4 ms·

Minimum Viable Product doesn't apply when people get killed as a result of your actions. (Yes, this also applies to the poorly planned and poorly executed occu

Minimum Viable Product doesn't apply when people get killed as a result of your actions. (Yes, this also applies to the poorly planned and poorly executed occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. government doing stupid shit in a war is not a justification to leak unrelated diplomatic cables that risk getting good people killed for no good reason)

Groxx 16y ago
That's an incredibly weak argument. Assange clearly believes he's doing this to prevent greater injustices / killings from taking place in the future. However biased / inaccurate they may be, sites like http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ claim ~100k documented, civilian casualties in this past war. Lets divide by 100. If a leak prevents an action which would kill 1,000 civilians, and ends up causing a couple, is it worth it? Is it morally correct? Do the ends justify the means? Is not leaking something you believe could save 1,000-x lives morally correct?
OpieCunningham 16y ago
Where is the evidence that people have been killed as a result of Wikileaks releasing these diplomatic cables? At least provide some evidence of a great increase in risk that people will be killed. I've heard of few to no claims that people are now at a high risk of death due to these cables from anyone other than the Sarah Palins and Congressman King's of this world. Sec. Def. Gates stated that the consequences for U.S. foreign policy will be fairly mild. Once such inflamed rhetoric is removed form your comments, I can't see how your position holds water. Further, I fail to see a gap between Wikileaks stated goals and the results. The results you claim (potential consequences related to Pakistan nuclear activity, protection of dissidents), even assuming they are valid and therefore in opposition to Gates concern level, are relatively minor in comparison to the stated goals: much higher degrees of government transparency brought about by the constricting of secret communication. That being the (summarized) stated goal of Wikileaks, the reality is it is long term. If this is step 1 of 100 that leads to a government that cannot maintain the levels of secrecy necessary to fabricate a path towards something like the Iraq War, then the results align perfectly with the goal.
mcantelon 16y ago
>(Yes, this also applies to the poorly planned and poorly executed occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. government doing stupid shit in a war is not a justification to leak unrelated diplomatic cables that risk getting good people killed for no good reason) I'd say slowing down an aggressive empire could be classified as a "good reason" likely to save many lives. It takes some imagination to suggest that what Wikileaks has has done has cost lives. Approximately 3 million people have access to SIPRnet. It seems unlikely that Wikileaks could compromise it, yet foreign state intelligence would be unable.
rhizome 16y ago
Minimum Viable Product doesn't apply when people get killed as a result of your actions. Hasn't happened.

Groxx 16y ago

That's an incredibly weak argument. Assange clearly believes he's doing this to prevent greater injustices / killings from taking place in the future. However biased / inaccurate they may be, sites like http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ claim ~100k documented, civilian casualties in this past war. Lets divide by 100. If a leak prevents an action which would kill 1,000 civilians, and ends up causing a couple, is it worth it? Is it morally correct? Do the ends justify the means? Is not leaking something you believe could save 1,000-x lives morally correct?

OpieCunningham 16y ago

Where is the evidence that people have been killed as a result of Wikileaks releasing these diplomatic cables? At least provide some evidence of a great increase in risk that people will be killed. I've heard of few to no claims that people are now at a high risk of death due to these cables from anyone other than the Sarah Palins and Congressman King's of this world. Sec. Def. Gates stated that the consequences for U.S. foreign policy will be fairly mild. Once such inflamed rhetoric is removed form your comments, I can't see how your position holds water. Further, I fail to see a gap between Wikileaks stated goals and the results. The results you claim (potential consequences related to Pakistan nuclear activity, protection of dissidents), even assuming they are valid and therefore in opposition to Gates concern level, are relatively minor in comparison to the stated goals: much higher degrees of government transparency brought about by the constricting of secret communication. That being the (summarized) stated goal of Wikileaks, the reality is it is long term. If this is step 1 of 100 that leads to a government that cannot maintain the levels of secrecy necessary to fabricate a path towards something like the Iraq War, then the results align perfectly with the goal.

mcantelon 16y ago

>(Yes, this also applies to the poorly planned and poorly executed occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. government doing stupid shit in a war is not a justification to leak unrelated diplomatic cables that risk getting good people killed for no good reason) I'd say slowing down an aggressive empire could be classified as a "good reason" likely to save many lives. It takes some imagination to suggest that what Wikileaks has has done has cost lives. Approximately 3 million people have access to SIPRnet. It seems unlikely that Wikileaks could compromise it, yet foreign state intelligence would be unable.

rhizome 16y ago

Minimum Viable Product doesn't apply when people get killed as a result of your actions. Hasn't happened.