Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 91

Thread: WikiLeaks Founder Describes Possibility of Casualties as Acceptable Risk

  1. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: WikiLeaks Founder Describes Possibility of Casualties as Acceptable Risk

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    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?

  2. #22
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: WikiLeaks Founder Describes Possibility of Casualties as Acceptable Risk

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    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.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  3. #23
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: WikiLeaks Founder Describes Possibility of Casualties as Acceptable Risk

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    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.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  4. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: WikiLeaks Founder Describes Possibility of Casualties as Acceptable Risk

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    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.

  5. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: WikiLeaks Founder Describes Possibility of Casualties as Acceptable Risk

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Agent Ferris; 08-17-10 at 12:10 PM.

  6. #26
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: WikiLeaks Founder Describes Possibility of Casualties as Acceptable Risk

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    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.
    Yea he should of redacted the names of people who could be physically hurt.
    He's doing that now with the rest of the 15000 documents.
    The damage is already done to some degree.


    The fact is that these people already put themselves in danger by becoming informants.

    Should we also put the people who possibly lied to us in jail?
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  7. #27
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: WikiLeaks Founder Describes Possibility of Casualties as Acceptable Risk

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    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.

    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.

    Nope, uh uh, sorry. That doesn't fly. Secrecy during combat is a cornerstone of winning. You can not win anything if all of your information is out there for everyone to see. You talk of the military being more discriminating in who gets killed, that is the total BS line that the anti war goofs have been spouting for ever. It's problem is that every death in a war they attribute to the military's existence. Never once have I seen an honest accounting from these people on who killed who, and their answer is usually when the enemy kills civilians that it is still our fault for being there. It is total crap!


    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  8. #28
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: WikiLeaks Founder Describes Possibility of Casualties as Acceptable Risk

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Yea he should of redacted the names of people who could be physically hurt.
    He's doing that now with the rest of the 15000 documents.
    The damage is already done to some degree.
    To little to late.

    The fact is that these people already put themselves in danger by becoming informants.
    On the condition of anonymity, it is his organization and the man leaking the files who put them in danger through his criminal negligence, he assumes criminal and civil liability and they can sue him for every penny he is worth. Even if they are not killed their lives have been so substantially altered by the release of their names that the damages awarded would be well into the millions of dollars/Euros, and if they are killed or injured he not only faces civil liability claims but criminal liability and prosecution as well.

    Should we also put the people who possibly lied to us in jail?
    Lying is only a crime if they were under oath.
    Last edited by Agent Ferris; 08-17-10 at 12:22 PM.

  9. #29
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: WikiLeaks Founder Describes Possibility of Casualties as Acceptable Risk

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Yea he should of redacted the names of people who could be physically hurt.
    He's doing that now with the rest of the 15000 documents.
    The damage is already done to some degree.


    The fact is that these people already put themselves in danger by becoming informants.

    Should we also put the people who possibly lied to us in jail?

    Blaming the victim.....


    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  10. #30
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: WikiLeaks Founder Describes Possibility of Casualties as Acceptable Risk

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Nope, uh uh, sorry. That doesn't fly. Secrecy during combat is a cornerstone of winning. You can not win anything if all of your information is out there for everyone to see. You talk of the military being more discriminating in who gets killed, that is the total BS line that the anti war goofs have been spouting for ever. It's problem is that every death in a war they attribute to the military's existence. Never once have I seen an honest accounting from these people on who killed who, and their answer is usually when the enemy kills civilians that it is still our fault for being there. It is total crap!


    j-mac
    I don't think being there will yield any positive outcome.
    Wasted tax dollars and a lot of dead people.

    The country is still heavily disheveled, corrupt and there is the potential that after we leave a dictatorship or the Taliban will arise.

    You can't make people want to be freer.


    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    On the condition of anonymity, it is his organization and the man leaking the files who put them in danger through his criminal negligent endangerment.
    You can't turn back time and punishing him without punishing official who lie to us would be inconsistent, in my view.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    Lying is only a crime if they were under oath.
    I guess my ethics are higher than those who run the show.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •