Wikileaks reveals identity of Afgan informants

[Andres]

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.

[Skullheadhq]

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?

[Furunculus]

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.

[Skullheadhq]

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?

[Furunculus]

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.

[HoreTore]

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.

[Andres]

@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.

[HoreTore]

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.

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.

[Andres]

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.

[Fragony]

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

[Andres]

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.

[Furunculus]

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.

[Skullheadhq]

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

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

[Andres]

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.

[Skullheadhq]

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'.

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?

[Andres]

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

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.

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.

[Skullheadhq]

But of course

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.

I'm shocked and stunned by this amazing story!

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.

[Fragony]

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.

[seireikhaan]

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.

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.