

Wikileaks dumps 400,000 more files - viggity
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wikleaks-dumps-thousands-classified-military-documents/story?id=11949670

======
noelchurchill
There is no justification for doing wrong.

The motive for keeping incriminating evidence hidden is to continue engaging
in nefarious behavior without being caught.

The fact that people's lives will be in danger after releasing the information
is even more reason to not engage in that behavior in the first place. It is
NOT justification for continuing to hide the horrendous things that have been
done.

The only thing that will bring this behavior to an end, is for the world to
see what is really happening.

~~~
viggity
and that includes disclosing names of civilians who are helping US Forces?

~~~
gloob
Name a civilian whose name was disclosed by Wikileaks who has since been
killed by enemy combatants. Surely to god some journalist somewhere has looked
this information up and written an article about it.

~~~
hugh3
How would you find out? Information coming out of Afghanistan is sketchy,
there are very few journalists on the ground, we don't have lists of every
civilian who gets killed.

~~~
paradoja
Well, you'd expect the US Secretary of Defense to have an idea about it, and
he says he doesn't know of any civilian killed for appearing in the previous
documents ( <http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/10/16/wikileaks.assessment/> ).

~~~
hugh3
Really? You think the US Secretary of Defense has a list of every civilian
killed by Al Qaeda/Taliban forces in Afghanistan?

------
rbanffy
Just as a counterpoint, risking godwining this topic:

What would you think if we were in mid-1944 and these documents detailed the
operations of Nazi Germany and listed several people who helped German
occupation forces?

The morality of this war is at the core of this discussion. If you feel this
war is immoral, then those who helped occupation forces to commit war crimes
deserve no sympathy.

If, however, you feel the US liberated Iraq from a bloody dictator and the
people who help US troops to combat insurgents while risking their lives are
heroes, you will have a completely different take on this.

The truth, probably, lies somewhere in the middle. We may or may not find out.

~~~
spot
> The truth, probably, lies somewhere in the middle.

Ooh I hate it when people say that :)

In particular, it is a hackneyed journalistic technique to list the positions
of the Left and the Right, deride them both as extreme, and then settle on a
reasonable compromise in the middle.

A much better approach is to consider each idea on its merits.

In fact the threat to informers was manufactured -- the last drop was unedited
and so far there are no reports of reprisals. And this drop was redacted to
reduce the threat further.

On the other hand by hastening the end of the war and preventing future wars
(by informing the public of the horrors), the upside is solid.

That's what I think. Instead of two strawmen, I would like to hear what you
really think.

~~~
rbanffy
> I would like to hear what you really think.

I think this war is unjust and unnecessary. US troops are nowhere near as evil
as Nazis were, however, as the Iraqis themselves that commit crimes under US
supervision are no match to the German counterparts in my extreme A.

Extreme B is evidently false. Trading a dictatorship for an invasion followed
by chaos and civil war is not exactly a choice Iraqis would have made. Right
now, I would oppose the withdraw of troops. Not before schools and hospitals
are built, not before universal secular education and healthcare, from cradle
to grave, are instituted and then about 20 years so that nobody will be
willing to give up what they have grown up with. In the meantime, building a
fair and competent set of laws and an enforcement system to match them. Then
you may retreat and be sure that place will not collapse into an insane
theocracy.

~~~
spot
Thank you, we agree on the first part.

Re the 2nd, it turns out it's possible to build schools and hospitals without
soldiers.

In Afghanistan, the price of every soldier could build 20 schools. In Iraq the
ratio may be lower but, it's still a good swap.

------
chalimacos
Some answers here are striking coming from users of a site called "Hacker
News".

"We explore... and you call us criminals. We seek after knowledge... and you
call us criminals. We exist without skin color, without nationality, without
religious bias... and you call us criminals. You build atomic bombs, you wage
wars, you murder, cheat, and lie to us and try to make us believe it's for our
own good, yet we're the criminals.

Yes, I am a criminal. My crime is that of curiosity. "

~~~
rick888
"We explore... and you call us criminals. We seek after knowledge... and you
call us criminals. We exist without skin color, without nationality, without
religious bias... and you call us criminals. You build atomic bombs, you wage
wars, you murder, cheat, and lie to us and try to make us believe it's for our
own good, yet we're the criminals."

I've heard this manifesto used many times to defend behavior that is just as
wrong.

~~~
rbanffy
> I've heard this manifesto used many times to defend behavior that is just as
> wrong.

I am not sure it applies here.

~~~
rick888
"I am not sure it applies here."

Wikileaks wants to show the world the atrocities of the US military but at the
same time, releasing this information may harm those involved. From your
statement, you are trying to defend these actions through the hacker
manifesto. As if it somehow okay because the information needs to be out
there.

------
tptacek
This is a referendum on the legality and morality of the Iraq war, hiding
behind the word "wiki".

~~~
DanielBMarkham
I agree it's a technology and HN story, but as you can see the conversation is
much more loaded around the emotional content of the leaks than the technology
involved. (Or the implication of such technology on modern society, which I
find interesting)

Without getting into too much naval-gazing, when I visit a topic with highly
emotional posts, I always try to turn the subject around. See how it plays
when it's a cause I fiercely support, people were hurt, and secrets were kept.
Ask if my opinion would be different based on how I personally feel about the
underlying politics, or if I am acting as part of a general rule that makes
sense and can be applied to the world at large.

Tough conversations to have. I doubt we're going to have them here, and I
doubt wikileaks has done anything at all to help us.

I await the day a startup can take topical news stories and help people
understand where they agree on issues, how to develop and apply general
principles by taking people with vastly different worldviews and finding
consensus. I think this technology is possible. But I also feel like it's
going to be a long wait. Too much notoriety and publicity to be had fanning
the emotional flames.

This is a historic moment, no doubt. But it is not one I find any joy in, only
deep sadness for all those involved.

~~~
Andrew_Quentin
What is so sad about people engaging in a conversation? I would rather
individuals give their own unfettered opinion and communicate to each other
their agreement and disagreement than some hand holding by some benevolent
start up who is going to direct us onto the way we should think or even direct
our conversation.

People are complex and so is their communication with each other. You can not
just follow a script as that limits communication based on whatever some
benevolent start up finds correct. While currently, in the mids of chaos and
confusion, understanding is reached, for people are communicating and if
nothing else leaning how things are viewed from other people.

------
motters
After reading some of the Guardian articles on this, and not wanting to
continue reading through the grotesque catalogue of abuses, I can only
conclude that the Iraq war was an illegal, immoral and (for Geneva conventions
signatories) criminal enterprise.

~~~
Daishiman
Really? Only 6 years after the war was started, when it clear from months
before military engagements occurred that it was only empty accusations and
justifications?

------
Locke1689
Everything wikileaks does is not Hacker News. This is just "news."

~~~
babeKnuth
everything wikileaks has done is not only more "news" than hacker news, but
also more "hacker" than hacker news.

~~~
Locke1689
That's a pretty worthless comment if you don't have justification for either
of those two points.

I see you haven't been here long, though, and your karma seems to be
reflecting that you don't really get HN yet, so if you're just trolling you
can ignore this comment.

~~~
babeKnuth
i'm not sure what you mean by "worthless". it's just taking the two terms and
going by their def'n. seems fairly obvious.

news - wikileaks provides information to the public

hacker - ummmmm, i'd have to ask you what your def'n is here. this is just
fairly obvious. a lot of their data is acquired through electronic means.

p.s. i don't post often (not much time), and i've been here quite a while. my
karma is due to one comment making a digital underground reference not many
people got (look it up). that's all irrelevant tho (only people with X karma
and X years on hn are qualified to post?).

~~~
Locke1689
_hacker - ummmmm, i'd have to ask you what your def'n is here. this is just
fairly obvious. a lot of their data is acquired through electronic means._

My definition certainly doesn't end at "uses electronics."

Today I turned on a light. Should I describe the contents of my room? It was
information gathered through electronic means.

------
jonknee
Of note to this audience, apparently they are using Django to power the site.

<http://twitter.com/jacobian/status/28451128673>

------
danielnicollet
Assange and his band of techno freedom fighters are doing something not so
different from launching a major startup against a flood of large entrenched
competitors. It's very similar in that they need to cross a chasm and seize
their audience against many odds. There are many software technology, product
development, marketing and PR aspects we can learn from here.

And the cause, well, we may not all agree with the cause but it's a heck a lot
more courageous to fight for your ideas than for a pile of cash and equity!

~~~
aaronbrethorst
From what I've read, Assange is into ego-gratification, not idealism.

~~~
Adam503
Where did you read that, rushlimbaugh.com?

Straight outta the Karl Rove playbook. Don't play defense, attack attack
attack.

~~~
aaronbrethorst
Wow, I'm pretty bummed you'd assume that about my political leanings.

~~~
Adam503
You can be as bummed as you want. I don't see where you have posted a source
for your claim that's more reliable than a Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, or one
of Glenn Beck's equally unreliable compatriots at Fox News.

ONLY thing linked NY Times article and aaronbrethorst claim share is founders
name.

~~~
aaronbrethorst
I think this story at the NYTimes corroborates what I was saying before:
<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/world/24assange.html>

~~~
danielnicollet
This NYT story speaks for the overpowering importance of Assange's actions in
regards to the war. He might be a shady character, a dictatorial wikileaks
leader, or even a rapist but leaking the documents he did leak will
undoubtedly be the most important action of his life. You might disagree with
the actions of this man but debating over his personal life or the way he
manages wikileaks is moot. The important fact here is: he may well have
changed the course of a couple of wars and the course of America's
relationship with its military. That's what we and the NYT should be talking
about.

------
viggity
I understand combing through this material and releasing information about
illegal or highly suspect activities. But a carte blanche release of all this
classified material is going to get even more innocent people killed.

~~~
gloob
This is the same sort of reasoning used by those who claim that America is
responsible for September 11, 2001 because they spent the last 60 years
dicking around in the Middle East. The second claim is true, and America bears
responsibility for said dicking around. The first part is not - the blame
falls on those who hijacked the planes and crashed them into things.

People are not dying because Wikileaks releases stuff. People are dying
because other people are shooting them or blowing them up. Responsibility for
an action rests with those who carry out that action.

~~~
hugh3
Not really.

To take politics out of the equation, suppose this was a leak of all the
documents from the Witness Protection Program. Now all the information about
everyone who has ever informed on anyone within the US criminal underworld is
out in the open. If they get shot then _yes_ , the moral responsibility for
that shooting lies with the guy with the gun, but that doesn't absolve the
person who released the information from any moral liability.

~~~
sprout
In order to determine the morality of the hypothetical shooting, you must
establish who morally deserves sovereignty over Iraq and Afghanistan. (An
inherently political question.) If America deserves sovereignty, you're right,
it's like releasing documents from the WPP. If the insurgents have sovereignty
however, it's akin to releasing documents detailing a drug smuggling ring.

So in short, you ask us to take politics out of the equation, and quietly
assume your own politics as a given value.

------
superk
Not to be facetious... but the informants are using their real names?
Seriously? Does the DoD not pay in cash anymore?

------
dannyb
Assange is a real scumbag for risking people's lives. He claims his real
purpose is to protect against threats against democracy. Isn't it interesting
how he behaves when he gets a little bit of power - autocratic, capricious,
and meglomaniacal? I wonder what sort of behavior that he could rationalize in
the name of the greater good.

~~~
babeKnuth
so are all people that risk people's lives scumbags?

what if the people he releases info about are ones that risk more people's
lives than he does?

part of war is about putting your life at risk in order to preserve the lives
of many more. a small sacrifice for a larger one. if you don't like war, don't
participate in it.

~~~
dannyb
No, I think that Assange is a scumbag because he's a hypocrite.

~~~
babeKnuth
ummmm, you realize that's not what you said in your post?

~~~
dannyb
Are you really that literal?

My one sentence response contains a comma. The "No" is a response to your
query. The rest of the sentence does not in any way contradict what I said
before.

~~~
babeKnuth
literal about what? your explanation was poorly phrased, how was i to
interpolate what you really meant if you didn't clarify it fully? my parsing
of your sentence is valid, as is yours.

and i didn't say or intend to imply there was any contradiction. just pointing
out that you changed your "he's a scumbag because..." def'n. moving goalposts
(no matter how small) in a conversation typically isn't cool.

"Assange is a real scumbag for risking people's lives."

"I think that Assange is a scumbag because he's a hypocrite."

~~~
dannyb
Let's see: false dichotomy - check. Overly argumentative - check. Strawman
argument - check. Yup, I'm on the internet...

~~~
babeKnuth
we were on the internet before you had any of your "am i on the internet?"
criteria checked :)

just trying to have a conversation, not really interested in arguing (usually
futile, especially on the web/forums/etc.). if i'm missing something i didn't
see/understand, i'm always looking to find the error in my ways (it happens
often, hence i've learned to always be eager in engaging conversation, whether
on the streetcorners or the webs...).

what were the strawmen or false dichotomies?

i think all my points and questions were valid. i'm not sure if you're being
disingenuous and dismissive, or just afraid to concede that your rhetoric is
both unconvincing and (probably) wrong, or a combination of the two.

------
rwmj
Is there a link to the download / torrent?

