Wikileaks dumps 400,000 more files | Hacker News Reader

Wikileaks dumps 400,000 more files

abcnews.go.com

74 pointsviggity126 comments

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.

Can you tell me what the incriminating evidence is and what the nefarious behavior you're referring to is?

and that includes disclosing names of civilians who are helping US Forces?

Wikileaks gave the military a virtual veto right over the afghanistan documents; the US chose not to allocate resources to looking over them.

With the 15,000 or so Afghanistan documents that Wikileaks continues to hold back, they again offered to let the US review and make redactions. The US again declined to do so (publicly this time). The US claimed that doing so might legitimize Wikileaks.

That shows where the US' interests really are; it isn't in protecting the civilian informants to any appreciable degree.

The U.S. also does not negotiate with, or pays ransom to terrorists. Does it also show where their interests are? That it, say, is focused on money saving rather than saving their citizens in immediate danger?

Why I'm saying this: the DoD perhaps has an idea (true or not) that legitimizing the leaks channel would make things worse in long run than any short-term security gain for the people on the ground.

Name a civilian whose name was disclosed by Wikileaks who has since been killed by enemy combatants. Surely to god some journalist somewhere has looked this information up and written an article about it.

Wouldn't that be ironic if it takes a wikileaks release to find out if there were casualties caused by earlier wikileaks releases.

Well, that's it - assuming the likely scenario that nobody Wikileaks has named has come to harm, you don't really have a story.

Even if you had a story, it still doesn't stop the FUD if it suits the news outlet's agenda. That much is obvious from casual analysis of most stories among different news sources.

Defenders never win in the media.

How would you find out? Information coming out of Afghanistan is sketchy, there are very few journalists on the ground, we don't have lists of every civilian who gets killed.

Well, you'd expect the US Secretary of Defense to have an idea about it, and he says he doesn't know of any civilian killed for appearing in the previous documents ( http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/10/16/wikileaks.assessment/ ).

Really? You think the US Secretary of Defense has a list of every civilian killed by Al Qaeda/Taliban forces in Afghanistan?

i ask you this: does it also outrage you when the us forces also kill innocent people?

are innocent people really your concern?

the irony is that wikileaks also previously released a video showing us forces killing innocent people. and my guess you were probably more outraged over the video being released than the innocent civilians killed by us forces.

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?

"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.

I know quite a few people in the special forces on the ground all over the middle east and you'd surprised how many adamently believe that if Americans did indeed know "the truth", we would already be at war with half of the middle east and possibly Russia.

I think assuming that the American public has an aversion to war is a dangerous one. Remember that full transparency is a double edged sword. One the one hand people learn about the innocent loss of life, on the other, people may learn just how dangerous and determined the forces against "us" are. That could very well result in a cause to action.

We invaded two nations that presumably had nothing to do with 9/11 over 9/11. Take a moment to think about the potential ramifications of a population that is fully aware of the extent powerful movements within Iran, China, Russia, Vemezuela, Pakistan and a host of other countries go to undermine our national security and economic stability. In case you didnt know, the US is already fighting covert wars on all of those fronts (you can google around for articles on this stuff, they come out all the time)

Ok. But if that's what's actually happening, we need to have that conversation. Keeping these things secret will lead to nothing but waste, corruption, and misunderstanding.

I'm not sure how that solves the op's problem. The point is democracies and crowds often make bad decisions based on popularity, status, pride, anger, ignorance, whats good for the majority (at the expense of a minority), etc.

Heh, not that I have a solution. I'm just saying the OP has a valid point and crowd rule isn't necessarily going to lead to the best solution.

> if Americans did indeed know "the truth", we would already be at war with half of the middle east and possibly Russia

That's a pretty big claim. Elaborate? What's this big truth? Not that America could possibly win such a war..

> assuming that the American public has an aversion to war is a dangerous one

I'd wager that the American public would have quite a healthy aversion to total war against a serious opponent, should they ever experience it. Adventures to these pathetic third world countries don't count. The day America invades a country with ICBMs is the day an awful lot of US citizens become a lot less hawkish.

Indeed, and these "hikers" and "tourists" keep on getting caught.

"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."

If the guys from wikileaks actually cared about human life, they would go through all of the data and change the names (no matter how difficult or long a process).

Since they aren't, I just feel that they are using this as political ammo against the US military.

People here seem to get all pissed off when you point this out, but it's the truth. People may die as a result of this info and the guys from wikileaks don't care.

I am all for being more transparent, but not at the expense of anyone's life.

You may not want to believe it because your mind is made up, but: WikiLeaks did offer the US DOD the option to censor names in the documents. The fact that the DOD chose not to tells me that it is the DOD who doesn't care, and not WikiLeaks.

What's unethical? Depends quite a bit on your definition of ethics, even if ground rules like 'killing or hurting people is a bad thing' is agreed upon. The problem is one of balancing the risk and reward. The acceptable ratio varies from person to person, as well as the estimates for each. Collateral damage, for instance, is inevitable in war, and while such damage is clearly wrong, it isn't necessarily unethical. So saying that there is absolutely no justification to engage in unethical behavior is either trivially true, or false.

I happen to agree with your (I presume) belief that the suppressing the secrets in this case will have a higher cost than revealing them, but there is a reasonable argument to the contrary.

Lets flip this around.

We can all agree that if we knew in 2003 - 2009 that the gory details of the occupation would come out, many of the abuses would not have happened?

So now that we know that sites like WikiLeaks will leak such information, maybe (just maybe) current and future abuses will be reduced? Isn't that a positive thing from these leaks?

I think this is a good point. However, its not clear to me that this would have deterred anyone. Consider Darfur.

Not now, perhaps. But with more sites like Wikileaks and more leakers, if we can be sure no war crime (and Wikileaks is not about just war crimes) can remain hidden forever, we may hope people will think twice before taking the easy route.

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.

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?

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.

> The truth, probably, lies somewhere in the middle.

Ooh I hate it when people say that :)

In particular, it is a hackneyed journalistic technique to list the positions of the Left and the Right, deride them both as extreme, and then settle on a reasonable compromise in the middle.

A much better approach is to consider each idea on its merits.

In fact the threat to informers was manufactured -- the last drop was unedited and so far there are no reports of reprisals. And this drop was redacted to reduce the threat further.

On the other hand by hastening the end of the war and preventing future wars (by informing the public of the horrors), the upside is solid.

That's what I think. Instead of two strawmen, I would like to hear what you really think.

> I would like to hear what you really think.

I think this war is unjust and unnecessary. US troops are nowhere near as evil as Nazis were, however, as the Iraqis themselves that commit crimes under US supervision are no match to the German counterparts in my extreme A.

Extreme B is evidently false. Trading a dictatorship for an invasion followed by chaos and civil war is not exactly a choice Iraqis would have made. Right now, I would oppose the withdraw of troops. Not before schools and hospitals are built, not before universal secular education and healthcare, from cradle to grave, are instituted and then about 20 years so that nobody will be willing to give up what they have grown up with. In the meantime, building a fair and competent set of laws and an enforcement system to match them. Then you may retreat and be sure that place will not collapse into an insane theocracy.

Thank you, we agree on the first part.

Re the 2nd, it turns out it's possible to build schools and hospitals without soldiers.

In Afghanistan, the price of every soldier could build 20 schools. In Iraq the ratio may be lower but, it's still a good swap.

Germany claimed Poland invaded them.

The invasion of Poland was supposedly a counter-offensive to protect German civilians from Polish border raiders, too.

Germany had pictures of the dead bodies of the Polish border raiders in Polish military uniforms and everything.

I like the first half of your comment. The second half, though -

> On the other hand by hastening the end of the war and preventing future wars (by informing the public of the horrors), the upside is solid.

Letting Iraq break into regional sectarian rule would be a disaster. Foreign forces need to be there until locally trained police and military forces are able to keep rule of law in Iraq. Letting the place become a failed state would be very bad for all parties involved from almost all perspectives - it would probably cost more American money and lives in the long run [1], and certainly would result in oppression, violence, and misery for Iraqis.

[1] If a country gets a reputation for withdrawing under pressure if wars aren't won fast, that encourages enemies during a conflict to fight a slow war of attrition, which is the bloodiest, nastiest, most expensive kind of war. Now, the response to this might be "well, America shouldn't fight wars any more then!" - but, realistically looking at America's history and demographics, I would bet on continuing to have an armed conflict every 10-20 years or so. Those will become nastier and more drawn out if the United States gets a reputation for withdrawing if an insurgency causes problems long enough.

To your point [1]

reputation has little if at all relevance here.

The US largely employed a strategy of asymmetrical, anti-access, area-denial. shock and awe etc... in Iraq initial phase of the war.

put simply, we see you on the field we turn you into vapor, essentially making open conflict with US forces a suicidal idea, because you can never match the fire power.

This strategy, and not the reputation you talk about, is what encourages the enemy to fight an attrition, largely non kinetic war, over a long time, its simply a prudent logical approach to a fight against an enemy with far superior capabilities on the field

Parts of the military recognized this, and hence the COIN doctrine was born, wining the battle is easy for the US military, it is done swiftly. wining security post conflict (re occupation) is something the US military had consistent problems with primarily due to the size and nature of the occupying forces (20 something marines make a very effective combat solider, but lousy and impatient occupier)

Another way of putting it, is that the US does not need a great number of troops to win armed conflict scenarios, but require a great number of troops (of a different sort) to secure occupation, this was the point that general Eric Shinseki made at the time before congress, and was ridiculed for it by the neocon know it alls.

I do agree with you that the US will continue to have an increasing number of low level armed conflicts around the world, It is the fist of globalization if you will.

That's a very interesting dualism you raise. "If you feel this war is immoral" but you don't specify why it should be immoral - maybe waged under false pretenses would be one? In contrast you do give a reason why the war could be moral - it was a war of liberation, to liberate the people of Iraq from a bloody dictator. The dualism you raise is interesting because the war itself is not immoral, it is how you judge the intentions of those who went to war that is what is moral or immoral.

Another topic on HackerNews a little while ago asked what would our grandchildren find abhorrent about how we conduct ourselves nowadays. I bet you can see where this is going. Imagine all throughout history we thought slavery and human sacrifice was an okay way to conduct ourselves. What if someday our grandchildren's grandchildren come to believe that all war is immoral in and of itself or possibly say that an army should only be used for emergencies and defense. I'm not advocating this mind-set, I'm just creating a thought experiment that tries to {bracket} the dualism.

One more (to my mind) interesting consequence of concentrating on the initial intentions is that it is presupposed that the moral force is meant to carry through the entire event. "I did it all with the best of intentions" (Yes you did / No you didn't) seems to cover the duration of the entire event even if the event comprises many actors over many years. This arguably is not a great way of deciding right from wrong no matter where you lie on this issue.

And one more thing. And then I'll shut up, promise :) How people feel about this issue could be seen to stem not from the duality that I think was given but from simply how patriotic they are: I love my country / I am proud of my country / my country can do no wrong or rarely does wrong / my country operates with the best of intentions. Also seems to boil down to how trustful or distrustful of those currently in power or whoever is in power.

I hope we do find out and I hope we find out soon because I don't want my daughter to be having this debate with her friends when she is an adult about some other land torn apart by war. I say all this not in judgement of the current situation but to raise these issues so we can better understand ourselves. All things being equal (which they never are) are we at least in agreement that it is better this information is out in the open.

The moral question of Iraq is further complicated by the progression of the war from an US invasion to an Iraqi civil war. In retrospect someone who was advocating a quick withdrawal from Iraq, myself included, in 2004 would have been more or less advocating the same policies these documents outline about the US condoning Iraqi-on-Iraqi torture. We just wouldn't have been around to look the other way but the outcome would have been just as bad if not worse. If you want to apply some of the same moral lessons to Afghanistan it really shows how incredibly complex war is.

>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?

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?

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.

No, it was a bullshit war fabricated and developed. You can look up the PNAC's detailed history where they were just aching for excuses to go to war with Iraq and other Middle Eastern states.

The disputability of the intentions of the war is something only American citizens question. Everyone else knew from the start that there was nothing good in it.

Just for a start, Google the matter for a few minutes and you'll see that the supposed evidence for the war was completely fabricated, and the Security Council received outright lies from the American representatives.

I don't really see how you're contradicting what I wrote. The "look out, he's got a gun" excuse was largely a BS attempt to sell the war to the public, but the philosophical idea - the long-run reason for wanting to go to war in the middle east for a long time - has much of its roots in this domino theory.

I think they really did expect to find a few fragments of evidence that would back up the "he's got a gun" excuse. I think they were genuinely surprised Saddam hadn't kept something going in private. But I don't think it was the strategic reason for wanting to go to war; an unrealistic and naive (but profitable) ideology was.

> But I don't think it was the strategic reason for wanting to go to war; an unrealistic and naive (but profitable) ideology was.

The ideology of the neoconservatives who fabricated the war was plain and simple: America must the be the world's superpower at all costs. This implies backup governments that are friendly to American interests, regardless of their political affiliations. There is nothing naive about that, it is simply perverse and disregards all concerns for human life or regional peace.

Should have nuked them - it worked for Japan.

I think the Japanese disagree on how well that nuking worked.

Yeah but we got the Sony walkmen, Manga, Honda Fireblade, Nintendo WII and some nice cameras. As well as a staunch ally that's been no trouble to anyone (except whales)

Just saying it's worth trying - just a couple of cities.

Your attempted humor is, at best, misguided.

Anonymous throw-away logins are not supposed to be used for this.

On what basis would you have nuked them?

They were at no treat what so ever to the US.

Sorry are we still talking about Japan? Difficult to see what threat to the US a starving isolated besieged Japan with no armed force, for or raw materials was either?

Yes. Tons of evidence there were no bio weapons in Iraq. The UN weapons inspectors had inspected every square inch of Iraq over and over again. They said there was nothing to be found.

Biological weapons are easy to make. Remember Aum Shinrikyo in Japan in the 90s? Or Jonestown? It would be a fair assumption that half the world's militaries have some sort of biological weapons. Granted, many of them won't be able to put them on missiles and launch them.

So claiming that the presence of bio-weapons in Iraq is some sort of a justification for invasion is just plain silly. If this was all that was needed, we would have invaded half the countries on this planet; many of them continue to be far worse than Iraq ever was.

Neither of those examples are biological weapons. Aum Shinrikyo used sarin gas, a chemical weapon, in the Tokyo subway attack. Jonestown used cyanide, also chemical, but this wasn't at all weaponized.

In any case, the argument was based on the umbrella term "weapons of mass destruction".

You're right that as a justification, it falls far too short, even had it been true.

It is no where near the middle. The nazis intentionally and explicitly murdered some 12 to 14 MILLION people in various death camps. The US has done no such thing and has only ever proposed to leave the Iraqis alone and under a democratic government that they can themselves control. The US has only stayed so long as to ensure that said government is free of corruption and coercion and able to protect its citizens from nefarious causes.

To compare what the US has done to that of the Nazis is the most unjust characterization imaginable. Obviously injustices have occurred but on a scale that pales in comparison to the the intentional actions of the Nazis. Please put everything in perspective. Look at the intentions of parties involved before you compare a freedom loving people to the worst example of political ideology in the history of the world.

It's nowhere in the middle, but you're delusional if you can claim that there was any good will in this war. It was a war fabricated and perpetuated on lies, and those who started it deserve as much as any war criminal responsible for the deaths of thousands, which I would hope is more than what any serial killer rotting away in an American prison gets.

Flip it around then. I submit that just as the American invaders cannot reasonably be compared to the Nazis, neither can the insurgents.

It's hard to say either side in this conflict has the moral high ground, so it's equally hard to say that a move to the detriment of one side or the other is amoral (unless it's clear that a move is to the detriment of both sides.)

Absolutely true. There are particularly murderous Al Qaeda people who were operating in Iraq (and Afghanistan), and they are in an entirely different class (actually evil) vs. the majority of nationalist insurgents or common criminals.

Despite facing them as enemies, I wouldn't even consider most of the Taliban, Sunni former regime elements, or Shia militias to be evil for trying to kill the coalition military; the only really evil things they do are attacks on civilian population, and that isn't even done by the vast majority.

In Iraq, we actually successfully reached out to a lot of the less-irreconciable elements ("Sons of Iraq") and gave them a role in the new Iraqi state. There were cases where one day they were engaging US forces, and they next day were recognized by US forces as a useful security force and given equipment (well, reflective PT belts from the PX, so we knew they were the "good" guys now) and support.

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. "

I've heard this manifesto used many times to defend behavior that is just as wrong.

> I've heard this manifesto used many times to defend behavior that is just as wrong.

I am not sure it applies here.

"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.

That was written by a kid sitting in jail for computer crimes. NOT the same as Hacker News.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

No politics, please.

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

everything wikileaks has done is not only more "news" than hacker news, but also more "hacker" than hacker news.

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.

i'm not sure what you mean by "worthless". it's just taking the two terms and going by their def'n. seems fairly obvious.

news - wikileaks provides information to the public

hacker - ummmmm, i'd have to ask you what your def'n is here. this is just fairly obvious. a lot of their data is acquired through electronic means.

p.s. i don't post often (not much time), and i've been here quite a while. my karma is due to one comment making a digital underground reference not many people got (look it up). that's all irrelevant tho (only people with X karma and X years on hn are qualified to post?).

hacker - ummmmm, i'd have to ask you what your def'n is here. this is just fairly obvious. a lot of their data is acquired through electronic means.

My definition certainly doesn't end at "uses electronics."

Today I turned on a light. Should I describe the contents of my room? It was information gathered through electronic means.

also, from hn guidelines http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

"When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3.""

so i guess you don't get hn either....

My annoyance may have gotten the better of me, but I stand by my claim that your post essentially boiled down to "nu-uh, it totally does!" Pointing out that you need to make an actual argument to convince people doesn't seem outrageous to me.

As far as calling names was concerned, I actually suspected that you were just trolling me.

no prob. wasn't trolling. apologies for the pithy comment if it came across as such.

main point was that wikileaks, for me, provides much more insight/info/"bootstrapping-a-new-source-of-news" than most of the stuff i see on hn. hence, i'd rather keep it's presence on here than have it removed. (again, it might only be me that's interested in such things, but judging from some of the comments, it looks like i'm not alone).

whether you agree or disagree with the tone/perspective of wikileaks, they are a resource of information that is "changing the industry" (or whatever hollow cliche is usually spouted up by VCs/investors). hence by either interpretation of "hacker news" (either strictly an entrepreneurial/start-up resource or something akin to 2600), their activities/approaches can be insightful to some of us.

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.

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.

see my reply above for hopeful clarification on how wikileaks is different from your typical "important stuff".

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1828531

Of note to this audience, apparently they are using Django to power the site.

http://twitter.com/jacobian/status/28451128673

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!

From what I've read, Assange is into ego-gratification, not idealism.

Where did you read that, rushlimbaugh.com?

Straight outta the Karl Rove playbook. Don't play defense, attack attack attack.

Wow, I'm pretty bummed you'd assume that about my political leanings.

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.

I think this story at the NYTimes corroborates what I was saying before: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/world/24assange.html

This NYT story speaks for the overpowering importance of Assange's actions in regards to the war. He might be a shady character, a dictatorial wikileaks leader, or even a rapist but leaking the documents he did leak will undoubtedly be the most important action of his life. You might disagree with the actions of this man but debating over his personal life or the way he manages wikileaks is moot. The important fact here is: he may well have changed the course of a couple of wars and the course of America's relationship with its military. That's what we and the NYT should be talking about.

His ego shines through in all interviews. Even through his choice of his last name, you can see dude read too much Bond novels.

Another Karl Rove student with no link to any evidence whatsoever that make those claims anything but meritless rants

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.

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.

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.

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.

Politics is the whole purpose of the leak. To take it out of the equation is to remove the point of argument.

"Responsibility for an action rests with those who carry out that action."

And with those who directly influence and, in this case, potentially enable those who carry out the action. Using your logic you can justify a lot of things that are illegal in this world, since you yourself are not directly responsible. You don't have to literally pull the trigger to kill someone. (accomplices go to jail too)

> 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?

What the heck did we convict Aldrich Ames for?

I assume that you convicted him for breaking the law. Moral liability and legal liability are two orthogonal things.

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-Con...

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).

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.

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?

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.

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.

Exactly, just give me the gist of the illegal or highly suspicious activities amongst an otherwise perfectly legal invasion.

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"

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.

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.

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.

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 :)

"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.

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.

"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....

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.

"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.

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.

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

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.

does this also apply (my simple sanity check test):

"The US gov't are real scumbags for risking people's lives. They claim their real purpose is to protect against threats against democracy. Isn't it interesting how they behave when they get a little bit of power - autocratic, capricious, and meglomaniacal? I wonder what sort of behavior that they could rationalize in the name of the greater good."

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.

No, I think that Assange is a scumbag because he's a hypocrite.

ummmm, you realize that's not what you said in your post?

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.

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."

Let's see: false dichotomy - check. Overly argumentative - check. Strawman argument - check. Yup, I'm on the internet...

we were on the internet before you had any of your "am i on the internet?" criteria checked :)

just trying to have a conversation, not really interested in arguing (usually futile, especially on the web/forums/etc.). if i'm missing something i didn't see/understand, i'm always looking to find the error in my ways (it happens often, hence i've learned to always be eager in engaging conversation, whether on the streetcorners or the webs...).

what were the strawmen or false dichotomies?

i think all my points and questions were valid. i'm not sure if you're being disingenuous and dismissive, or just afraid to concede that your rhetoric is both unconvincing and (probably) wrong, or a combination of the two.