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? Would you feel differently if YOUR name was on the list?
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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?
My name isn't and never would be on that list.
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?