I know Jake. I was a member of Noisebridge. I feel the work that Wikileaks is doing is incredibly important, and I know he's got the fortitude to deal with the bullshit and continue fighting the good fight.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/7...
If any death results from this "leak", Jake should be held accountable.
could some of the leaks potentially lead to the Taliban uncovering an agent and murdering him? possibly, but not likely. The New York Times or Washington Post could probably be accused of the same.
These are hard questions for Wikileaks, as they have been for the rest of the press for decades.
Why take the chance? Why not blank out all the names?
They don't seem to care about the potential loss of human life.
what the hell kind of reasoning is that?
Note, I'm speaking literally when I say "hard to argue". I think it's the correct ideal and I think our government could use doses of unexpected transparency but it's the Fox News I'm thinking about.
The messenger had a responsibility with the information they received. They willingly gave out the information with no regard for the people in the documents.
The difference between Wikleaks and the actual person that leaked the information is that Wikileaks has a large audience.
They could have removed names, but didn't. Now the blood is on their hands.
It seems that there are no risk free way to unravel great injustices. In what has become an incredibly contracted and bloody conflict, it seems absurd to try and apportion blame and fault to an organization that's trying to reduce net suffering.
It seems similar to someone exposing human rights violations in a company, the company performing poorly because of the press, and them being blamed for all the jobs lost.
I feel it might be part of an urge people have to latch on to concrete and explicable causes for events they feel an emotional repulsion to, ie:
"You, specific human being (Obama, Bush, Jake, Jesus, what have you) are to blame for the evils in the world."
as opposed to
"You, complex social phenomenon that may or may not be capable of being influenced by any individual action, are to blame for the evils of the world."
So you claim nobody has the "moral authority" to hold the people from wikileaks accountable, yet you want to hold Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld accountable (it's interesting you would use only republicans as examples btw) for their actions?
If I intentionally gave out your address to criminals and told them when you wouldn't be home (and they robbed your house), would you hold me accountable? I'm just "exposing the truth"
This information has the possibility of getting thousands killed. On a side note, I'm hoping I can get jake's full address and phone number so I can give it out to some people. I'm sure he won't mind. I'm just "exposing the truth"
Would you be accountable for the deaths of the officers?
Perhaps I'm just out of touch, but I normally would put most of the responsibility for these things on the warring parties. Blaming a third party that doesn't have an army, a militia, or guns seems self-serving or disingenuous, depending on who's doing it.
They are very good at propaganda and so went full steam with it. A couple of themes emerged from that effort.
1) "Obama knows about these problems and is already handling it". This is a great use of propaganda. It both makes the leaked documents "un-interesting" and it makes Obama look good. I've heard this one on the radio and in a couple of other sources. It is often regurgitated verbatim without any supporting evidence how Obama has improved the situation.
2) "This will hurt our troops". This is also a great propaganda line because it plays on the existing framework of "support our troops". Nobody wants to hurt the son or husband of their neighbor in their small town. Wikileaks is not exposing cover-ups and mis-management of resources, death of civilians, it is "hurting our soldiers". This appeals to the middle America. "Those Wikileaks kids might as well just shoot our boys in the back" kind of feeling.
3) Now, in the Defcon case. They just hope to scare any hackers or anyone thinking of contributing or collaborating with Wikileaks. The implication is that "you might also get a visit from FBI" or "You might get randomly search everytime you fly. Are you prepared to make that choice?" Again that is very effective.
Now I am not saying that there is necessarily a unified, centrally controlled propaganda campaign, it could be just an emergent behavior from a bunch of govt. agencies.
Assange has never claimed that there are no legitimate secrets. He's not exposing cyphers nor nuclear secrets. The truth that he's exposing is one that the Afghans know well, but that the American public does not know. The purpose of WikiLeaks is to promote transparency and accountability by exposing truths that catalyze reform. This means, essentially, to close the feedback loop so that the electorate can make wise decisions every four years. If the electorate has no clue what is going on, you have no republic, you have a farce.
What reform is attained by exposing someone's phone or address? That's right. None. If you can't understand that privacy and transparency aren't incompatible, then you must be seriously intellectually challenged. In other words, you have no point, and you have no argument.
When you are exposing potential informants and spies to known murderers, lots.
Seriously? You're complaining about Wikileaks doing it (debatable) when Bush & Co make this seem like so 2006.
Seriously. When has two wrongs ever made a right? Also, the topic isn't Cheney, it's Wikileaks.
Do republicans that don't run the country anymore always have to be brought up when left leaning organizations or politicians are criticized for their actions?
I'm not blaming Wikileaks for those things. As you say, they don't have an army. What they do have is a very large audience. Just like with a militia (or owning a gun), you need to be responsible. Giving out the names of potential informants and spies is not being responsible.
If there was even a chance that people could die as a result of this information, they shouldn't have gone public. Because they did, it leads me to believe that they are being driven by an anti-war political agenda.
To me, the information given is not worth the number of lives that will be lost as a result.
Fair enough; that's an honest disagreement. My perspective on the matter is simply that whatever the number of deaths that Wikileaks will hypothetically be responsible for, the American government and Taliban are each responsible for a hundred times as many. I do a little introspection and realized that I'm not all that outraged about the actions of the American government with respect to Afghanistan and Iraq[0], so I can't bring myself to be upset about something that is a drop in the bucket (not to mention indirect, rather than direct, responsibility) in comparison.
Clarification: I am not suggesting that you either disagree or agree with the position I present here. I'm just presenting it.
[0] To spell it out: Afghanistan started their war by knowingly allowing al Qaeda to plan and train for the September 11 attacks in Afghanistan. The American invasion is therefore a retaliation, and not a war of aggression, so fair enough. My feelings on the war in Iraq are that it was a waste of time, effort, lives, and money, and was driven by the American and British governments knowingly and intentionally deceiving their publics. If the country I live in had tagged along for the ride, I would be rather upset about the situation, but if some foreign government wants to self-harm it's not my problem.
If you don't live in Russia nor China, what makes you think that the U.S. won't converge towards tyranny at some point in the future and start using their fantastic military machine to invade countries at will, building an empire that neither Napoleon nor Hitler could even dream of? If that sounds impossible, let us not forget that Germany in the 1920s was quite different from Germany in the 1930s.
I remember the huge demonstrations against the invasion of Iraq in Europe in early 2003. Hundreds of thousands of people protesting in Barcelona. The biggest protests since Vietnam. And, then, one year later, the Madrid metro bombings "forcefully" convince the vastly anti-war Spanish electorare that it was intolerable to have a handful of troops in Iraq. Just because you don't live in the U.S. nor the U.K. do not rule out the possibility that you might suffer the consequences of the reckless invasion of Iraq.
This makes Wikileaks just as bad as the people they are trying to "expose". It really makes me question many of their past articles.
Why release a video of American soldiers killing innocent people when they themselves don't have the decency to respect human life? They don't know or care about how many people could die as a result of this information. It could be 0, 10, or 1000.
2. If exposing the truth is always the best alternative, one wonders why Assange & co are so secretive about their own operations & movement. Clearly they have good reasons, for example Wikileaks tries to maintain the secrecy of their sources so they don't end up on jail. If they really exposed Afghan sources in these documents, the outcome for them will most likely be far worse than jail.
Personally I think WL is important and has great potential, but I wouldn't automatically consider them the good guys in every situation. It's more complicated than that.
From what I understand WL offered the US government the chance to clear names of informants. They refused. They obviously wanted to pressure wikileaks not to release the information.
It is a true concern though whether or not exposing data like the Afghan documents could endanger the lives of people in Afghanistan and people working in the area affiliated with the coalition forces. After reading this article http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/30/taliban-says-it-will-targ... it becomes clear that the Taliban is checking the documents to find Afghan people that supply the coalition forces with information. If found they will be 'punished'.
This doesn't take away the value of the documents exposed. I'm just trying to point out that besides the great value of this exposure some damage to (relative) innocent people might be done as well.
Bitter much?
To date, there is absolutely no evidence of these sort of reprisals actually taking place, other than a vaguely worded threat from some token Taliban mouthpiece. And you know how uncommon that is...