3 ms·

>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

>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.
    - Ardit20 16y ago
      Yes I understand that. I do not think that the names of informers or any personal data really should have been published. There was hardly any need for that. The value is in the actual things done or said and I doubt it really matters by who as we know they are from soldiers down there documenting these events uncensored. So obviously the names should have not been leaked, but I doubt that was in any way intentional. I would personally wonder how is wikileaks to know who are the informers - but perhaps they should have been more careful and not leaked any names at all. That such a mistake, possibly due to negligence and ignorance was made - lets remember it is a really new organisation and quite inexperience and no one has done this before so they are kind of pioneers - does not justify the imprisonment of the person, or the shutting down of the website. The rest of the leak was useful and has focused the attention of the public and also perhaps has highlighted that things are a bit of a mess. So, if the results is that the war ends no later than it absolutely needs to and your friends get to come back home perhaps sooner than otherwise and that the government is put under pressure to get things right there, then I think that's a good thing. I do however think the fault is ultimately of the government even if something bad does happen. This information did not need to be kept secret, except of course for the names of the informants, and they should have been put in the public domain by the government itself.
      - mcgraw 16y ago
        You're assuming that all I'm (and those at the pentagon) concerned about is names. This leak is over a year old. They're not going to get much in the way of here-and-now. But now we have a leak that goes into detail about how we operate. It's already a pain in the ass fighting people that look the same. We don't need to shed any light onto how we do what we do.
        Ardit20 16y ago
        Why? If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. That is the favourite thing of the police, which is the executive, which encompasses the army.
rick888 16y ago
"The jews weren't attempting to occupy Germany at the time so probably not the most fitting comparison." That's not the point. The point is that if information was given to the Germans, it would have resulted in many deaths. Occupation has absolutely nothing to do with it. "Absolutely. The truth can be politically damaging." Can I have your social security number, address, phone number, mother's maiden name, and when you are going to be away from your home? We have no secrets around here "Specific examples would be great." This tells me you haven't read any of the documents released.
- derefr 16y ago
  > That's not the point. The point is that if information was given to the Germans, it would have resulted in many deaths. Occupation has absolutely nothing to do with it. Stop to think about what the scenario entails. If X occupies Y, the Xes kill the Ys in great number. Releasing information that kills Xes, and thus moves the occupation closer to an end, prevents the killing of more Ys. Every soldier kills some to prevent the death of many—it's all about the numbers.
- mcantelon 16y ago
  >That's not the point. The point is that if information was given to the Germans, it would have resulted in many deaths. Occupation has absolutely nothing to do with it. Occupation doesn't generally happen without bloodshed. Involving oneself in occupation is an investment in bloodshed. The jews who died during the Nazi regime didn't make a choice to involve themselves in bloodshed. >Can I have your social security number, address, phone number, mother's maiden name, and when you are going to be away from your home? We have no secrets around here If I were involved in attempting to use force to extort land or resources, I would assume the risk that my identity would be exposed. This is one reason I don't involve myself in these things. >This tells me you haven't read any of the documents released. That makes two of us, evidently.
- rick888 16y ago
  "Occupation doesn't generally happen without bloodshed. Involving oneself in occupation is an investment in bloodshed. The jews who died during the Nazi regime didn't make a choice to involve themselves in bloodshed." And the people in the documents didn't ask wikileaks to release the names to the world and potentially to their enemies. Bloodshed could be avoided, but wikileaks is willfully looking the other way. "If I were involved in attempting to use force to extort land or resources, I would assume the risk that my identity would be exposed. This is one reason I don't involve myself in these things." That's like saying, because you gamble at a casino, it's an accepted risk that you will lose all your money (after we just found out that the casino has been cheating at all of the games). "That makes two of us, it seems." There are actual names in the documents released. I'm not going to make your point for you. If you want to continue to look foolish, it's fine by me.
jsz0 16y ago
We'll probably have to wait for him to leak more memos for specific examples. All we know for now is Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid says they are using the data to punish informants. If we want to be really cynical we could assume Mujahid is a CIA creation for delivering US propaganda. It makes sense though. The Taliban holds villages hostage to get this type of information. Why wouldn't they just look at the memos?

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.
  - Ardit20 16y ago
    Yes I understand that. I do not think that the names of informers or any personal data really should have been published. There was hardly any need for that. The value is in the actual things done or said and I doubt it really matters by who as we know they are from soldiers down there documenting these events uncensored. So obviously the names should have not been leaked, but I doubt that was in any way intentional. I would personally wonder how is wikileaks to know who are the informers - but perhaps they should have been more careful and not leaked any names at all. That such a mistake, possibly due to negligence and ignorance was made - lets remember it is a really new organisation and quite inexperience and no one has done this before so they are kind of pioneers - does not justify the imprisonment of the person, or the shutting down of the website. The rest of the leak was useful and has focused the attention of the public and also perhaps has highlighted that things are a bit of a mess. So, if the results is that the war ends no later than it absolutely needs to and your friends get to come back home perhaps sooner than otherwise and that the government is put under pressure to get things right there, then I think that's a good thing. I do however think the fault is ultimately of the government even if something bad does happen. This information did not need to be kept secret, except of course for the names of the informants, and they should have been put in the public domain by the government itself.
    - mcgraw 16y ago
      You're assuming that all I'm (and those at the pentagon) concerned about is names. This leak is over a year old. They're not going to get much in the way of here-and-now. But now we have a leak that goes into detail about how we operate. It's already a pain in the ass fighting people that look the same. We don't need to shed any light onto how we do what we do.
      - Ardit20 16y ago
        Why? If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. That is the favourite thing of the police, which is the executive, which encompasses the army.

rick888 16y ago

"The jews weren't attempting to occupy Germany at the time so probably not the most fitting comparison." That's not the point. The point is that if information was given to the Germans, it would have resulted in many deaths. Occupation has absolutely nothing to do with it. "Absolutely. The truth can be politically damaging." Can I have your social security number, address, phone number, mother's maiden name, and when you are going to be away from your home? We have no secrets around here "Specific examples would be great." This tells me you haven't read any of the documents released.

derefr 16y ago
> That's not the point. The point is that if information was given to the Germans, it would have resulted in many deaths. Occupation has absolutely nothing to do with it. Stop to think about what the scenario entails. If X occupies Y, the Xes kill the Ys in great number. Releasing information that kills Xes, and thus moves the occupation closer to an end, prevents the killing of more Ys. Every soldier kills some to prevent the death of many—it's all about the numbers.
mcantelon 16y ago
>That's not the point. The point is that if information was given to the Germans, it would have resulted in many deaths. Occupation has absolutely nothing to do with it. Occupation doesn't generally happen without bloodshed. Involving oneself in occupation is an investment in bloodshed. The jews who died during the Nazi regime didn't make a choice to involve themselves in bloodshed. >Can I have your social security number, address, phone number, mother's maiden name, and when you are going to be away from your home? We have no secrets around here If I were involved in attempting to use force to extort land or resources, I would assume the risk that my identity would be exposed. This is one reason I don't involve myself in these things. >This tells me you haven't read any of the documents released. That makes two of us, evidently.
rick888 16y ago
"Occupation doesn't generally happen without bloodshed. Involving oneself in occupation is an investment in bloodshed. The jews who died during the Nazi regime didn't make a choice to involve themselves in bloodshed." And the people in the documents didn't ask wikileaks to release the names to the world and potentially to their enemies. Bloodshed could be avoided, but wikileaks is willfully looking the other way. "If I were involved in attempting to use force to extort land or resources, I would assume the risk that my identity would be exposed. This is one reason I don't involve myself in these things." That's like saying, because you gamble at a casino, it's an accepted risk that you will lose all your money (after we just found out that the casino has been cheating at all of the games). "That makes two of us, it seems." There are actual names in the documents released. I'm not going to make your point for you. If you want to continue to look foolish, it's fine by me.

jsz0 16y ago

We'll probably have to wait for him to leak more memos for specific examples. All we know for now is Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid says they are using the data to punish informants. If we want to be really cynical we could assume Mujahid is a CIA creation for delivering US propaganda. It makes sense though. The Taliban holds villages hostage to get this type of information. Why wouldn't they just look at the memos?