Wikileaks reveals identity of Afgan informants

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

A limited freedom is no freedom. And who is to judge what you can say and can't? The censorship committee?

---

What has publishing of the names of non public figures got to do with freedom of speech?

How about privacy?

Is it ok to publish an article about your masturbation habits with your real name mentioned in it? I'm sure you wouldn't mind, freedom of speech being absolute and all that...

Besides, apart from publishing the names of those informants having nothing to do with freedom of speech, all freedoms come with limitations. There is no such thing as absolute freedom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

So, you're arguing that the state should be given the power to censor the web because some judges are corrupt? That's rediculous!
Here is some more info in Dutch: https://www.bof.nl/2010/07/28/wetsvo...voor-websites/

---

Nope I'm arguing that you are getting exactly what you wanted, can't cherry-pick here. Government is repression, always.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

nice rhetoric, sounds a bit empty to me when i think of johnny taliban paying a midnight visit to someone listed in those files.

---

If NATO had been completely open about their operations, then there would be no need for documents like this.

But because they try to cover it up when they screw up and don't give the full, unbiased story when civilians are killed, for example, actions like this is needed. NATO is to blame if any of their informants are whacked because of this. "National security" is nothing but a codeword for "military or political screw-up". It has been corrupted to a degree where there is very little of what is classified that is actually a threat to anything but the careers of military and political officials. Screw 'em.

In order for us to do our democratic duty, we need to know all the facts about what our armed forces are doing. Since they are unwilling to divulge such information themselves, it is fortunate that organizations like Wikileaks exists.

@Andres: Funny, I seem to remember a few embassy's going up in smoke.... But nah, I agree, terrorists have never killed anyone!

Neither Wikileaks nor Jyllandsposten killed anyone, but people may die because of their actions. I still believe that both had the right to do what they did, however. Free speech is free speech, I want no restrictions on it at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

@Andres: Funny, I seem to remember a few embassy's going up in smoke.... But nah, I agree, terrorists have never killed anyone!

Neither Wikileaks nor Jyllandsposten killed anyone, but people may die because of their actions. I still believe that both had the right to do what they did, however. Free speech is free speech, I want no restrictions on it at all.

---

What nonsense. Clearly you can see the difference between publishing a drawing and publishing the names of persons who risked their lives and are still in a war zone risking their lives and who will now probably be killed, for the glory of some attention whore news publisher.

The stuff Wikileaks has published will directly lead to the deaths of the people mentioned in it.

The cartoons was something completely different. Some religious nutjobs reacting in the most ridiculous way on some drawings that were meant as provocation.

Comparing those two is as ridiculous as it gets.

Don't get me wrong, though, I do agree that we have the right to know the truth about what's going on in Afghanistan; but we could have been informed about the truth without risking the lives of those people. It was not necessary to bring those people in danger. If those names would have been replaced by "X", we would still have known what we needed to know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

Is it ok to publish an article about your masturbation habits with your real name mentioned in it? I'm sure you wouldn't mind, freedom of speech being absolute and all that...

---

This is an interesting point. Of course, I wouldn't like it, but should it be banned and you locked up for publishing it? Of course not!
That being said, no-one is really interested in these kinds of 'reports'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Nope I'm arguing that you are getting exactly what you wanted, can't cherry-pick here. Government is repression, always.

---

I can't remember advocating internet censorship or me creating the government, can you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

It was not necessary to bring those people in danger. If those names would have been replaced by "X", we would still have known what we needed to know.

---

Put your blame where it is due; if NATO had released these documents themselves they could've replace those names with an "x" easily, and their informants would remain hidden.

But why so protective of these 20-something informants? How many days of civilian casaulties is that, really?

EDIT: And let's not act like we have abandoned the asylum institution. What's problematic about bringing them here? If their lives are in danger, that's exactly the kind of situation our asylum laws are designed for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

Is it ok to publish an article about your masturbation habits with your real name mentioned in it? I'm sure you wouldn't mind, freedom of speech being absolute and all that...

---

If it is relevant to public life; no.

Free speech has nothing to do with things that are not relevant to the public discussion. So yeah, if I'm a PM and someone decides to publish my masturbation history; sure, go ahead. If I'm just me, a nobody from Norway, then no, it has no relevance to public discussion and as such it has nothing to do with free speech, but is instead banned by privacy laws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

This is an interesting point. Of course, I wouldn't like it, but should it be banned and you locked up for publishing it? Of course not!

---

But of course :rolleyes:

And you certainly wouldn't want me to face consequences for publishing your name and address in an article about how you had sex with the daugther of John the Titan, a 2 meter tall 250 kg lifting martial arts champion who just got released out of jail where he served a sentence for butchering and eating the last guy who had sex with his daughter.

:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullhdq

I can't remember advocating internet censorship or me creating the government, can you?

---

You've got your quote tags wrong... Fragony posted that, not me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Put your blame where it is due; if NATO had released these documents themselves they could've replace those names with an "x" easily, and their informants would remain hidden.

But why so protective of these 20-something informants? How many days of civilian casaulties is that, really?

---

Oh yes, and in the primitive days of July 2010 without computers and programs like Word, it was an impossible task for a humble and poor news publisher to replace those names with X himself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Put your blame where it is due; if NATO had released these documents themselves they could've replace those names with an "x" easily, and their informants would remain hidden.

---

With a probable certainty that someone in the region knows more about mr X, torture time!

Man Horetore, you don't have to like planet Earth for a realistic aproach on how it spins

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

Oh yes, and in the primitive days of July 2010 without computers and programs like Word, it was an impossible task for a humble and poor news publisher to replace those names with X himself.

---

When did it become Wikileaks responsibility to protect the lives of NATO troops and their allies?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Free speech has nothing to do with things that are not relevant to the public discussion.

---

That's my point exactly, HoreTore.

It wasn't necessary to publish those names to inform the public. They could have published it as evidence that we were being told lies, without mentioning those names. Because he didn't replace those names with X, these people are now unnecessarily in danger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

When did it become Wikileaks responsibility to protect the lives of NATO troops and their allies?

---

When did it become their duty to bring them at grave risk of being tortured and killed?

Their duty is to inform the public, not to bring named individuals in danger.

With freedom comes responsibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

That's my point exactly, HoreTore.

It wasn't necessary to publish those names to inform the public. They could have published it as evidence that we were being told lies, without mentioning those names. Because he didn't replace those names with X, these people are now unnecessarily in danger.

---

Who we use as our informants in a war is something I see as highly relevant to public discussion. Kinda like who we are allied to is highly relevant information. I demand to know whether my potential PM sees Sweden as a friend or foe, and I demand to know just which drug-trafficking murderous warlords we ally ourselves with in Afghanistan.

What if one of them was named "Osama Bin Laden"? NATO would have some explaining to do...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

But of course :rolleyes:

And you certainly wouldn't want me to face consequences for publishing your name and address in an article about how you had sex with the daugther of John the Titan, a 2 meter tall 250 kg lifting martial arts champion who just got released out of jail where he served a sentence for butchering and eating the last guy who had sex with his daughter.

:rolleyes:

---

I'm shocked and stunned by this amazing story!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

It wasn't necessary to publish those names to inform the public. They could have published it as evidence that we were being told lies, without mentioning those names. Because he didn't replace those names with X, these people are now unnecessarily in danger.

---

And then the White House would say it's all edited and forged, show the X's as proof and that brings back Wikileaks credibility to 0.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

When did it become their duty to bring them at grave risk of being tortured and killed?

Their duty is to inform the public, not to bring named individuals in danger.

With freedom comes responsibility.

---

The informants safety is NATO's responsibility.

The rest of us are under no obligation to give a crap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

When did it become Wikileaks responsibility to protect the lives of NATO troops and their allies?

---

The same time one assumes responsibility for other people's lives when driving a car. The same time when one assumes responsibility for a child. The same time your actions can lead to the deaths of others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

The same time one assumes responsibility for other people's lives when driving a car. The same time when one assumes responsibility for a child. The same time your actions can lead to the deaths of others.

---

So, it is NATO's responsibility after all; they took on that responsibility the moment they decided to invade.

Why is anyone bringing wikileaks into this then? Or did WikiLeaks make it with all the informants moms?

EDIT: And you actually don't assume responsibility for people in your car, except minors....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

The rest of us are under no obligation to give a crap.

---

That's true, there is no European law protecting those innocent informers against the evil European taxpayers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

I'm shocked and stunned by this amazing story!

---

Rich kids are from a different planet, these people are now in mortal danger, what leftist rich kids think is just will never be more than a hobby. Why so egocentrical, as if this is just merely a difference of armchair-cosmopolitist opinion, these people are dead and so are their family.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

these people are dead and so are their family.

---

Yes, because it's completely impossible to ship them over here...........

What's the purpose of a site such as wikileaks? What's the origin of its function? My impression is that the function of "whistleblowing" derives from an ethical standard- the concept that accountability breeds more responsible behavior. To say they(and by extension other citizens) have a duty to keep governments and their respective military responsible is to imply an ethical standard. To publish, not just the names, but the families, of informants is exceedingly likely to lead to their deaths. Did these informants accept risk as a part of their job? Yes. Did the families accept this responsibility? Did their grandmother, or daughter, or son, or wife? I'm with Andres- there was no need to name names. At best, it was grossly negligent, and at worst, it was outright malicious. Given the comments to Dierspiegle, I'd venture to say the latter.

Quote:

---

And then the White House would say it's all edited and forged, show it as proof and brings back Wikileaks credibility to 0.

---

They have lost their credibility, at least to me. Their job is one rooted in ethical conduct. And they gave a death sentence to innocent people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Rich kids are from a different planet, these people are now in mortal danger, what leftist rich kids think is just will never be more than a hobby. Why so egocentrical, as if this is just merely a difference of armchair-cosmopolitist opinion, these people are dead and so are their family.

---

I was refering to 250 kilo John who eats humans, and I'm not a rich kid *sips his champaign*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yaseikhaan

What's the purpose of a site such as wikileaks? What's the origin of its function?

---

It was created to be a place where journalists and others living in dictatorships in east asia could publish their reports without risking their lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yaseikhaan

Did these informants accept risk as a part of their job? Yes. Did the families accept this responsibility? Did their grandmother, or daughter, or son, or wife?

---

So, NATO should stop using informants alltogether then? Informants are killed all the time, and so are their families, who never accepted that responsibility. So.... NATO is being irresponsible and unethical then? Well, wouldn't be the first time...

Quote:

---

Why so egocentrical, as if this is just merely a difference of armchair-cosmopolitist opinion, these people are dead and so are their family.

---

I agree. I'm stunned that some members here are so callous. You are condoning the deaths of people here, with a cheery grin and a 'I just dare you to contradict me' attitude. :no:

No freedom is limitless. Consider that philosophical point for more than five minutes and you'll realise that you're talking absolute :daisy: when you talk about absolute freedom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Yes, because it's completely impossible to ship them over here...........

---

I guess that makes sense in the sphere of moral superiority, thank you for taking the time whining for all our sins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myrddraal

You are condoning the deaths of people here.

---

I don't, all those who kill people should be punished severely, you will never see me advocating or condoning murder or any other crime that hurts others. This goes for the Taliban and the NATO forces who, according to "the Death sentence", don't mind innocents dying at their hands.

And Fragony, you're constantly hammering about the safety of the informants, but when HoreTore mentions the possibility of shipping them over, you talk about 'our sins' as if you already left them there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myrddraal

I agree. I'm stunned that some members here are so callous. You are condoning the deaths of people here, with a cheery grin and a 'I just dare you to contradict me' attitude. :no:

---

Civilians are killed or wounded by NATO forces all the time; that's okay, but I'm supposed to be all tear-up because 20-something informants are in danger of dying(unless they're already dead or they escape)? Puh-lease.

And might I note that people are also calling for the murder of the people working for WikiLeaks.... But that's okay too, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I guess that makes sense in the sphere of moral superiority, thank you for taking the time whining for all our sins.

---

People who work for one side in a conflict all know that it's very likely that they will have to flee at some point. Gawd, that's a basic fact of life, and something they must have considered when they chose to help NATO. As they still wanted to help NATO, it must mean that they would not object to relocating to another country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Civilians are killed or wounded by NATO forces all the time; that's okay, but I'm supposed to be all tear-up because 20-something informants are in danger of dying(unless they're already dead or they escape)? Puh-lease.

And might I note that people are also calling for the murder of the people working for WikiLeaks.... But that's okay too, right?

---

So informants and their families are killed all the time but I'm supposed to be all tear-up because some no name 20-something Afghani ventured to the wrong village?

Either you're soulless or a hypocrite who just came to the thread to vent and hate on teh evil west.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yaseikhaan

So informants and their families are killed all the time but I'm supposed to be all tear-up because some no name 20-something Afghani ventured to the wrong village?

---

When I said "20-something", I was referring to number, not age. Or in other words; you accept the death of 2000 but object to the death of 20.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yaseikhaan

Either you're soulless or a hypocrite who just came to the thread to vent and hate on teh evil west.

---

Hah!

doesn't this count as flame-baiting or something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

When I said "20-something", I was referring to number, not age. Or in other words; you accept the death of 2000 but object to the death of 20.

---

According to some 20 informants do outweight 2000 innocents including children and women, and if you disagree you're soulless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

doesn't this count as flame-baiting or something?

---

You're soulless and I'm a rich kid from another planet, we're such a good duo. We should form a team, you can be my sidekick.