Wikileaks reveals identity of Afgan informants

In the times, but I can't get the online article. I found this instead:

Leaked details put informant lives in danger

Leaked War Files Expose Identities of Afghan Informants

Quote:

---

In just two hours of searching the WikiLeaks archive, The Times found the names of dozens of Afghans credited with handing intelligence to US forces. Their villages are given for identification and, in many cases, their fathers' names.

US officers recorded detailed logs of the information fed to them by named local informants, particularly tribal elders. Julian Assange, the Australian WikiLeaks founder, claimed all the files released through his organisation had been checked for named informants and that 15,000 such documents had been held back.

---

More in the link. So, has wikileaks gone too far? Is there anything which can/should be done?

Yup, it's as I suspected actually (from the helicopter video, the story about the guy who got turned over by a hacker, and from an interview I saw with the assange guy). The assange guy is basically an idiot. I'm not good enough with words to put it better than that.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

Quote:

---

Julian Assange, the editor of the WikiLeaks website that on Monday released some 92,000 classified military documents, has told the German newsweekly Der Spiegel that he "loved crushing bastards."

---

:rolleyes:

I doubt the Taliban have access to the Internet, luckily.

Mr. Assange is an odd and dangerous man, his claim to have "weeded out" these types of documents has been proven terribly false, the consequence? Send him to Afghanistan where he can leak information from the front lines. The stupid man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

I doubt the Taliban have access to the Internet, luckily.

---

They do.


In any event, this information is highly damaging to the NATO war effort and the lives of thousands of Afghan informants, who in many cases just wanted to build a better society.

I could understand leaking such information if it was of the caliber of the Pentagon Papers - high level policy discussions that revealed huge public deception on the part of multiple administrations. However, the only real new information revealed so far is that the Taliban has, on occassion, used surface to air missiles with rather unreliable success rates, a fact that NATO has categorically denied until now. However, I can understand their reluctance to divulge such information, as the story - in relation to the Soviet narrative - would likely have more impact on the war effort than the actual missiles. Anyone following the war already knew that the Karzai government is highly ineffective, Pakistan is playing a double game, and that the CIA and military special ops teams are assassinating Taliban and AQ leaders.

Other than that, the information does little but endanger NATO allies in the region. Great work Julian! I hope he is enjoying his fame while he can as something gives me the impression the NSA is developing a very special freak accident for him. He has now become a threat to national security.

Ah. His idea of 'crushing bastards' is giving to the Taliban the means to hunt down and kill everyone who's helped the US. And probably their families too.

Before this I was somewhat fond of wikileaks. Now I'd rather that coward is sent to Afghanistan and the Taliban told he's a western spy.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

I doubt the Taliban have access to the Internet, luckily.

---

Oh they do

I hope these guys realise people are going to die. Family comes first chapeau

Taliban was even so kind to congratulate the Labour party for letting the government fall over the Nato effort, the only consideration being to not be swept away at the local elections here. How very cynical. Even more cynical than putting our troops in danger by inventing torture stories, but that was last elections. People need jobs alright.

Be a man, release the last documents too. We have every right to know what our forces are doing down there, and how our troops are killing innocent civillians, among plenty of other stuff.

Since our governments won't tell us, measures like this is needed. Too bad for the informants, but hey, risks of the trade. National security? HAH!

EDIT: I do, however, find it fascinating to see how many here who are willing to limit free speech... Because during the cartoon-thingy, most people went on about how "free speech is absolute" and such.... Just lies, eh?

Pakistani friend of mine kinda has an opinion on you and yours. What's up with you lately

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Pakistani friend of mine kinda has an opinion on you and yours. What's up with you lately

---

Yes, I know there are a lot of people in the world with free speech issues, I'm not surprised that some of your friends are among them; some of mine are as well....

EDIT: for those who are wondering what the fuzz is about, here is the link to the actual files on wikileaks. Start readin'!

In the Netherlands our minister of Justice just released a draft of a law that prohibits Dutchmen from copying anything from Wikileaks. This law is severely restricting freedom. Not only ar you prohibited of copying or publishing classified information, the Attorney Generaal (Openbaar Aanklager) can remove things from the internet at his whim (Pirate Bay?). This is bad, very bad. Sadly the ordinary people don't care for freedom as long as Holland Got Talent is on tv :(. For the Dutch/Belgians among us: http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/document...inaliteit.html

You should be glad, he's a vassal of the crown spying to find undesirable thoughts, it's what you wanted don't complain now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

You should be glad, he's a vassal of the crown spying to find undesirable thoughts, it's what you wanted don't complain now.

---

With a bit of luck Hirsch Stalin is gone in a few weeks, on the scrapheap of history, or is this wishful thinking?
And are you implying that a right -wing cabinet would stop this. VVD (Fred Teeven), CDA (Hirsch Stalin) and PVV (Geert Wilders) will only destroy the last bits of internet freedom and privacy. Please read the draft, you'll be shocked!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

With a bit of luck Hirsch Stalin is gone in a few weeks, on the scrapheap of history, or is this wishful thinking?
And are you implying that a right -wing cabinet would stop this. VVD (Fred Teeven), CDA (Hirsch Stalin) and PVV (Geert Wilders) will only destroy the last bits of internet freedom and privacy. Please read the draft, you'll be shocked!

---

I know what's in it. You thought it was a good idea to enpower the government with such means if it would halt the rise of the right, well there you have it. Christians and leftists don't respect privacy capice they feel they have the right to peel you like an onion, for the sake of harmony.

And yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I know what's in it. You thought it was a good idea to enpower the government with such means if it would halt the rise of the right.

---

I have NEVER said anything like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Christians and leftists don't respect privacy capice

---

And Wilders and Teeven do respect freedom or privacy? If it was up to them Netherlands would be a police state already. They would curtail Wikileaks as eagerly as Hirsch Stalin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

I have NEVER said anything like that.


And Wilders and Teeven do respect freedom or privacy? If it was up to them Netherlands would be a police state already. They would curtail Wikileaks as eagerly as Hirsch Stalin.

---

I prefer to call him Hirschbollah. Again it's what you wanted, the comfortable bliss that is an ideal society isn't free of charge. Creepy no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Again it's what you wanted.

---

No, where did I ever say I wanted this? Hirsch Stalin or Hirschbollah wanted to outlaw games a few weeks ago, this man is crazy! I still hope for a cabinet without the CDA and Fred Teeven.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Creepy no?

---

Creepy isn't a strong enough word to describe this law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

No, where did I ever say I wanted this?

---

Your were glad Beatricks put her foot down to stop Wilders, making it possible for her to overrule parlement as she pleases. You aplauded that so don't complain when they construct ways to get to you as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Your were glad Beatricks put her foot down to stop Wilders, making it possible for her to overrule parlement as she pleases. You aplauded that so don't complain when they construct ways to get to you as well.

---

The queen appoints 'informanten' since she's on the throne, why bother now. If there is someone with experience, it's her. Parliament doesn't appoint them, so there's no overruling, and Wilders would destroy freedom and privacy anyway, constructing the Netherlands to his own Utopia, Israel.

And no, the queen doing her job and a nutcase of a Hirsch Stalin trying to outlaw games and freedom of press and freedom of information is not the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myrddraal

In the times, but I can't get the online article. I found this instead:

Leaked details put informant lives in danger

Leaked War Files Expose Identities of Afghan Informants



More in the link. So, has wikileaks gone too far? Is there anything which can/should be done?

---

yes, they have gone too far. releasing informant names is a death sentence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Yup, it's as I suspected actually (from the helicopter video, the story about the guy who got turned over by a hacker, and from an interview I saw with the assange guy). The assange guy is basically an idiot. I'm not good enough with words to put it better than that.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj



:rolleyes:

---

Makes you wonder if he left those names in it on purpose.

One can disagree with the war in Afghanistan, but that doesn't mean you have to bring the lives of those people in danger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

EDIT: I do, however, find it fascinating to see how many here who are willing to limit free speech... Because during the cartoon-thingy, most people went on about how "free speech is absolute" and such.... Just lies, eh?

---

Apples and oranges.

Making a drawing doesn't bring other peoples' lives in danger... Even the most fervent supporter of free speech knows there are limits. It's nothing more than common sense, really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

Even the most fervent supporter of free speech knows there are limits.

---

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

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?

---

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

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.

---

That's part of the job when you're informer. Just as the risk of getting shot is part of your job when you're soldier. Informer is not the same as construction worker or merchant, something which they could have become as well. Don't get me wrong, I am the last to want them dead, but to curtail freedom for them goes way to far.
And if the west is so worried about them, why not bring them and their families to somewhere safe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

And no, the queen doing her job and a nutcase of a Hirsch Stalin trying to outlaw games and freedom of press and freedom of information is not the same.

---

Yes it is, the OM is to judge what is allowed content or not with this law, not the judge. In the purple setup you wanted her travesty would decide, not the parlement. We have a trias politica for a reason, to keep meddling of interests to a minimum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Yes it is, the OM is to judge what is allowed content or not with this law, not the judge. In the purple setup you wanted her travesty would decide, not the parlement. We have a trias politica for a reason, to keep meddling of interests to a minimum.

---

No Montesquieu in the Netherlands, if you want him you can always go to Belgium. The OM is part of the state, the OM can censor the internet so the state can censor the internet if they deem it 'unfit' without the possibility of a Parliamentary intervention. It's that simple. Luckily I know how to work with proxies, but people who want information but can't most possibly don't know how to work with proxies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

That's part of the job when you're informer. Just as the risk of getting shot is part of your job when you're soldier. Informer is not the same as construction worker or merchant, something which they could have become as well. Don't get me wrong, I am the last to want them dead, but to curtail freedom for them goes way to far.
And if the west is so worried about them, why not bring them and their families to somewhere safe?

---

all i would argue is that america has a duty of care to its informants, and by releasing that information without redacting names and identifying information Wikileaks has assumed that duty of care, and thus a part of the liability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

No Montesquieu in the Netherlands, if you want him you can always go to Belgium. The OM is part of the state, the OM can censor the internet so the state can censor the internet if they deem it 'unfit' without the possibility of a Parliamentary intervention. It's that simple. Luckily I know how to work with proxies, but people who want information but can't most possibly don't know how to work with proxies.

---

The OM is part of the state indeed, judges are in theory not but they are all appointed by her travesty, but most of them don't screw Colombian whores on Aruba at the various orgy's that are organised for them so that is mostly fine, not THAT corrupt really.

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/

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.

Quote:

---

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?

---

You're supposed to at least show some regret when anyone looses their life. It's not okay for civilians to be killed by NATO forces. It's not okay to murder WikiLeaks people. You know this, but you are being disgracefully callous with the lives of others.

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.

---

That's nice of you to sum up my views of afghanistan and its people for me

Quote:

---

Hah!

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

---

I'm not the one who's, at least, heavily implying that certain people's and their family's deaths would be less tragic than others.

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.

---

Ok, so you don't give a damn about an additional 20 victims, not including their families. Fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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

---

Not me. I'm not calling for anyone's dead. But mister Wikileaks deserves a serious spanking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

---

Ehm, are you seriously thinking that the their enemies will now sit and wait for a couple of weeks to give these people and their families a fair chance to flee the country? For all we know, they're already dead as we speak.

Also; why is it a given that these people are going to die?

There are thousands and thousands of afghanis working for NATO, why are these people moved to the top of Talibans hit-list, above the governor who supports the troops, the truck driver bringing supplies, the police officer, et etc?

And why is it a given that the Taliban will actually succeed in killing these, as the governor, truck driver and police officer are all still alive?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

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.

---

Why do you assume they want to be here? Maybe they want to live where they do? Maybe they have a good reason to not like the fundi's? What are the odds of that, someone who doesn't want a flatscreen, call out the hounds a sheep is confused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Also; why is it a given that these people are going to die?

There are thousands and thousands of afghanis working for NATO, why are these people moved to the top of Talibans hit-list, above the governor who supports the troops, the truck driver bringing supplies, the police officer, et etc?

And why is it a given that the Taliban will actually succeed in killing these, as the governor, truck driver and police officer are all still alive?

---

The White House said it, it must be true, they never lied! Not even that time in Iraq, after all they did find WMDs and Saddam worked with Osama, it is proven!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Why do you assume they want to be here?

---

Because their life is in danger, you said it yourself!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

Because their life is in danger, you said it yourself!

---

Thnx to your glorious absolute freedom of speech, they are now very much in danger indeed.

Not that publishing the names of these people has anything to do with freedom of speech, but let's not start nitpicking...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

Thnx to your glorious absolute freedom of speech, they are now very much in danger indeed.

---

I should have posted it in brackets, but go ahead, limit freedom. But any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

---

disagreed, by failing to redact the names and identifying information of these informants wikileaks assumed the duty of care for them......... and the consequent liability.

I just read that Julian Assange (Wikileaks 'leader') is in hiding since the 'Collateral Murder' video, America the land of the free my ***.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Washington Post

Wikileaks founder in hiding, fearful of arrest
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has gone into hiding, fearful of arrest by U.S. authorities, an Icelandic parliamentarian confirmed Friday.

“He’s just been following events in the U.S., and State Department press conferences and so forth, and they have been trying to get hold of him," Birgitta Jonsdottir, a close supporter of Assange in the Icelandic Parliament, said. “And obviously Julian Assange does not necessarily want to have a chapter written about any leaks.”

Authorities are interested in locating Assange following reports that an Army intelligence analyst, Bradley Manning, recently transferred a huge volume of classified files to Wikileaks. Manning is now in military custody.

Meanwhile, Assange's whereabouts are “a mystery,” Jonsdottir told ABC World News for a segment to be broadcast Friday night, “but we’re in touch every day.”

Asked whether the Wikileaks founder was fearful of arrest, Jonsdottir said, “Yes, very much so.”

Jonsdottir also added to widespread speculation in recent days that Wikileaks was about to release a new video, this once showing an alleged “massacre” of Afghan civilians in a U.S. airstrike.

She called it “worse than the Iraqi one,” referencing the video Wikileaks previously released showing a U.S. helicopter attack on Iraqi citizens that caused an international uproar.

“Hopefully” it will be released “very soon,” Jonsdottir said. “But for security reasons we choose not to give the exact time when we expect to publish it.”

“We’ll see what happens,” she said, “but something’s coming soon.”

In a recent e-mail to supporters, Assange said “the Garani massacre, which we are still working on, killed over 100 people, mostly children.”

Jonsdottir said the Icelandic Parliament last night “unanimously” passed legislation that would create an “international safe haven” for national security whistleblowers.

---

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/spy-t...e_video_i.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...om-hiding.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Also; why is it a given that these people are going to die?

There are thousands and thousands of afghanis working for NATO, why are these people moved to the top of Talibans hit-list, above the governor who supports the troops, the truck driver bringing supplies, the police officer, et etc?

And why is it a given that the Taliban will actually succeed in killing these, as the governor, truck driver and police officer are all still alive?

---

Because these informants are, in many cases, regular afghans who don't like the taliban, or taliban defectors. One example.

Quote:

---

One specific example cited by the paper is a report on an interview conducted by military officers of a potential Taliban defector. The militant is named, along with his father and the village in which they live.

---

Informants are either regular folks or turncoats. They live in small villages, big towns, all sorts of places. They don't live in the military camp, or behind the security guards. They live out, in the open. That's how being an informant works. The point is to blend in, be the last person you'd expect to be working for NATO.NATO doesn't send Johnny American as a spy against the Taliban- that'd just succeed in getting him shot on sight.

So, if you really do care about the lives of Afghans, you'd be quite concerned about this report. IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

I should have posted it in brackets, but go ahead, limit freedom. But any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

---

Freedom of speech is simply protection from the government, so there is none of it here as the Amsterdam court decided to prosecute Wilders (and Nekschot). They will have to answer for it but not now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Freedom of speech is simply protection from the government, so there is none of it here as the Amsterdam court decided to prosecute Wilders (and Nekschot). They will have to answer for it but not now.

---

Wilders shouldn't be prosecuted as well, discrimination is not an exception to freedom of speech and Article 1 should be removed, I only don't agree with the substitute Wilders has, that the Judeo-Christian culture is dominant. That is almost as abstract and worthless as the current.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yaseikhaan

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.


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.

---

We need a wiki-leaks for wiki-leaks. They oughtta release their files--at least their informants will just be arrested :beam:

How did he get the information in the first place? If the military has lax security and lets out sensitive information, aren't they just as much to blame? This Julian bloke is just a journalist who got hold of a good story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miotas

How did he get the information in the first place? If the military has lax security and lets out sensitive information, aren't they just as much to blame? This Julian bloke is just a journalist who got hold of a good story.

---

The military is as much to blame as is the law enforcement agency that has someone killed under its jurisdiction.

Think it through.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

Wilders shouldn't be prosecuted as well, discrimination is not an exception to freedom of speech and Article 1 should be removed, I only don't agree with the substitute Wilders has, that the Judeo-Christian culture is dominant. That is almost as abstract and worthless as the current.

---

It doesn't really matter what you think, enough playtime pappa is very tired.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

The military is as much to blame as is the law enforcement agency that has someone killed under its jurisdiction.

Think it through.

---

That's bull**** and you know it, it is the same as the military having a crappy security system and your employees leak classified info to an Australian journalist who is almost placed on par with the Taliban in the backroom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

It doesn't really matter what you think, enough playtime pappa is very tired.

---

What is the Judeo-Christian culture? But keep believing in the trash your blond prophet throws around, you almost use as much ad-hominems as your blond prophet, I guess he's proud now.
Even Glenn Beck (!!!) calls him a fascist, when that happens you're truely a Mussolini, not a good sign for him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miotas

How did he get the information in the first place? If the military has lax security and lets out sensitive information, aren't they just as much to blame? This Julian bloke is just a journalist who got hold of a good story.

---

Even journalists should take some responsibility, like blotting out names before publishing them so that people and their families don't get killed.

Of course, the military has a leak and that's not good. Of course, a journalist has every right to take advantage of it to publish a good story and to bring out "the truth". But he has to do so with responsibility. That is all. His neglect (or did he do it on purpose? It's not that hard to replace a name with X. And it doesn't take more than 2 brain cells to realise that publishing those names might bring those people in danger.) brings the lives of people in danger.

And he doesn't even say "sorry". Au contraire...

:thumbsdown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

The military is as much to blame as is the law enforcement agency that has someone killed under its jurisdiction.

Think it through.

---

The informant situation is probably more like if the police have an informant :wink: but they let it get out and the informant is killed. Who's to blame?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

Even journalists should take some responsibility, like blotting out names before publishing them so that people and their families don't get killed.

Of course, the military has a leak and that's not good. Of course, a journalist has every right to take advantage of it to publish a good story and to bring out "the truth". But he has to do so with responsibility. That is all. His neglect (or did he do it on purpose? It's not that hard to replace a name with X. And it doesn't take more than 2 brain cells to realise that publishing those names might bring those people in danger.) brings the lives of people in danger.

And he doesn't even say "sorry". Au contraire...

:thumbsdown:

---

:shrug: Just passing the buck, if anyone is to blame I say it is the original source, not the end result. The government is pissed and they want a scapegoat.