WikiLeaks Founder Describes Possibility of Casualties as Acceptable Risk

[digsbe]

FOXNews.com - WikiLeaks Founder Describes Possibility of Casualties as Acceptable Risk

"As far as anyone can tell, this has never happened," Assange responded. "When we deal with such serious issues and such [a] large amount of information, we have to accept the risk that it might, but this is balanced by the understanding that such information is also likely to save a great many lives."

But U.S. officials have said the documents could nevertheless endanger sources in the Afghanistan field. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in an interview this month that the information was published "without any regard whatsoever for the consequences."

It seems like the founder of Wiki Leaks has no problem releasing potentially harmful information even when warned by the Pentagon. I wonder if his opinion would change if someone posted his personal info somewhere or information was published that places his life in danger.

 

[Slartibartfast]

FOXNews.com - WikiLeaks Founder Describes Possibility of Casualties as Acceptable Risk





It seems like the founder of Wiki Leaks has no problem releasing potentially harmful information even when warned by the Pentagon. I wonder if his opinion would change if someone posted his personal info somewhere or information was published that places his life in danger.

The fundamental conflict is that the secrets act is being abused and its hard to unwind the stuff that should be secrets vs coverups and other shenanagans. Its unfortunate that it has to come to this, but it wouldn't have been an issue if the pentegon and other agencies had been more responsible.

 

[Laila]

I want MI5/6 files leaked. I just wonder what other things is hidden under the guise of 'war on terrorism'

 

[Redress]

FOXNews.com - WikiLeaks Founder Describes Possibility of Casualties as Acceptable Risk





It seems like the founder of Wiki Leaks has no problem releasing potentially harmful information even when warned by the Pentagon. I wonder if his opinion would change if someone posted his personal info somewhere or information was published that places his life in danger.

This is why he is an asshole. People are almost certainly going to die over the documents he posted.

 

[digsbe]

This is why he is an asshole. People are almost certainly going to die over the documents he posted.

Exactly, and this is what pisses me off. The guy has been asked by the Pentagon and Obama administration to not post these documents because they are a threat to our soldiers' lives. Yet he justifies it by saying they "could" save lives. There is no logical explanation as to how releasing these documents will save lives, and those in charge of the military and national security (Pentagon and the Obama administration) have specifically told him that they jeopardize lives.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

Not all of the documents that have been posted should even have been classified in the first place. I thought that Obama was going to create greater openness in government?

 

[Frozengale]

Wikileaks is dangerous ground when it comes to stuff like this imo.

I believe in freedom of information, but I also believe in a governments right to keep things confidential for the purpose that if it was released to the public chaos would ensue. The government has the capability to abuse this though and cover their backsides if they do something wrong, and that's just downright evil. Of course that doesn't mean we as a people should abuse a source such as wikileaks to endanger our soldiers. People need to think long and hard about the consequences of what will happen if they post something to Wikileaks. This is one of those situations where you need to think hard. Though as the publisher of Wikileaks he should be held partially responsible for anything that he allows to go through that causes more harm then good.

 

[j-mac]

This guy Assange (sp?) is a real asshole!


j-mac

 

[Fiddytree]

FOXNews.com - WikiLeaks Founder Describes Possibility of Casualties as Acceptable Risk

It seems like the founder of Wiki Leaks has no problem releasing potentially harmful information even when warned by the Pentagon. I wonder if his opinion would change if someone posted his personal info somewhere or information was published that places his life in danger.

The level of self-assurance of this man's justification is outstanding. His act of injustice is somehow not as bad as the government's supposed doings. He is a messianic disaster.

 

[spud_meister]

i like the idea behind wikileaks, but the guy's a douche, if there's a good chance it could cost lives, it shouldn't be released.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

The fundamental conflict is that the secrets act is being abused and its hard to unwind the stuff that should be secrets vs coverups and other shenanagans. Its unfortunate that it has to come to this, but it wouldn't have been an issue if the pentegon and other agencies had been more responsible.

This.

No excuse to use state secrecy to hide possible corruption.
They were asking for it.

 

[Jucon]

As I obviously can't do anything to stop this guy, I'm holding my judgment until he releases the documents. If the documents show clear examples of war crimes then the documents should be released.

But what I don't get is why specific names can't be removed. If there's a name of an Afghan spy working for the U.S. in a document... white-out... no problem.

Unless these documents have specific names of people (or enough information to determine the person being mentioned in the document), I don't buy the "this will get people killed" argument. The Taliban already have enough reasons to hate America and those helping us. And I'm sure most people in Afghanistan know of at least one civilian who has been killed or injured. If they haven't joined the Taliban after 9+ years of the war, I doubt they will now...

Still though, I'm holding my judgment.

 

[Redress]

This.

No excuse to use state secrecy to hide possible corruption.
They were asking for it.

So what corruption has been uncovered? Is it worth the lives of those Afghanistan people whose names have been published as working with the US forces and who now are targets, and their families are targets?

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

So what corruption has been uncovered? Is it worth the lives of those Afghanistan people whose names have been published as working with the US forces and who now are targets, and their families are targets?

The potential to get certain people to tighten up their approach to engaging enemies has the potential to save more people than the release of any names.
If I'm not mistaken there was an attempt to cover up at least one engagement by the military brass.
Unacceptable.

Sorry but transparency in government is more important.

 

[Redress]

The potential to get certain people to tighten up their approach to engaging enemies has the potential to save more people than the release of any names.
If I'm not mistaken there was an attempt to cover up at least one engagement by the military brass.
Unacceptable.

Sorry but transparency in government is more important.

Sorry, but that is easy to say since your name was not one of those released. It's not your family that is at risk. There is no evidence I have seen yet that we have learned anything particularly dramatic in this, but real people have been put at risk. If this asshole had taken the time to redact names, you might have an argument, but he did not, preferring to get views to his website over protecting people.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Sorry, but that is easy to say since your name was not one of those released. It's not your family that is at risk. There is no evidence I have seen yet that we have learned anything particularly dramatic in this, but real people have been put at risk. If this asshole had taken the time to redact names, you might have an argument, but he did not, preferring to get views to his website over protecting people.

I would of never had put my family in such a situation in the first place, so you're right.

When you become an informant, you accept that danger.

Edit: It's already done
So in the sake of what may be better, you're going to have to weigh the people who put themselves in danger vs. the potential that some people may be saved.
I'm siding with the potential.

 

[Orion]

I read an article earlier last week that there are thousands more documents being prepped for release in the next two weeks that may be equally as damaging. I'm really curious to see what happens to WikiLeaks if they keep it up.

I don't really respect the fact that soldiers are in danger over this, but I equally don't appreciate how we are being lied to about just how badly this war is going. Maybe if the press had fair access to report on what is really happening, weasels like Assange wouldn't have such golden opportunities to make a name for themselves. Our governments are keeping us in the dark while using our tax money to fund their dream operations overseas. Who knows what is really going on, especially in the intelligence world.

I support the documents being released, ultimately. We're supposed to live in a democracy and if the war is going badly then we should know about it.

 

[American]

Not all of the documents that have been posted should even have been classified in the first place. I thought that Obama was going to create greater openness in government?

Information does not have to be classified to be harmful. There are levels of sensitivity as well. I'm all for freedom of the press, but I doubt this individual has the training or the background on the material he is handling to understand what he should or should not release.

 

[j-mac]

I read an article earlier last week that there are thousands more documents being prepped for release in the next two weeks that may be equally as damaging. I'm really curious to see what happens to WikiLeaks if they keep it up.

I don't really respect the fact that soldiers are in danger over this, but I equally don't appreciate how we are being lied to about just how badly this war is going. Maybe if the press had fair access to report on what is really happening, weasels like Assange wouldn't have such golden opportunities to make a name for themselves. Our governments are keeping us in the dark while using our tax money to fund their dream operations overseas. Who knows what is really going on, especially in the intelligence world.

I support the documents being released, ultimately. We're supposed to live in a democracy and if the war is going badly then we should know about it.

We in the United States live in a Representative Republic, far different from a flat out Democracy.


j-mac

 

[Agent Ferris]

This.

No excuse to use state secrecy to hide possible corruption.
They were asking for it.

They were asking for someone to out the names of those Afghans aiding Coalition forces? How does this guy not already have an INTERPOL warrant out for his arrest?

 

[Agent Ferris]

I would of never had put my family in such a situation in the first place, so you're right.

When you become an informant, you accept that danger.

Edit: It's already done
So in the sake of what may be better, you're going to have to weigh the people who put themselves in danger vs. the potential that some people may be saved.
I'm siding with the potential.

How is anyone going to be saved by releasing the names of those Afghans aiding Coalition Forces?

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

They were asking for someone to out the names of those Afghans aiding Coalition forces? How does this guy not already have an INTERPOL warrant out for his arrest?

No.
They were asking for it, making so much information "secret" and then they left their systems wide open for any informant to take it.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

How is anyone going to be saved by releasing the names of those Afghans aiding Coalition Forces?

If the army, etc, knows that more eyeballs will be on their actions, that people won't accept the some of the bs stories they've been letting fly the potential for them to be more discriminating with potential targets.

You can't prove that it will save anyone but the potential exists.

 

[Agent Ferris]

No.
They were asking for it, making so much information "secret" and then they left their systems wide open for any informant to take it.

So then wikileaks doesn't bear the responsibility of shifting through the information and only releasing that which would not threaten the lives of Coalition forces and Afghan allies? If they have the right to publish classified material then they have the responsibility to make sure that the material in question doesn't endanger peoples lives, but no they don't assume any responsibility they just take huge loads of intelligence and dump them on the internet without going through them first. That is why an arrest warrant needs to be put out for this ****ing douchebag not because he released classified information but because he put lives in danger because his organization refused to conduct rigorous investigation into the material provided.

 

[Agent Ferris]

If the army, etc, knows that more eyeballs will be on their actions, that people won't accept the some of the bs stories they've been letting fly the potential for them to be more discriminating with potential targets.

You can't prove that it will save anyone but the potential exists.

And WTF does this have to do with releasing the names of Afghan allies? If wikileaks had gone through a rigorous analysis of the data provided they could have kept information that endangered lives from getting to the public, but no they assumed no responsibility for the material and just took it all and dumped it on the internet. They are at the very least guilty of gross negligent endangerment and criminal negligence and if I was one of the names listed in the documents I would sue them for every penny that they have.