4 ms·

> managed to help put people at risk. None of which were harmed. While countless people are put at risk everyday by the wars that continue there. Yep.

• tptacek 16y ago
  This logic says that it's OK to put people at risk as long as someone else is putting those same people at greater risk.
  • lhnz 16y ago
    Correct, that is my opinion: that is the ethical decision I would make. :) It is better to put a small number of people at minor risk in a game of anti-war political arm-twisting than it is to let a war that will put a lot more people at much greater risk be prolonged.
    • astine 16y ago
      I think that you're deluded if you think that Wikileaks' actions will be of any benefit to the Afghanis. If the United States were to suddenly leave tomorrow, the region would not suddenly become peaceful. Possibly the contrary would happen.
      • lhnz 16y ago
        Well obviously I am not deluded; you are putting words in my mouth. Read back and take note that I never said there would be any improvement for Afghanis. I said there would be less 'risk' because I am anti-war. The burden of proof is with you to show that a war creates less 'risk' if you want to take it. > the region would not suddenly become peaceful. You cannot prove this. Maybe it would. (Maybe a little.)
        • deleted 16y ago
          [deleted]
• krschultz 16y ago
  "None of which were harmed" How the hell can you know that? It is impossible to prove that the classified information hasn't led to higher danger for our troops, and there certainly have been plenty of casualities since July.
  • lhnz 16y ago
    > It is impossible to prove that the classified information hasn't led to higher danger for our troops But we are talking about informants and not troops -- those are the names that would have been redacted. > How the hell can you know that? Well that was the case the last time I read an article about this. Although I can't remember where it was... It definitely mentioned that there have been no casualties as of yet. Admittedly I've made an assumption that if there was the US would kick up a huge fuss if an informant was killed due to Wikileaks. That sounds realistic to me.
    • krschultz 16y ago
      You're making the assumption that the leaks don't make the US troops more likely to be killed. There certainly have been plenty of troops killed since July, and the leaks contained information other than just the names of informants that can put our troops at risk. I would love to see fewer people getting killed in these wars on all sides. I don't see how the leak helps that goal. Public opinion is decidedly against the war already, this doesn't change that situation. But the leaks put the troops in more danger, the informants/translators in more danger, and the result of that is more violence that leads to civilian deaths as a side effect. The more combat there is, the more civilians get killed.
      • lhnz 16y ago
        The problem is that you're still talking about troops. Read all of the articles about this and you'll see that they're explicitly talking about the informants being redacted out. As for the troops: knowing their names or their locations months and months ago makes little tactical difference. They can defend themselves.