8 ms·

>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 disin

>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 not the same as openness... Governments can't function without secrets Government can function with much less secrecy than it currently does. WL is serving a public need in challenging a growing regime of secrecy that blossomed under Bush and that Obama has failed to reign in. >4) If Assange wants to play this game, he should think long and hard about where it's going to lead him... If he would rather have millions of little secrets offline and out of sight, that's what we're going to get. Opsec has a cost. The more expensive it is to keep the secrets needed to maintain questionable military practices, the less chance these practices will continue. >There's a certain amount of cocky self-promoting asshole about Assange. As much as I want the maximum amount of liberty, freedom, and openness, this isn't the way to make it happen. I'll take a self-promoter over a murderer any day.

rick888 16y ago
"I'm fine with that. Assange isn't killing people. 3-star generals are." Yes he is. The information he released in the latest round of "secrets" gave away informants to people that can (and will) kill them. If he gave information about locations of jews to the Nazis, would we say it was freedom of information? "Government can function with much less secrecy than it currently does. WL is serving a public need in challenging a growing regime of secrecy that blossomed under Bush and that Obama has failed to reign in." That's because Obama knows the importance of secrets. "I'll take a self-promoter over a murderer any day." Wikileaks failed to remove actual names. I don't see a difference.
- cageface 16y ago
  If he gave information about locations of jews to the Nazis, would we say it was freedom of information? Godwin's law so soon in this thread? Not helpful.
  - rick888 16y ago
    "Godwin's law so soon in this thread? Not helpful." Don't know your history? not helpful.
    - ericd 16y ago
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law It's directly applicable.
- gloob 16y ago
  Yes he is. The information he released in the latest round of "secrets" gave away informants to people that can (and will) kill them. The story I've heard is that Wikileaks attempted to contact the White House, so the two parties could go through the documents and remove references to informants. The White House declined the offer. Has any evidence emerged to suggest this is untrue? Wikileaks failed to remove actual names. I don't see a difference. See above.
  - rick888 16y ago
    "The story I've heard is that Wikileaks attempted to contact the White House, so the two parties could go through the documents and remove references to informants. The White House declined the offer. Has any evidence emerged to suggest this is untrue?" Right, so like little children that aren't responsible, they released all of the names instead. "See above." see above
    - gloob 16y ago
      If the American government is indifferent to the fate of the informants (which refusing to work on removing the names of informants would suggest), then why should Wikileaks be held to a higher standard? At the very least, Wikileaks doesn't have any guns or military and is directly responsible for no deaths whatsoever, a fact which is rather less true of both the Taliban and the Americans.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
- mcantelon 16y ago
  >Yes he is. The information he released in the latest round of "secrets" gave away informants to people that can (and will) kill them. Specific examples would be great. >If he gave information about locations of jews to the Nazis, would we say it was freedom of information? The jews weren't attempting to occupy Germany at the time so probably not the most fitting comparison. >That's because Obama knows the importance of secrets. Absolutely. The truth can be politically damaging. >Wikileaks failed to remove actual names. I don't see a difference. Most people recognize the difference between dropping bombs on civilians and revealing the names of those involved in the killing trade.
  - mcgraw 16y ago
    >> Specific examples would be great. We don't even need 1 person to die from stupid non-sense like this. I understand that we need transparency, but you are not playing a game right now. The probability of a death related to 'leaks' just magnified. There is no denying that. Considering I served in this war, what doesn't absolutely need to be said shouldn't be said at this time. It's like we're playing russian roulette here.
    - Ardit20 16y ago
      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.
      - mcgraw 16y ago
        >> 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 officials within the insurgency ranks? No. Information is leaked via the populus that gives us leads to where they are/where they're going to be.
- randombit 16y ago
  > If he gave information about locations of jews to the Nazis, would we say it was freedom of information? While we've got a time machine handy: If he gave information about the location and plans of Vichy officials to the French resistance, would we say it was an act of espionage/treason/terrorism and/or murder?
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- jawn 16y ago
  Who is really culpable for the release of these names? Here's an excerpt from an interview with Assange... http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s2968342.htm http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s2968342.htm TONY JONES: Well, not according to the Pentagon. They're accusing you of revealing the identities of Afghan informants and putting their lives at risk. Afghan's president, Karzai, agrees with that he says 'the breach is extremely irresponsible and shocking.' Your response to those comments. JULIAN ASSANGE: Well we have yet to see clear evidence of that. I mean the London Times is also making this allegation today and in a quite disingenuous way, for example they mention some informers' names they say they had found and with a headline Afghan informer already dead, but when you actually read the story what you see is in fact that individual that they're mentioning died two years ago. So there's a little bit of media manipulation occurring here. In terms of the Afghan government, it's in their interests to sort of play up the irresponsible, irresponsibility of the United States that they say has been involved in sort of collecting and permitting this data to release, be released. Now we contacted the White House as a group before we released this material and asked them to help assist in going through it to make sure that no innocent names came out, and the White House did not accept that request. TONY JONES: So you're saying that you offered the White House a chance to go through the documents, or officials from the White House a chance to go through the documents and single out names of people at risk. Is that correct? JULIAN ASSANGE: Yeah that's right. Now, of course we did not offer them a chance to veto any material, but rather we told them that we were going through a harm minimisation process and offered them the chance to point out names of informers or other innocents who might be harmed and they did not respond to that request which was mediated through the New York Times who was our, acting as the contact for the four media groups involved in this.
  - elblanco 16y ago
    "Who is really culpable for the release of these names?" The person who released the information.
    - jawn 16y ago
      It's not that cut and dry though, the white house had an opportunity to minimize the damage and did nothing about it.
- blueben 16y ago
  Important fact: Wikileaks asked the Whitehouse to help them filter out the names of informants and other sensitive people before they released the documents. The Whitehouse chose not to do so.
tptacek 16y ago
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 --- even directly observable --- that countries can survive and thrive led by any of those movements, however much we may disagree with their politics and practices and the mechanisms they used to take power. Say what you will about Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, but women can go to medical school in Iran and (presumably) Lebanon. I've read a little bit about the history of Afghanistan leading up to the Taliban. I know it was a disaster, and I know the Taliban took root in part because they managed to impose some semblance of order over a country governed essentially by banditry. But as near as I can tell, the Taliban is objectively evil. Apart from consolidating the warlordism in Afghanistan, what possible virtue can there be to defending them? Outing innocent informants and getting them killed --- which I know hasn't been reported to have happened yet --- is bad no matter where it happens. But I don't have much of a moral qualm about directly opposing, say, the Iraq war. But I don't understand how you can construct a worldview that permits you to cheer on something that assists Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who may be the closest thing the Earth has to an actual comic book supervillain. There's a lot of secrecy and dissembling and corruption in the world. You have to choose your battles. Wikileaks chose a really crappy one this time.
- mcantelon 16y ago
  >Here's what I'm wondering: when did it become fashionable to stick up for the Taliban? When there are two groups of killers involved in a conflict recognizing the killing of one group doesn't mean one is excusing the killing of the other group. If you are familiar with the history of the Taliban you are likely aware of the role the US played in their rise to power (http://nyti.ms/ddOTcu http://nyti.ms/ddOTcu). The Taliban would likely not exist without the support of the US. The US didn't nurture the Taliban for the good of the people nor are they attempting to control Afghanistan for the good of the people.
  - tptacek 16y ago
lionhearted 16y ago
> I'll take a self-promoter over a murderer any day. How is crap like this getting upvoted? New Guys, here at Hacker News we vote up and down based on intelligent, civil, primarily unemotional comments. Calling out "neocons" and randomly throwing "murderer" around is not what we vote up here. Please think, a lot of us are ex-Reddit and we don't want Hacker News to become Reddit, or else we'd be at Reddit.
- starkfist 16y ago
  too late
- mcantelon 16y ago
  The use of "murderer" could be argued, but I fail to see what's in any way controversial about calling a member of the AEI a neocon. According to Wikipedia "AEI is the most prominent think tank associated with American neoconservatism". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
mkramlich 16y ago
> "Assange isn't killing people. 3-star generals are." For me this single point is one of the most powerful and clarifying.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  The Taleban was killing people before the 3-star generals started their part. Still, when you are in command of a quite impressive military force capable to deal death and destruction in unheard-of scale, you should, at the very least, wield this power sparingly.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

rick888 16y ago

"I'm fine with that. Assange isn't killing people. 3-star generals are." Yes he is. The information he released in the latest round of "secrets" gave away informants to people that can (and will) kill them. If he gave information about locations of jews to the Nazis, would we say it was freedom of information? "Government can function with much less secrecy than it currently does. WL is serving a public need in challenging a growing regime of secrecy that blossomed under Bush and that Obama has failed to reign in." That's because Obama knows the importance of secrets. "I'll take a self-promoter over a murderer any day." Wikileaks failed to remove actual names. I don't see a difference.

cageface 16y ago
If he gave information about locations of jews to the Nazis, would we say it was freedom of information? Godwin's law so soon in this thread? Not helpful.
- rick888 16y ago
  "Godwin's law so soon in this thread? Not helpful." Don't know your history? not helpful.
  - ericd 16y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law It's directly applicable.
gloob 16y ago
Yes he is. The information he released in the latest round of "secrets" gave away informants to people that can (and will) kill them. The story I've heard is that Wikileaks attempted to contact the White House, so the two parties could go through the documents and remove references to informants. The White House declined the offer. Has any evidence emerged to suggest this is untrue? Wikileaks failed to remove actual names. I don't see a difference. See above.
- rick888 16y ago
  "The story I've heard is that Wikileaks attempted to contact the White House, so the two parties could go through the documents and remove references to informants. The White House declined the offer. Has any evidence emerged to suggest this is untrue?" Right, so like little children that aren't responsible, they released all of the names instead. "See above." see above
  - gloob 16y ago
    If the American government is indifferent to the fate of the informants (which refusing to work on removing the names of informants would suggest), then why should Wikileaks be held to a higher standard? At the very least, Wikileaks doesn't have any guns or military and is directly responsible for no deaths whatsoever, a fact which is rather less true of both the Taliban and the Americans.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
mcantelon 16y ago
>Yes he is. The information he released in the latest round of "secrets" gave away informants to people that can (and will) kill them. Specific examples would be great. >If he gave information about locations of jews to the Nazis, would we say it was freedom of information? The jews weren't attempting to occupy Germany at the time so probably not the most fitting comparison. >That's because Obama knows the importance of secrets. Absolutely. The truth can be politically damaging. >Wikileaks failed to remove actual names. I don't see a difference. Most people recognize the difference between dropping bombs on civilians and revealing the names of those involved in the killing trade.
- mcgraw 16y ago
  >> Specific examples would be great. We don't even need 1 person to die from stupid non-sense like this. I understand that we need transparency, but you are not playing a game right now. The probability of a death related to 'leaks' just magnified. There is no denying that. Considering I served in this war, what doesn't absolutely need to be said shouldn't be said at this time. It's like we're playing russian roulette here.
  - Ardit20 16y ago
    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.
    - mcgraw 16y ago
      >> 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 officials within the insurgency ranks? No. Information is leaked via the populus that gives us leads to where they are/where they're going to be.
randombit 16y ago
> If he gave information about locations of jews to the Nazis, would we say it was freedom of information? While we've got a time machine handy: If he gave information about the location and plans of Vichy officials to the French resistance, would we say it was an act of espionage/treason/terrorism and/or murder?
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
jawn 16y ago
Who is really culpable for the release of these names? Here's an excerpt from an interview with Assange... http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s2968342.htm http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s2968342.htm TONY JONES: Well, not according to the Pentagon. They're accusing you of revealing the identities of Afghan informants and putting their lives at risk. Afghan's president, Karzai, agrees with that he says 'the breach is extremely irresponsible and shocking.' Your response to those comments. JULIAN ASSANGE: Well we have yet to see clear evidence of that. I mean the London Times is also making this allegation today and in a quite disingenuous way, for example they mention some informers' names they say they had found and with a headline Afghan informer already dead, but when you actually read the story what you see is in fact that individual that they're mentioning died two years ago. So there's a little bit of media manipulation occurring here. In terms of the Afghan government, it's in their interests to sort of play up the irresponsible, irresponsibility of the United States that they say has been involved in sort of collecting and permitting this data to release, be released. Now we contacted the White House as a group before we released this material and asked them to help assist in going through it to make sure that no innocent names came out, and the White House did not accept that request. TONY JONES: So you're saying that you offered the White House a chance to go through the documents, or officials from the White House a chance to go through the documents and single out names of people at risk. Is that correct? JULIAN ASSANGE: Yeah that's right. Now, of course we did not offer them a chance to veto any material, but rather we told them that we were going through a harm minimisation process and offered them the chance to point out names of informers or other innocents who might be harmed and they did not respond to that request which was mediated through the New York Times who was our, acting as the contact for the four media groups involved in this.
- elblanco 16y ago
  "Who is really culpable for the release of these names?" The person who released the information.
  - jawn 16y ago
    It's not that cut and dry though, the white house had an opportunity to minimize the damage and did nothing about it.
blueben 16y ago
Important fact: Wikileaks asked the Whitehouse to help them filter out the names of informants and other sensitive people before they released the documents. The Whitehouse chose not to do so.

tptacek 16y ago

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 --- even directly observable --- that countries can survive and thrive led by any of those movements, however much we may disagree with their politics and practices and the mechanisms they used to take power. Say what you will about Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, but women can go to medical school in Iran and (presumably) Lebanon. I've read a little bit about the history of Afghanistan leading up to the Taliban. I know it was a disaster, and I know the Taliban took root in part because they managed to impose some semblance of order over a country governed essentially by banditry. But as near as I can tell, the Taliban is objectively evil. Apart from consolidating the warlordism in Afghanistan, what possible virtue can there be to defending them? Outing innocent informants and getting them killed --- which I know hasn't been reported to have happened yet --- is bad no matter where it happens. But I don't have much of a moral qualm about directly opposing, say, the Iraq war. But I don't understand how you can construct a worldview that permits you to cheer on something that assists Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who may be the closest thing the Earth has to an actual comic book supervillain. There's a lot of secrecy and dissembling and corruption in the world. You have to choose your battles. Wikileaks chose a really crappy one this time.

mcantelon 16y ago
>Here's what I'm wondering: when did it become fashionable to stick up for the Taliban? When there are two groups of killers involved in a conflict recognizing the killing of one group doesn't mean one is excusing the killing of the other group. If you are familiar with the history of the Taliban you are likely aware of the role the US played in their rise to power (http://nyti.ms/ddOTcu http://nyti.ms/ddOTcu). The Taliban would likely not exist without the support of the US. The US didn't nurture the Taliban for the good of the people nor are they attempting to control Afghanistan for the good of the people.
- tptacek 16y ago

lionhearted 16y ago

> I'll take a self-promoter over a murderer any day. How is crap like this getting upvoted? New Guys, here at Hacker News we vote up and down based on intelligent, civil, primarily unemotional comments. Calling out "neocons" and randomly throwing "murderer" around is not what we vote up here. Please think, a lot of us are ex-Reddit and we don't want Hacker News to become Reddit, or else we'd be at Reddit.

starkfist 16y ago
too late
mcantelon 16y ago
The use of "murderer" could be argued, but I fail to see what's in any way controversial about calling a member of the AEI a neocon. According to Wikipedia "AEI is the most prominent think tank associated with American neoconservatism". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]

mkramlich 16y ago

> "Assange isn't killing people. 3-star generals are." For me this single point is one of the most powerful and clarifying.

rbanffy 16y ago
The Taleban was killing people before the 3-star generals started their part. Still, when you are in command of a quite impressive military force capable to deal death and destruction in unheard-of scale, you should, at the very least, wield this power sparingly.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]