Ah so some some secrets are ok...
Who gets to decide?
I'm sure people named as informants in those docs Manning leaked would have preferred wikileaks hadn't been interested in their identities.
(
Cerebus Sticky! Sticky! Stick! Stick!, Wed 12 Dec 2012, 14:57,
Reply)
i think common sense comes into it somehow.
There is a clear definable difference between casting a light on illegal, corrupt or immoral practices, and revealing information that merely compromises national security and has no ethical basis.
(, Wed 12 Dec 2012, 15:03, Reply)
yes, what he said
(
Rebel biscuit stercore sumus et nos esse novimus, Wed 12 Dec 2012, 15:19,
Reply)
So putting the informants and their families at risk of torture and death common sense?
It's ok so long as it's for the greater good?
And if it's ethical basises we're talking here.
Some may argue that submarines going around with the capability to reduce whole cities to ash are imoral.
(
Cerebus Sticky! Sticky! Stick! Stick!, Wed 12 Dec 2012, 15:25,
Reply)
well, for a start the claim that wikileaks revealed hundreds of informants is disputed by wikileaks and other
when pressed, the pentagon have not revealed a single instance where someone was tortured or killed as a result of the release of the afghanistani documents.
I'm not saying there haven't been, but I wouldn't take scare stories by the pentagon at face value
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Wed 12 Dec 2012, 15:34,
Reply)
Do we need to see some poor sod held up as an example before we agree giving journalists access to the unedited cables was a bad idea?
Not to mention that that "insurance file" which is currently being decoded by every nation state on the planet.
And don't give me the impossible to crack line because encryption that was impossible to crack a few years ago can be sorted in an afternoon these days for the price of a few graphics cards.
(
Cerebus Sticky! Sticky! Stick! Stick!, Wed 12 Dec 2012, 15:44,
Reply)
No, not necessarily.
but I think the risks to these people have been overstated by the same people who are obsessed with Assange's character - those with the darkest secrets to hide.
As far as I'm aware there has been very little evidence suggesting that informants or anyone else has lost their life due to the leaks.
Regarding your submarine argument, I think that's where common sense comes into it.
(, Wed 12 Dec 2012, 15:35, Reply)
That's an over emotive defence of the Great Leader
August 1, 2010
"1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak,"
from: www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/aug/01/julian-assange-wikileaks-afghanistan
December 8, 2010
"WikiLeaks has a four-year publishing history. During that time we have changed whole governments, but not a single person, as far as anyone is aware, has been harmed. But the US, with Australian government connivance, has killed thousands in the past few months alone."
from: www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/dont-shoot-messenger-for-revealing-uncomfortable-truths/story-fn775xjq-1225967241332
That's cleared that up then...
(, Wed 12 Dec 2012, 15:50, Reply)
I didn't know about the Kenya one.
I assumed you were mention his claim to have started the Arab spring.
(
Cerebus Sticky! Sticky! Stick! Stick!, Wed 12 Dec 2012, 16:00,
Reply)
Seeing as these informants live in countries where you can get tortured or killed for just saying the wrong thing
Being found out to be a CIA informant has got to rate rather highly in a risk assesment hasn't it?
Let's hope those dark secrets are worth it. Personally it'ld have to be a really dark one for the US Gov not to just shrug it off.
(
Cerebus Sticky! Sticky! Stick! Stick!, Wed 12 Dec 2012, 15:54,
Reply)
does your thirst for prosecution extend to those responsible for the documented deaths of tens of thousands of afghanstinis as a result of their decision to invade
or only to those who may or may not have indirectly caused some informants to die?
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Wed 12 Dec 2012, 15:59,
Reply)
If people are killed outside of the rules of law for war then they should be prosicuted
I certainly think Obama should be called to task on his bombing of Yemen, Pakistan etc.
(
Cerebus Sticky! Sticky! Stick! Stick!, Wed 12 Dec 2012, 16:06,
Reply)
You claiming ignorance of the geneva convention and rules of engagement or just don't agree with them?
(
Cerebus Sticky! Sticky! Stick! Stick!, Wed 12 Dec 2012, 16:15,
Reply)
Im more curious about what defines a legal engagement of war in your books,
because Iraq certainly wasn't legal 10 years ago. Also, not sure how the Geneva convention is relevant to Wikileaks, apart from the fact that leaks have revealed that the US has breached it numerous times.
(, Wed 12 Dec 2012, 16:29, Reply)
Oh come on don't be tedious
You asked me what I considered the laws of war and I told you.
(
Cerebus Sticky! Sticky! Stick! Stick!, Wed 12 Dec 2012, 16:39,
Reply)
I do enjoy our occasional Assange tennis
Amadeus tries a smash. a defensive lob from cumquat. amadeus on the attack again, but he's put to much spin on that shot, cumquat should put this one away... No, he's shanked it into the net
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Wed 12 Dec 2012, 16:24,
Reply)
The Greater Good.
(
Extinct Jesus Dossier "...I think it counteracts Hitler's magic...", Wed 12 Dec 2012, 15:58,
Reply)