3 ms·
> 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 -- th
by 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 agoYou'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 agoThe 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.