I'm not talking about moral or political issues, I'm talking about legal issues. Prior restraint is permissible in a very narrow set of circumstances. I can easily foresee a situation where wikileaks or another similar group would act in a way that would qualify.It depends on what the publication involves. If it is troop movements, agreed. However it is an error in judgment to suggest anything else be withheld from the public. You only serve to allow the government to repeat this behavior in the future. Socrates once said, "your silence gives consent". If human rights abuses are taking place, the UN needs to be informed and the US government needs to take the necessary actions and learn from its mistake.
However what is happening here is pretty clear. The governments initial response was to stop the publication of all material. Now its scare mongering and using Assange as the scape goat.
A system that gives a random group of individuals the authority to release whatever they get their hands on and lets them justify it later is not a workable system.It is a system that can be flexible. The US government has every right to stop the publication of the material, and only the particular material that could reveal the identities of locals and the entire NATO strategy out there (through court action). And above all, it should seek to make amends, or it will loose the peoples sympathy completely.
So which ones do you think we should report and which ones should we not? How much proof do you think we should have? Who do you think we should report it to?That is not the issue here, the issue here is the fact that the US has allowed Iraqi troops to violate the rights of others, including burning victims with acid. Excuse me if that's a "minor" allegation not worth catching up on.
Where? All I see is where you said we should "investigate the crimes" and "not cover up human rights abuses." Generalities are all well and good, but that doesn't really do much to lay out a plan for what they should actually do in practice.I've made this clear already.
I'm asking for specifics about how the US lied re: civilian deaths. Can you provide me a link?All of that is clear on the wikileaks website.
I've heard a lot of people saying that they read in some paper that there are documents that indicate that someone else said X. I've not seen a lot of actual proof.The documents in question have not yet been released but these are said to be the contents of the documents leaked. Im sure you too have heard that deaths at civilian checkpoints are actually higher than what they have been reported to be.
But still deeply intertwined, which is my point. It's ridiculous to say "oh, these documents will just embarrass the US and expose their bad actions, they won't actually harm any troops or affect the conduct of the war."Arguably, one more than the other.