10 ms·

Wikileaks dumps 400,000 more files

74 points by viggity 16y ago

viggity 16y ago
I understand combing through this material and releasing information about illegal or highly suspect activities. But a carte blanche release of all this classified material is going to get even more innocent people killed.
- rick888 16y ago
  It's okay. As we've seen with earlier releases, it's better for a few innocent people to die than keep some of this information secret. "Some of them probably even deserve it"
  - rick888 16y ago
    I don't know why you are silencing me. I am telling the truth. The guys from wikileaks have freely admitted that they don't care about the innocent lives that may or may not be lost from this information (and even further through their actions). If you look at the past HN articles about this, many of the supporting comments were along the same lines.
    - rick888 16y ago
      Again, If you are down voting me, at least give me a reason. I feel like the supports of this just want to brush the truth under the metaphorical carpet.
    - flatline 16y ago
      I did not downvote you, but since you are still asking, I found your original post very confusing, and it added nothing to the conversation. > As we've seen with earlier releases, it's better for a few innocent people to die than keep some of this information secret. Why/how is it better? "Some of them probably even deserve it" It's an inflammatory statement, I'm not even sure what you are trying to say.
      - rick888 16y ago
        "Why/how is it better?" I don't think you got my point. My point is that the people from Wikileaks (not me) believe that it's better to bring this information to light than prevent innocent lives from being lost. "Some of them probably even deserve it" It was a quote..as in I didn't say it or believe it. Look at some of the comments in this article. Many people believe that this info should be brought to light and to hell with the consequences.
        mquander 16y ago
        I don't believe you can show me a single comment anywhere that implies "it's OK because some of them probably even deserve it," because that sentiment makes no sense. It's extremely rude to put words like that in other people's mouths.
        rick888 16y ago
        "I don't believe you can show me a single comment anywhere that implies "it's OK because some of them probably even deserve it," because that sentiment makes no sense. It's extremely rude to put words like that in other people's mouths." It's also rude to down vote me to silence opposing views on this article. But, I digress....
      - igravious 16y ago
        Agreed it is inflammatory, though he/she did put it in quotes but tellingly has not given a citation. Whatever happened to freedom of expression? I know that there are posting guidelines on this site and that this forum is not a free-for-all and that glibness, hostility, curtness and so on are not condoned. But silencing these sort of comments, I'm not sure. Who was it who said: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"? Though whoever said it probably just did not have enough karma :)
    - SpikeGronim 16y ago
      Without more context, I find your statement that "Some of them probably even deserve it" offensive. If I had enough karma I would down vote you for that. Which human beings are you saying deserve to die? What facts and which code of ethics did you use to conclude that some people that you've never met deserve to die? If I am misinterpreting your statement, please correct me.
      - rick888 16y ago
        "Without more context, I find your statement that "Some of them probably even deserve it" offensive. If I had enough karma I would down vote you for that. Which human beings are you saying deserve to die? What facts and which code of ethics did you use to conclude that some people that you've never met deserve to die? If I am misinterpreting your statement, please correct me." This is what many of the wikileaks supports believe, not me. By releasing info that could harm the people involved, you are letting people know that you don't give a damn about their lives.
  - Xuzz 16y ago
    The big question here is: what evidence do you have of that? So far, I haven't seen any. Please let me know if you do know of any people negatively affected by this.
- babeKnuth 16y ago
  unsure if i agree or disagree with that. is there evidence for this? also, the counter-argument can be made that the initial actions of the invading forces also contribute to such things as getting even more innocent people killed. maybe the two should be measured or compared on some sort of scale? that killing some innocent people (thru wikileaks) is much less than the continued killing of some innocent people (thru invading forces).
- flatline 16y ago
  This was always a question in my mind, as to whether the risks of openness would outweigh the rewards. According to recent DOD report, the leaks to date do not appear to have resulted in any casualties: http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/10/17/170227/DoD-Study-Contradicts-Charges-Against-WikiLeaks http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/10/17/170227/DoD-Study-Con...
- gloob 16y ago
  This is the same sort of reasoning used by those who claim that America is responsible for September 11, 2001 because they spent the last 60 years dicking around in the Middle East. The second claim is true, and America bears responsibility for said dicking around. The first part is not - the blame falls on those who hijacked the planes and crashed them into things. People are not dying because Wikileaks releases stuff. People are dying because other people are shooting them or blowing them up. Responsibility for an action rests with those who carry out that action.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    Not really. To take politics out of the equation, suppose this was a leak of all the documents from the Witness Protection Program. Now all the information about everyone who has ever informed on anyone within the US criminal underworld is out in the open. If they get shot then yes, the moral responsibility for that shooting lies with the guy with the gun, but that doesn't absolve the person who released the information from any moral liability.
    - seabee 16y ago
      Politics is the whole purpose of the leak. To take it out of the equation is to remove the point of argument.
    - sprout 16y ago
      In order to determine the morality of the hypothetical shooting, you must establish who morally deserves sovereignty over Iraq and Afghanistan. (An inherently political question.) If America deserves sovereignty, you're right, it's like releasing documents from the WPP. If the insurgents have sovereignty however, it's akin to releasing documents detailing a drug smuggling ring. So in short, you ask us to take politics out of the equation, and quietly assume your own politics as a given value.
  - sliverstorm 16y ago
    > People are not dying because Wikileaks releases stuff. People are dying because other people are shooting them or blowing them up. Responsibility for an action rests with those who carry out that action. So essentially, you believe that if I were to compromise a covert operative who is then killed, I have done nothing wrong? What the heck did we convict Aldrich Ames for?
- fbcocq 16y ago
  Exactly, just give me the gist of the illegal or highly suspicious activities amongst an otherwise perfectly legal invasion.
- Daishiman 16y ago
  No it's not. Stop repeating this unjustified phrase. Innocent people are dying because this material is unavailable and God knows what the Pentagon has been up to.
  - Adam503 16y ago
    Innocent people die every day. Should we all stop driving cars because if the risk of car wrecks. Should we all stay indoors when there are clouds overhead because there is a risk of innocent lives being lost when there are clouds overhead to lightning strikes?
    - Daishiman 16y ago
      If your argument is actually serious, it's in fact supporting my thesis since then, innocents will day every day, so we might as well release all the incriminating documents of the Pentagon and go about with the innocent just as dead as before, except that we'd now know the truth. Seriously, how many people are completely unable to grasp the fact that you're complaining about, what, at most dozen people (and not even, because according to Wikileaks, there are no names in the war logs), when the American military forces have essentially forced the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Afghanistan and Irak? And now you want to claim it's anywhere near comparable? Again, really? This would not even be necessary in the first place if the criminals in Washington hadn't started a war based on lies. Stop making up bad guys and realize who put you in this position in the first place and that the worst thing is that it takes an independent NGO (which is putting the livelihood of its members at much greater stake than any potential victims the Pentagon might claim) to call out their bullshit, rather than an informed American citizenry.
- Adam503 16y ago
  Innocent lives get taken in car wrecks every day. We don't abandon automobiles because there's a risk of innocent lives being lost in car wrecks. Life has risk.
- gonk 16y ago
  A carte blanche war operation is a far worse thing to support. If you want the American War Machine to continue committing its crimes, by all means ignore this release.
noelchurchill 16y ago
There is no justification for doing wrong. The motive for keeping incriminating evidence hidden is to continue engaging in nefarious behavior without being caught. The fact that people's lives will be in danger after releasing the information is even more reason to not engage in that behavior in the first place. It is NOT justification for continuing to hide the horrendous things that have been done. The only thing that will bring this behavior to an end, is for the world to see what is really happening.
- maukdaddy 16y ago
  The fact that people's lives will be in danger after releasing the information is even more reason to not engage in that behavior in the first place WTF is wrong with you? Would you feel differently if YOUR name was on the list?
  - jat850 16y ago
    I don't want to speak for GP, but if their thinking is anything like mine, it would be: My name isn't and never would be on that list.
    - gojomo 16y ago
      Are you sure? In a war, disinformation is common. And mistakes are made. And names aren't unique. Even a noncombatant thousands of miles away, with no allegiances to either side, could get confused with a conflict principal. Of course, this tangential risk doesn't suggest all info should remain confidential, any more than the existence of some crimes means all operational info from a war zone must be totally public. It just means tread carefully if revealing info that's prone to misinterpretation, or info that might be used by combatants to direct indiscriminate retaliatory violence. If Wikileaks came across a list of confidential informants in domestic murder cases under investigation, would it be a good idea to publish that list?
  - noelchurchill 16y ago
    "WTF is wrong with you?" Try refraining from personal attacks on HN. And to respond to your statement, you seem to be missing the bigger picture: How many soldiers have been put in harms way and died BECAUSE the truth was hidden from the public? How many more soldiers will die because of that? There is absolutely no justification for the armed forces to engage in unethical behavior.
motters 16y ago
After reading some of the Guardian articles on this, and not wanting to continue reading through the grotesque catalogue of abuses, I can only conclude that the Iraq war was an illegal, immoral and (for Geneva conventions signatories) criminal enterprise.
- Daishiman 16y ago
  Really? Only 6 years after the war was started, when it clear from months before military engagements occurred that it was only empty accusations and justifications?
- hugh3 16y ago
  No politics, please.
chalimacos 16y ago
Some answers here are striking coming from users of a site called "Hacker News". "We explore... and you call us criminals. We seek after knowledge... and you call us criminals. We exist without skin color, without nationality, without religious bias... and you call us criminals. You build atomic bombs, you wage wars, you murder, cheat, and lie to us and try to make us believe it's for our own good, yet we're the criminals. Yes, I am a criminal. My crime is that of curiosity. "
- doug11235 16y ago
  That was written by a kid sitting in jail for computer crimes. NOT the same as Hacker News.
- rick888 16y ago
  "We explore... and you call us criminals. We seek after knowledge... and you call us criminals. We exist without skin color, without nationality, without religious bias... and you call us criminals. You build atomic bombs, you wage wars, you murder, cheat, and lie to us and try to make us believe it's for our own good, yet we're the criminals." I've heard this manifesto used many times to defend behavior that is just as wrong.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    > I've heard this manifesto used many times to defend behavior that is just as wrong. I am not sure it applies here.
    - rick888 16y ago
      "I am not sure it applies here." Wikileaks wants to show the world the atrocities of the US military but at the same time, releasing this information may harm those involved. From your statement, you are trying to defend these actions through the hacker manifesto. As if it somehow okay because the information needs to be out there.
tptacek 16y ago
This is a referendum on the legality and morality of the Iraq war, hiding behind the word "wiki".
- DanielBMarkham 16y ago
  I agree it's a technology and HN story, but as you can see the conversation is much more loaded around the emotional content of the leaks than the technology involved. (Or the implication of such technology on modern society, which I find interesting) Without getting into too much naval-gazing, when I visit a topic with highly emotional posts, I always try to turn the subject around. See how it plays when it's a cause I fiercely support, people were hurt, and secrets were kept. Ask if my opinion would be different based on how I personally feel about the underlying politics, or if I am acting as part of a general rule that makes sense and can be applied to the world at large. Tough conversations to have. I doubt we're going to have them here, and I doubt wikileaks has done anything at all to help us. I await the day a startup can take topical news stories and help people understand where they agree on issues, how to develop and apply general principles by taking people with vastly different worldviews and finding consensus. I think this technology is possible. But I also feel like it's going to be a long wait. Too much notoriety and publicity to be had fanning the emotional flames. This is a historic moment, no doubt. But it is not one I find any joy in, only deep sadness for all those involved.
  - Andrew_Quentin 16y ago
    What is so sad about people engaging in a conversation? I would rather individuals give their own unfettered opinion and communicate to each other their agreement and disagreement than some hand holding by some benevolent start up who is going to direct us onto the way we should think or even direct our conversation. People are complex and so is their communication with each other. You can not just follow a script as that limits communication based on whatever some benevolent start up finds correct. While currently, in the mids of chaos and confusion, understanding is reached, for people are communicating and if nothing else leaning how things are viewed from other people.
rbanffy 16y ago
Just as a counterpoint, risking godwining this topic: What would you think if we were in mid-1944 and these documents detailed the operations of Nazi Germany and listed several people who helped German occupation forces? The morality of this war is at the core of this discussion. If you feel this war is immoral, then those who helped occupation forces to commit war crimes deserve no sympathy. If, however, you feel the US liberated Iraq from a bloody dictator and the people who help US troops to combat insurgents while risking their lives are heroes, you will have a completely different take on this. The truth, probably, lies somewhere in the middle. We may or may not find out.
- jhgfdsahgf 16y ago
  >US liberated Iraq from a bloody dictator That the US installed, in a war justified by lies, or are we still looking for the weapons of mass destruction that could be used in 45mins?
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - jeebusroxors 16y ago
    We are headed quickly into politics here but I'm ignorant and genuinely curious. Do we have evidence that the search for biological weapons was false?
    - barrkel 16y ago
      The idea that there were WMDs in development / ready to use at the drop of a hat was part of the motivation to go to war at the decision-maker level, but not the core reason, I think. It was more a "look out, he has a gun - rush him" kind of snow-job to get in there, with the idea that something could be found to justify that approach. The bigger idea was a domino concept; that a remade Iraq would be a beacon of democracy in the Middle East, that all the other states would similarly switch over (one way or another) to democracy, Muslim fundamentalism would no longer be a threat, and the whole region would be a capitalist wonderland with oil. Sort of like 50s/60s communism in reverse. But it didn't quite work out.
danielnicollet 16y ago
Assange and his band of techno freedom fighters are doing something not so different from launching a major startup against a flood of large entrenched competitors. It's very similar in that they need to cross a chasm and seize their audience against many odds. There are many software technology, product development, marketing and PR aspects we can learn from here. And the cause, well, we may not all agree with the cause but it's a heck a lot more courageous to fight for your ideas than for a pile of cash and equity!
- aaronbrethorst 16y ago
  From what I've read, Assange is into ego-gratification, not idealism.
  - Adam503 16y ago
    Where did you read that, rushlimbaugh.com? Straight outta the Karl Rove playbook. Don't play defense, attack attack attack.
    - aaronbrethorst 16y ago
      Wow, I'm pretty bummed you'd assume that about my political leanings.
      - Adam503 16y ago
        You can be as bummed as you want. I don't see where you have posted a source for your claim that's more reliable than a Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, or one of Glenn Beck's equally unreliable compatriots at Fox News. ONLY thing linked NY Times article and aaronbrethorst claim share is founders name.
        aaronbrethorst 16y ago
        I think this story at the NYTimes corroborates what I was saying before: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/world/24assange.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/world/24assange.html
Locke1689 16y ago
Everything wikileaks does is not Hacker News. This is just "news."
- fbcocq 16y ago
  Actually, the fact that it's obviously important that the people, who administer and have access to your IT infrastructure, think what you're doing is legal and moral, is rather interesting. Ignoring the content of these files for a while, it seems to me that nobody is too concerned with the fact that the US government managed to lose 400.000 secret documents and what implications this might have for future conflicts.
  - Locke1689 16y ago
    Right -- but there's a lot of important stuff that isn't Hacker News. Just because it affects people doesn't make it Hacker News and just because it involves the Internet definitely doesn't make it Hacker News.
    - babeKnuth 16y ago
      see my reply above for hopeful clarification on how wikileaks is different from your typical "important stuff". http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1828531 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1828531
- babeKnuth 16y ago
  everything wikileaks has done is not only more "news" than hacker news, but also more "hacker" than hacker news.
  - Locke1689 16y ago
    That's a pretty worthless comment if you don't have justification for either of those two points. I see you haven't been here long, though, and your karma seems to be reflecting that you don't really get HN yet, so if you're just trolling you can ignore this comment.
rwmj 16y ago
Is there a link to the download / torrent?
- igravious 16y ago
  From Slashdot report: http://politics.slashdot.org/story/10/10/23/0134202/WikiLeaks-Releases-Cache-of-400000-Iraq-War-Documents http://politics.slashdot.org/story/10/10/23/0134202/WikiLeak... Torrent: http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5904428/iraq-war-diary-redacted.csv http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5904428/iraq-war-diary-redac...
jonknee 16y ago
Of note to this audience, apparently they are using Django to power the site. http://twitter.com/jacobian/status/28451128673 http://twitter.com/jacobian/status/28451128673
dannyb 16y ago
Assange is a real scumbag for risking people's lives. He claims his real purpose is to protect against threats against democracy. Isn't it interesting how he behaves when he gets a little bit of power - autocratic, capricious, and meglomaniacal? I wonder what sort of behavior that he could rationalize in the name of the greater good.
- babeKnuth 16y ago
  so are all people that risk people's lives scumbags? what if the people he releases info about are ones that risk more people's lives than he does? part of war is about putting your life at risk in order to preserve the lives of many more. a small sacrifice for a larger one. if you don't like war, don't participate in it.
  - dannyb 16y ago
    No, I think that Assange is a scumbag because he's a hypocrite.
    - babeKnuth 16y ago
      ummmm, you realize that's not what you said in your post?
      - dannyb 16y ago
        Are you really that literal? My one sentence response contains a comma. The "No" is a response to your query. The rest of the sentence does not in any way contradict what I said before.
        babeKnuth 16y ago
        literal about what? your explanation was poorly phrased, how was i to interpolate what you really meant if you didn't clarify it fully? my parsing of your sentence is valid, as is yours. and i didn't say or intend to imply there was any contradiction. just pointing out that you changed your "he's a scumbag because..." def'n. moving goalposts (no matter how small) in a conversation typically isn't cool. "Assange is a real scumbag for risking people's lives." "I think that Assange is a scumbag because he's a hypocrite."
superk 16y ago
Not to be facetious... but the informants are using their real names? Seriously? Does the DoD not pay in cash anymore?

74 points by viggity 16y ago

I understand combing through this material and releasing information about illegal or highly suspect activities. But a carte blanche release of all this classified material is going to get even more innocent people killed.

rick888 16y ago
It's okay. As we've seen with earlier releases, it's better for a few innocent people to die than keep some of this information secret. "Some of them probably even deserve it"
- rick888 16y ago
  I don't know why you are silencing me. I am telling the truth. The guys from wikileaks have freely admitted that they don't care about the innocent lives that may or may not be lost from this information (and even further through their actions). If you look at the past HN articles about this, many of the supporting comments were along the same lines.
  - rick888 16y ago
    Again, If you are down voting me, at least give me a reason. I feel like the supports of this just want to brush the truth under the metaphorical carpet.
  - flatline 16y ago
    I did not downvote you, but since you are still asking, I found your original post very confusing, and it added nothing to the conversation. > As we've seen with earlier releases, it's better for a few innocent people to die than keep some of this information secret. Why/how is it better? "Some of them probably even deserve it" It's an inflammatory statement, I'm not even sure what you are trying to say.
    - rick888 16y ago
      "Why/how is it better?" I don't think you got my point. My point is that the people from Wikileaks (not me) believe that it's better to bring this information to light than prevent innocent lives from being lost. "Some of them probably even deserve it" It was a quote..as in I didn't say it or believe it. Look at some of the comments in this article. Many people believe that this info should be brought to light and to hell with the consequences.
      - mquander 16y ago
        I don't believe you can show me a single comment anywhere that implies "it's OK because some of them probably even deserve it," because that sentiment makes no sense. It's extremely rude to put words like that in other people's mouths.
        rick888 16y ago
        "I don't believe you can show me a single comment anywhere that implies "it's OK because some of them probably even deserve it," because that sentiment makes no sense. It's extremely rude to put words like that in other people's mouths." It's also rude to down vote me to silence opposing views on this article. But, I digress....
    - igravious 16y ago
      Agreed it is inflammatory, though he/she did put it in quotes but tellingly has not given a citation. Whatever happened to freedom of expression? I know that there are posting guidelines on this site and that this forum is not a free-for-all and that glibness, hostility, curtness and so on are not condoned. But silencing these sort of comments, I'm not sure. Who was it who said: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"? Though whoever said it probably just did not have enough karma :)
  - SpikeGronim 16y ago
    Without more context, I find your statement that "Some of them probably even deserve it" offensive. If I had enough karma I would down vote you for that. Which human beings are you saying deserve to die? What facts and which code of ethics did you use to conclude that some people that you've never met deserve to die? If I am misinterpreting your statement, please correct me.
    - rick888 16y ago
      "Without more context, I find your statement that "Some of them probably even deserve it" offensive. If I had enough karma I would down vote you for that. Which human beings are you saying deserve to die? What facts and which code of ethics did you use to conclude that some people that you've never met deserve to die? If I am misinterpreting your statement, please correct me." This is what many of the wikileaks supports believe, not me. By releasing info that could harm the people involved, you are letting people know that you don't give a damn about their lives.
- Xuzz 16y ago
  The big question here is: what evidence do you have of that? So far, I haven't seen any. Please let me know if you do know of any people negatively affected by this.
babeKnuth 16y ago
unsure if i agree or disagree with that. is there evidence for this? also, the counter-argument can be made that the initial actions of the invading forces also contribute to such things as getting even more innocent people killed. maybe the two should be measured or compared on some sort of scale? that killing some innocent people (thru wikileaks) is much less than the continued killing of some innocent people (thru invading forces).
flatline 16y ago
This was always a question in my mind, as to whether the risks of openness would outweigh the rewards. According to recent DOD report, the leaks to date do not appear to have resulted in any casualties: http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/10/17/170227/DoD-Study-Contradicts-Charges-Against-WikiLeaks http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/10/17/170227/DoD-Study-Con...
gloob 16y ago
This is the same sort of reasoning used by those who claim that America is responsible for September 11, 2001 because they spent the last 60 years dicking around in the Middle East. The second claim is true, and America bears responsibility for said dicking around. The first part is not - the blame falls on those who hijacked the planes and crashed them into things. People are not dying because Wikileaks releases stuff. People are dying because other people are shooting them or blowing them up. Responsibility for an action rests with those who carry out that action.
- hugh3 16y ago
  Not really. To take politics out of the equation, suppose this was a leak of all the documents from the Witness Protection Program. Now all the information about everyone who has ever informed on anyone within the US criminal underworld is out in the open. If they get shot then yes, the moral responsibility for that shooting lies with the guy with the gun, but that doesn't absolve the person who released the information from any moral liability.
  - seabee 16y ago
    Politics is the whole purpose of the leak. To take it out of the equation is to remove the point of argument.
  - sprout 16y ago
    In order to determine the morality of the hypothetical shooting, you must establish who morally deserves sovereignty over Iraq and Afghanistan. (An inherently political question.) If America deserves sovereignty, you're right, it's like releasing documents from the WPP. If the insurgents have sovereignty however, it's akin to releasing documents detailing a drug smuggling ring. So in short, you ask us to take politics out of the equation, and quietly assume your own politics as a given value.
- sliverstorm 16y ago
  > People are not dying because Wikileaks releases stuff. People are dying because other people are shooting them or blowing them up. Responsibility for an action rests with those who carry out that action. So essentially, you believe that if I were to compromise a covert operative who is then killed, I have done nothing wrong? What the heck did we convict Aldrich Ames for?
fbcocq 16y ago
Exactly, just give me the gist of the illegal or highly suspicious activities amongst an otherwise perfectly legal invasion.
Daishiman 16y ago
No it's not. Stop repeating this unjustified phrase. Innocent people are dying because this material is unavailable and God knows what the Pentagon has been up to.
- Adam503 16y ago
  Innocent people die every day. Should we all stop driving cars because if the risk of car wrecks. Should we all stay indoors when there are clouds overhead because there is a risk of innocent lives being lost when there are clouds overhead to lightning strikes?
  - Daishiman 16y ago
    If your argument is actually serious, it's in fact supporting my thesis since then, innocents will day every day, so we might as well release all the incriminating documents of the Pentagon and go about with the innocent just as dead as before, except that we'd now know the truth. Seriously, how many people are completely unable to grasp the fact that you're complaining about, what, at most dozen people (and not even, because according to Wikileaks, there are no names in the war logs), when the American military forces have essentially forced the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Afghanistan and Irak? And now you want to claim it's anywhere near comparable? Again, really? This would not even be necessary in the first place if the criminals in Washington hadn't started a war based on lies. Stop making up bad guys and realize who put you in this position in the first place and that the worst thing is that it takes an independent NGO (which is putting the livelihood of its members at much greater stake than any potential victims the Pentagon might claim) to call out their bullshit, rather than an informed American citizenry.
Adam503 16y ago
Innocent lives get taken in car wrecks every day. We don't abandon automobiles because there's a risk of innocent lives being lost in car wrecks. Life has risk.
gonk 16y ago
A carte blanche war operation is a far worse thing to support. If you want the American War Machine to continue committing its crimes, by all means ignore this release.

noelchurchill 16y ago

There is no justification for doing wrong. The motive for keeping incriminating evidence hidden is to continue engaging in nefarious behavior without being caught. The fact that people's lives will be in danger after releasing the information is even more reason to not engage in that behavior in the first place. It is NOT justification for continuing to hide the horrendous things that have been done. The only thing that will bring this behavior to an end, is for the world to see what is really happening.

maukdaddy 16y ago
The fact that people's lives will be in danger after releasing the information is even more reason to not engage in that behavior in the first place WTF is wrong with you? Would you feel differently if YOUR name was on the list?
- jat850 16y ago
  I don't want to speak for GP, but if their thinking is anything like mine, it would be: My name isn't and never would be on that list.
  - gojomo 16y ago
    Are you sure? In a war, disinformation is common. And mistakes are made. And names aren't unique. Even a noncombatant thousands of miles away, with no allegiances to either side, could get confused with a conflict principal. Of course, this tangential risk doesn't suggest all info should remain confidential, any more than the existence of some crimes means all operational info from a war zone must be totally public. It just means tread carefully if revealing info that's prone to misinterpretation, or info that might be used by combatants to direct indiscriminate retaliatory violence. If Wikileaks came across a list of confidential informants in domestic murder cases under investigation, would it be a good idea to publish that list?
- noelchurchill 16y ago
  "WTF is wrong with you?" Try refraining from personal attacks on HN. And to respond to your statement, you seem to be missing the bigger picture: How many soldiers have been put in harms way and died BECAUSE the truth was hidden from the public? How many more soldiers will die because of that? There is absolutely no justification for the armed forces to engage in unethical behavior.

motters 16y ago

After reading some of the Guardian articles on this, and not wanting to continue reading through the grotesque catalogue of abuses, I can only conclude that the Iraq war was an illegal, immoral and (for Geneva conventions signatories) criminal enterprise.

Daishiman 16y ago
Really? Only 6 years after the war was started, when it clear from months before military engagements occurred that it was only empty accusations and justifications?
hugh3 16y ago
No politics, please.

chalimacos 16y ago

Some answers here are striking coming from users of a site called "Hacker News". "We explore... and you call us criminals. We seek after knowledge... and you call us criminals. We exist without skin color, without nationality, without religious bias... and you call us criminals. You build atomic bombs, you wage wars, you murder, cheat, and lie to us and try to make us believe it's for our own good, yet we're the criminals. Yes, I am a criminal. My crime is that of curiosity. "

doug11235 16y ago
That was written by a kid sitting in jail for computer crimes. NOT the same as Hacker News.
rick888 16y ago
"We explore... and you call us criminals. We seek after knowledge... and you call us criminals. We exist without skin color, without nationality, without religious bias... and you call us criminals. You build atomic bombs, you wage wars, you murder, cheat, and lie to us and try to make us believe it's for our own good, yet we're the criminals." I've heard this manifesto used many times to defend behavior that is just as wrong.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  > I've heard this manifesto used many times to defend behavior that is just as wrong. I am not sure it applies here.
  - rick888 16y ago
    "I am not sure it applies here." Wikileaks wants to show the world the atrocities of the US military but at the same time, releasing this information may harm those involved. From your statement, you are trying to defend these actions through the hacker manifesto. As if it somehow okay because the information needs to be out there.

tptacek 16y ago

This is a referendum on the legality and morality of the Iraq war, hiding behind the word "wiki".

DanielBMarkham 16y ago
I agree it's a technology and HN story, but as you can see the conversation is much more loaded around the emotional content of the leaks than the technology involved. (Or the implication of such technology on modern society, which I find interesting) Without getting into too much naval-gazing, when I visit a topic with highly emotional posts, I always try to turn the subject around. See how it plays when it's a cause I fiercely support, people were hurt, and secrets were kept. Ask if my opinion would be different based on how I personally feel about the underlying politics, or if I am acting as part of a general rule that makes sense and can be applied to the world at large. Tough conversations to have. I doubt we're going to have them here, and I doubt wikileaks has done anything at all to help us. I await the day a startup can take topical news stories and help people understand where they agree on issues, how to develop and apply general principles by taking people with vastly different worldviews and finding consensus. I think this technology is possible. But I also feel like it's going to be a long wait. Too much notoriety and publicity to be had fanning the emotional flames. This is a historic moment, no doubt. But it is not one I find any joy in, only deep sadness for all those involved.
- Andrew_Quentin 16y ago
  What is so sad about people engaging in a conversation? I would rather individuals give their own unfettered opinion and communicate to each other their agreement and disagreement than some hand holding by some benevolent start up who is going to direct us onto the way we should think or even direct our conversation. People are complex and so is their communication with each other. You can not just follow a script as that limits communication based on whatever some benevolent start up finds correct. While currently, in the mids of chaos and confusion, understanding is reached, for people are communicating and if nothing else leaning how things are viewed from other people.

rbanffy 16y ago

Just as a counterpoint, risking godwining this topic: What would you think if we were in mid-1944 and these documents detailed the operations of Nazi Germany and listed several people who helped German occupation forces? The morality of this war is at the core of this discussion. If you feel this war is immoral, then those who helped occupation forces to commit war crimes deserve no sympathy. If, however, you feel the US liberated Iraq from a bloody dictator and the people who help US troops to combat insurgents while risking their lives are heroes, you will have a completely different take on this. The truth, probably, lies somewhere in the middle. We may or may not find out.

jhgfdsahgf 16y ago
>US liberated Iraq from a bloody dictator That the US installed, in a war justified by lies, or are we still looking for the weapons of mass destruction that could be used in 45mins?
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- jeebusroxors 16y ago
  We are headed quickly into politics here but I'm ignorant and genuinely curious. Do we have evidence that the search for biological weapons was false?
  - barrkel 16y ago
    The idea that there were WMDs in development / ready to use at the drop of a hat was part of the motivation to go to war at the decision-maker level, but not the core reason, I think. It was more a "look out, he has a gun - rush him" kind of snow-job to get in there, with the idea that something could be found to justify that approach. The bigger idea was a domino concept; that a remade Iraq would be a beacon of democracy in the Middle East, that all the other states would similarly switch over (one way or another) to democracy, Muslim fundamentalism would no longer be a threat, and the whole region would be a capitalist wonderland with oil. Sort of like 50s/60s communism in reverse. But it didn't quite work out.

danielnicollet 16y ago

Assange and his band of techno freedom fighters are doing something not so different from launching a major startup against a flood of large entrenched competitors. It's very similar in that they need to cross a chasm and seize their audience against many odds. There are many software technology, product development, marketing and PR aspects we can learn from here. And the cause, well, we may not all agree with the cause but it's a heck a lot more courageous to fight for your ideas than for a pile of cash and equity!

aaronbrethorst 16y ago
From what I've read, Assange is into ego-gratification, not idealism.
- Adam503 16y ago
  Where did you read that, rushlimbaugh.com? Straight outta the Karl Rove playbook. Don't play defense, attack attack attack.
  - aaronbrethorst 16y ago
    Wow, I'm pretty bummed you'd assume that about my political leanings.
    - Adam503 16y ago
      You can be as bummed as you want. I don't see where you have posted a source for your claim that's more reliable than a Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, or one of Glenn Beck's equally unreliable compatriots at Fox News. ONLY thing linked NY Times article and aaronbrethorst claim share is founders name.
      - aaronbrethorst 16y ago
        I think this story at the NYTimes corroborates what I was saying before: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/world/24assange.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/world/24assange.html

Locke1689 16y ago

Everything wikileaks does is not Hacker News. This is just "news."

fbcocq 16y ago
Actually, the fact that it's obviously important that the people, who administer and have access to your IT infrastructure, think what you're doing is legal and moral, is rather interesting. Ignoring the content of these files for a while, it seems to me that nobody is too concerned with the fact that the US government managed to lose 400.000 secret documents and what implications this might have for future conflicts.
- Locke1689 16y ago
  Right -- but there's a lot of important stuff that isn't Hacker News. Just because it affects people doesn't make it Hacker News and just because it involves the Internet definitely doesn't make it Hacker News.
  - babeKnuth 16y ago
    see my reply above for hopeful clarification on how wikileaks is different from your typical "important stuff". http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1828531 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1828531
babeKnuth 16y ago
everything wikileaks has done is not only more "news" than hacker news, but also more "hacker" than hacker news.
- Locke1689 16y ago
  That's a pretty worthless comment if you don't have justification for either of those two points. I see you haven't been here long, though, and your karma seems to be reflecting that you don't really get HN yet, so if you're just trolling you can ignore this comment.

rwmj 16y ago

Is there a link to the download / torrent?

igravious 16y ago
From Slashdot report: http://politics.slashdot.org/story/10/10/23/0134202/WikiLeaks-Releases-Cache-of-400000-Iraq-War-Documents http://politics.slashdot.org/story/10/10/23/0134202/WikiLeak... Torrent: http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5904428/iraq-war-diary-redacted.csv http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5904428/iraq-war-diary-redac...

jonknee 16y ago

Of note to this audience, apparently they are using Django to power the site. http://twitter.com/jacobian/status/28451128673 http://twitter.com/jacobian/status/28451128673

dannyb 16y ago

Assange is a real scumbag for risking people's lives. He claims his real purpose is to protect against threats against democracy. Isn't it interesting how he behaves when he gets a little bit of power - autocratic, capricious, and meglomaniacal? I wonder what sort of behavior that he could rationalize in the name of the greater good.

babeKnuth 16y ago
so are all people that risk people's lives scumbags? what if the people he releases info about are ones that risk more people's lives than he does? part of war is about putting your life at risk in order to preserve the lives of many more. a small sacrifice for a larger one. if you don't like war, don't participate in it.
- dannyb 16y ago
  No, I think that Assange is a scumbag because he's a hypocrite.
  - babeKnuth 16y ago
    ummmm, you realize that's not what you said in your post?
    - dannyb 16y ago
      Are you really that literal? My one sentence response contains a comma. The "No" is a response to your query. The rest of the sentence does not in any way contradict what I said before.
      - babeKnuth 16y ago
        literal about what? your explanation was poorly phrased, how was i to interpolate what you really meant if you didn't clarify it fully? my parsing of your sentence is valid, as is yours. and i didn't say or intend to imply there was any contradiction. just pointing out that you changed your "he's a scumbag because..." def'n. moving goalposts (no matter how small) in a conversation typically isn't cool. "Assange is a real scumbag for risking people's lives." "I think that Assange is a scumbag because he's a hypocrite."

superk 16y ago

Not to be facetious... but the informants are using their real names? Seriously? Does the DoD not pay in cash anymore?