News Wikileaks release classified documents

[Evo]

Robert Gates has asked the FBI to look into the leaks.

http://www1.voanews.com/english/new...igate-Leaked-Military-Documents-99588324.html

They already have the guy who was the leaker, right? So why does Gates want the FBI's help, are they planning to go after Assange now? Interesting.

Ah, late development - Assange says he's been warned he could be arrested.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...leaks-founder-fears-he-could-be-arrested.html

Yep, looks like he may be a target.

I would think that a person that encourages and accepts leaked files and posts them and endagers people lives should be prosecuted. They're as guilty as the person they've encouraged to commit the act, IMO.

 

[lisab]

I would think that a person that encourages and accepts leaked files and posts them and endagers people lives should be prosecuted. They're as guilty as the person they've encouraged to commit the act, IMO.

I agree. The fact that he has said that wikileaks reviews material before it's released (ostensibly to avoid releasing information they deem too sensitive) makes him especially culpable.

 

[edward]

Robert Gates has asked the FBI to look into the leaks.

http://www1.voanews.com/english/new...igate-Leaked-Military-Documents-99588324.html

They already have the guy who was the leaker, right? So why does Gates want the FBI's help, are they planning to go after Assange now? Interesting.

Ah, late development - Assange says he's been warned he could be arrested.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...leaks-founder-fears-he-could-be-arrested.html

Yep, looks like he may be a target.

Unlike prior to 911 when we had agencies that did not share classified information, we now have too many agencies sharing too much classified information.

There was a good article on this in my morning paper but I can't find a link. I did find the one below that is similar.

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010...ay-be-opportunity-for-intelligence-community/

I don't know what Assange is thinking. He can not publicize classified information from another country and not expect repercussions.

 

[Evo]

I agree. The fact that he has said that wikileaks reviews material before it's released (ostensibly to avoid releasing information they deem too sensitive) makes him especially culpable.

His statement that it was the US's fault that wikileaks named all of those Afghanis that worked with the US was surreal. What moron would think it was ok to name these people?

 

[ZQrn]

I would think that a person that encourages and accepts leaked files and posts them and endagers people lives should be prosecuted. They're as guilty as the person they've encouraged to commit the act, IMO.

Except that Assange is not a citizen of the United States and never took an oath of loyalty to them?

I mean, the same argument applies to the other site as well, should some one who provides inside info from the Taliban be prosecuted? their sense of prosecution is a bit less... forgiving I'd reckon.

Edit, the bottom line is, if I receive what ever information from some one which another country or another what-ever entity has classified but I never took an oath to uphold that classification, that information is mine to do with as I please. I mean, what if I classify some info like my birthday pics and you find it, can I then prosecute you for showing it to some other people?

 

[Proton Soup]

I would think that a person that encourages and accepts leaked files and posts them and endagers people lives should be prosecuted. They're as guilty as the person they've encouraged to commit the act, IMO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers

 

[Evo]

Except that Assange is not a citizen of the United States and never took an oath of loyalty to them?

I mean, the same argument applies to the other site as well, should some one who provides inside info from the Taliban be prosecuted? their sense of prosecution is a bit less... forgiving I'd reckon.

Edit, the bottom line is, if I receive what ever information from some one which another country or another what-ever entity has classified but I never took an oath to uphold that classification, that information is mine to do with as I please. I mean, what if I classify some info like my birthday pics and you find it, can I then prosecute you for showing it to some other people?

Let's not get silly. This can be considered International espionage. Do you know that the wikileaks site is blocked by the Australian government?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers

Not the same at all. The publication of the names and addresses of innocent people that can result in their death and the death of their families is what is being discussed and is unconscionable. Not to mention the setback to legitimate operations.

 

[ZQrn]

Let's not get silly.

What am I to make from this?

Not the same at all. The publication of the names and addresses of innocent people that can result in their death and the death of their families is what is being discussed and is unconscionable. Not to mention the setback to legitimate operations.

'Innocent' is in the eye of the beholder. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong but it seems obvious that you have a 'side' in this conflict of US / Coalition of the Willing vs. Islamic radicalists. I do not have a side in this conflict, to me it's arbitrary.

The leaking of this information furthered the goal of the Taliban yes, to you that's 'bad', to me, this is 'whatever', the leaking of this information also provided more information accessible to me. Which is the only side I have in this situation.

Some one who rattles top secret plans to the Taliban is a traitor to the US, some one who provides inside information to the US is a traitor to the Taliban, it's all the same really. Of course, the Taliban is not a democracy, nor a sovereignty at this point and therefore has a some-what different system of 'classified information'.

 

[Evo]

What am I to make from this?

Read my finished post.

And yes, I do have a side. I don't wish to wind up in a world run by religious fanatics. Nothing is perfect, but I prefer to side with the non-fanatics.

 

[Proton Soup]

Not the same at all. The publication of the names and addresses of innocent people that can result in their death and the death of their families is what is being discussed and is unconscionable. Not to mention the setback to legitimate operations.

since when are collaborators innocent people?

 

[ZQrn]

Let's not get silly. This can be considered International espionage.

So can spying on the Taliban?

The only difference is that the US is a big player you don't want to offend, just as China is.

Do you know that the wikileaks site is blocked by the Australian government?

Sure, you know they blocked a lot more sites which are simply 'critical towards the Australian government', or sites that have to do with self-help with suicide for instance.

I personally don't believe in censorship as you probably already gathered, I also don't believe that 'x blocking y' is a good metre to determine whatever from y. I mean, China blocks youtube, is youtube now an evil?

Of course, some of the biggest censors of all times were the Taliban, and that's a road I don't want to go down to myself. I draw the line at a very clear and transparent point, at 0, which is similar to the views Assange holds I guess, reading up on him.

Don't get me wrong, I do think that an organisation has the right to protect its secrets, as in, to stop others from obtaining that information, possibly through the bullwhip of its own employes or staff. I also feel however that once information is out there it's free for all to use, information is not created, it has always existed and will always exist. It's not a conservative magnitude like mass or energy, I don't see how any person can 'own' it or control how it is used.

since when are collaborators innocent people?

I guess this depends on if you side with the cause of the US/UN here or not. If you do, then these people are heroes, if you side with the Taliban, they are traitors. As said, it's in the eye of the beholder.

I prefer to not use such terms in the absolute sense, but rather 'traitor with respect to ...', in that sense, the person that leaked it is a traitor with respect to the US, and a hero with respect to the Taliban, Assange is neither because he never took an oath of loyalty to either faction.

 

[edward]

since when are collaborators innocent people?

Since when does saving American lives make them guilty of anything??

 

[ZQrn]

Since when does saving American lives make them guilty of anything??

They kill Taliban lives in the process?

Unless you wish to assume that American lives are worth more.

 

[Evo]

since when are collaborators innocent people?

When they want their normal lives back and aren't carrying out raids?

 

[edward]

They kill Taliban lives in the process?

Unless you wish to assume that American lives are worth more.

You are damn right I think that American lives are worth more. This is war not a Sunday school picnic.

 

[ZQrn]

You are damn right I think that American lives are worth more. This is war not a Sunday school picnic.

Okay, since I don't share that axiom, I'm afraid it's hard to rely on it to convince me. I am neither a citizen of the US nor a subject of the Taliban. I have never taken an allegiance to any of them and it's going to take a lot before I do.

But you do realize your argument is basically the same as another saying 'You're damn right I think Taliban lives are worth more, therefore they are traitors and justfully punished, all hail Assange for his great work.'?

 

[Proton Soup]

Since when does saving American lives make them guilty of anything??

that is also an interesting characterization. but the one true thing may be that they are not bystanders. "innocent", to me at least, carries with it an implication of non-involvement. but i don't think that's what is being talked about, is it? aren't these allies?

 

[edward]

Okay, since I don't share that axiom, I'm afraid it's hard to rely on it to convince me. I am neither a citizen of the US nor a subject of the Taliban. I have never taken an allegiance to any of them and it's going to take a lot before I do.

But you do realize your argument is basically the same as another saying 'You're damn right I think Taliban lives are worth more, therefore they are traitors and justfully punished, all hail Assange for his great work.'?

You need to take your argument to the humanities forum.

 

[ZQrn]

You need to take your argument to the humanities forum.

Because the politics forum has as axiom that American lives are worth more and America is always right?

 

[Proton Soup]

When they want their normal lives back and aren't carrying out raids?

if they were doing the same for the other side, might we kill them? even though they want their normal lives back and aren't carrying out raids?

 

[Evo]

Because the politics forum has as axiom that American lives are worth more and America is always right?

No, Edward is correct, because it's off topic for this thread and would be more appropriate in that forum.

 

[Evo]

if they were doing the same for the other side, might we kill them? even though they want their normal lives back and aren't carrying out raids?

I am sure that there are those that help the Taliban, we probably know about many, but we don't publish their personal information on the internet, do we? I would be just as opposed to a nut that would do so.

 

[ZQrn]

if they were doing the same for the other side, might we kill them? even though they want their normal lives back and aren't carrying out raids?

I think we both realize what the difference is, we are moral / cultural relativists, they are moral / cultural absolutists.

The fishy thing about absolutism in this sense is that people always think the culture they grew up in is the best, it should be an indication that it's hardly an objective and impartial judgement.

I've not yet seen a single person say 'I believe that one culture can be better than another, and I believe that another culture than my own is the best.'

No, Edward is correct, because it's off topic for this thread and would be more appropriate in that forum.

But the point is he used that axiom as a given in his argument here. I am unconvinced and the burden of proof rests on him.

He can either drop the axiom, try to prove it, or agree that he cannot convince me as long as I don't adopt that axiom as a primitive.

I think the issue of absolutism / relativism by the way is very relevant to the the leaking of wikileaks, it's quite obvious in this thread that the people who believe in cultural absolutism think it's wrong, and the people who believe in cultural relativism are more apologetic. It also seems to pretty much be the defining building block that determines a person's side in this.

 

[Evo]

I've not yet seen a single person say 'I believe that one culture can be better than another, and I believe that another culture than my own is the best.'

I'm French, BTW.

But the point is he used that axiom as a given in his argument here. I am unconvinced and the burden of proof rests on him.

He merely pointed out that it belongs in another forum, it does.

 

[ZQrn]

I'm French, BTW.

And you believe the US culture is better than the French?

He merely pointed out that it belongs in another forum, it does.

I'm pretty sure the debate of moral absolutism / relativism on its own does.

However, he used the axiom 'American lives are worth more' in his reasoning, since I am not convinced of that (nor its negation) he has the burden of proof to show that this is true before he can continue, that or, agree to disagree, with which I am fine?

 

[lisab]

And you believe the US culture is better than the French?

Keep the discussion on things that people actually say. Nothing derails a debate faster than silly rhetorical questions.

I'm pretty sure the debate of moral absolutism / relativism on its own does.

However, he used the axiom 'American lives are worth more' in his reasoning, since I am not convinced of that (nor its negation) he has the burden of proof to show that this is true before he can continue, that or, agree to disagree, with which I am fine?

If Assange's actions contributed to the death of people, and those people are American or Afghani, he will be held responsible should he ever set foot on American soil. It's not a question of which life is worth more.

 

[turbo]

Let's try to keep nationalistic/divisive arguments out of this. When I was a kid, I was constantly hammered with claims that I was a frog or a "dumb frenchman" just because my mother was a Canadian immigrant with French-catholic background. She was tossed into school at the age of 6 knowing no English, and she graduated HS at the top of her class. So much for the "dumb frenchman".

Lets not pretend that one's origin or culture makes one superior to others.

 

[Proton Soup]

I think we both realize what the difference is, we are moral / cultural relativists, they are moral / cultural absolutists.

The fishy thing about absolutism in this sense is that people always think the culture they grew up in is the best, it should be an indication that it's hardly an objective and impartial judgement.

I've not yet seen a single person say 'I believe that one culture can be better than another, and I believe that another culture than my own is the best.'

now see, I'm not sure i agree with you, either. i think I'm being less relative, actually.

and actually, yes, i do think some cultures are superior to others. it doesn't mean i want to meddle with yours, but i think i can still sit back and judge for myself things that i consider constructive vs. those that are not so constructive. perhaps you've got a different yardstick than mine, but i suspect you do the same.

 

[ZQrn]

If Assange's actions contributed to the death of people, and those people are American or Afghani, he will be held responsible should he ever set foot on American soil. It's not a question of which life is worth more.

You don't honestly believe they would try him if he leaked inside information about the Taliban's operation which resulted into one swift missile strike taking them all out at once, do you?

Evo: I see you removed your post, but I still feel I should be courteous enough to say: 'That is indeed a counter example to my point then.'

As for Proton Soup, I'll be respond to you per PM shortly. Ignore and carry on.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, I'm not sure what you are giving ZQrn a hard time about, but you need to reread what he's saying more carefully - he's not wrong here. You are missing something very basic here he's pointing out to you.

No, I don't think so...

Then entire notion of the Bush Administration was that capture combatants are not part of a standing army and are therefore not participant to the Geneva Convention, for the exact reasons ZQrn specified.

The fact that the insurgents are violating the Geneva convention in the ways you describe is why they are not treated as ordinary POWs, in accordance with the Geneva Convention. Point being, if they want to be treated as POWs, they aught not violate the law.