk of retribution. If anything can put the fear of God into the people responsible for making these decisions, it's worth a huge price, and I think that shining a huge light on the military's actual actions is a pretty good start. Wikileaks fucked up badly, in my opinion, by not redacting identifying details from the documents. They will indeed have some blood on their hands if retribution arrives. However, it seems to me like the benefit of Wikileaks' continued operation dwarfs the cost of their fuckups. I hate to put people on the spot with "well, what would YOU do." But Daniel's post implies that there is some wise oversight that can expose just the right secrets, without exposing the dangerous ones. I don't think that's realistic, unless he has some particular scheme in mind. I think the choice is between total control and some degree of anarchy, and I would take as much anarchy as I could get on that spectrum.
OpieCunningham 16y ago
> 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.
- zaphar 16y ago
  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 bloodshed for as long as people stay people.
  - gloob 16y ago
    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.
    - zaphar 16y ago
      I'll bite. There exist in the world countries and people who would like to kill me (not me personally but me as in the citizen of a rival nation/ethnic group/race/...). The military prevents them from doing so. Therefore the military is necessary. History has numerous examples supporting this fact.
  - OpieCunningham 16y ago
    The Iraq war is often considered a war that never should have taken place. Is it possible to prove that it cost more lives than it saved? No. Should that be the beginning and the end of the justification for the war? Absolutely not. Your rationality rationalizes 100% war 100% of the time. I cannot prove that any person in some location is not planning on attacking, therefore, by your logic, all people are better off dead - for my safety. Clearly that rationality is illogical. Specific to the point you were attempting to make previously, however: you cannot prove that the possible identification of hundreds of people is equal to the known death of tens of thousands of people, though you claim they are equal. In fact, a sane analysis of the two points shows that they are not equivalent.
mkramlich 16y ago
Between Iraq and Afghanistan over the last 10 years arguably the US military has put millions of lives in danger, against their wishes. If releasing some documents might lead to a 100 deaths that would not otherwise have occurred is evil/criminal then how does that not pale in comparison to the field deployment of hundreds of thousands of soldiers and weapon systems in a foreign country which go on to cause 1000's of deaths that would not otherwise have occurred. If Assange's actions are reckless to any extent surely the US government's actions have been 100x+ more reckless and damaging.
- elblanco 16y ago
  How many people would Assange have to put in harm's way before it stopped being ok?
  - mkramlich 16y ago
    No the logic is, let's get the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan first, and let's stop killing innocents/civilians in Afghanistan, and then, maybe, we'll worry whether it's "right" or "wrong" to publish these pieces of paper.
    - elblanco 16y ago
      You're a genius, you should publish a strategy paper and send it to President Obama on a realistic strategy for counter-terror operations that don't involve killing people. Please put a link up on HN because I'm sure the community of experienced Generals here would love to give it a read.
      - mkramlich 16y ago
        Dude that's rude.
vegai 16y ago
What if putting a hundred's lives at risk saves a hundred thousand?