3 ms·

> That doesn't mean that what Wikileaks did is right: in fact if they get somebody killed? Has there been a single report that this happened the first time the

> That doesn't mean that what Wikileaks did is right: in fact if they get somebody killed? Has there been a single report that this happened the first time they leaked the information? The article itself said "Robert Gates has acknowledged that earlier Wikileaks releases did not in fact compromises sensitive information or methods".

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
hugh3 16y ago
Has there been a single report that this happened the first time they leaked the information? Would we know, if there had? Also, isn't justifying reckless behaviour on the grounds that it hasn't killed anyone yet a bit of a weak justification? The average drunk driver hasn't killed anyone yet.
- rgrieselhuber 16y ago
  Would we know, if there had? Given that, if this happened, the military has every incentive to make sure we know about it, I believe we would the minute it happened. Also, isn't justifying reckless behaviour on the grounds that it hasn't killed anyone yet a bit of a weak justification? The average drunk driver hasn't killed anyone yet. Whether or not this is reckless behavior is the entire crux of this debate.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    Given that, if this happened, the military has every incentive to make sure we know about it, I believe we would the minute it happened. The military can't keep track of every civilian who goes missing in Afghanistan. Also, even if they did know, making a big deal out of "omg one of our informers is dead" would (a) require them to acknowledge that so-and-so was indeed an informer, (b) give ideas to terrorists (who are nothing if not attention seeking), and... this next one is the most important one... (c) severely discourage future informers from coming forward.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- anigbrowl 16y ago
  Have you looked at any of the data? IDing someone specific from what wikileaks has made available would be pretty tricky, so I'm not sure it's reckless in that respect. Plus there are arguments that a good many people have been harmed by the concealment of this information too.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

hugh3 16y ago

Has there been a single report that this happened the first time they leaked the information? Would we know, if there had? Also, isn't justifying reckless behaviour on the grounds that it hasn't killed anyone yet a bit of a weak justification? The average drunk driver hasn't killed anyone yet.

rgrieselhuber 16y ago
Would we know, if there had? Given that, if this happened, the military has every incentive to make sure we know about it, I believe we would the minute it happened. Also, isn't justifying reckless behaviour on the grounds that it hasn't killed anyone yet a bit of a weak justification? The average drunk driver hasn't killed anyone yet. Whether or not this is reckless behavior is the entire crux of this debate.
- hugh3 16y ago
  Given that, if this happened, the military has every incentive to make sure we know about it, I believe we would the minute it happened. The military can't keep track of every civilian who goes missing in Afghanistan. Also, even if they did know, making a big deal out of "omg one of our informers is dead" would (a) require them to acknowledge that so-and-so was indeed an informer, (b) give ideas to terrorists (who are nothing if not attention seeking), and... this next one is the most important one... (c) severely discourage future informers from coming forward.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
anigbrowl 16y ago
Have you looked at any of the data? IDing someone specific from what wikileaks has made available would be pretty tricky, so I'm not sure it's reckless in that respect. Plus there are arguments that a good many people have been harmed by the concealment of this information too.