undefined | Better HN

0 pointsAsyncAwait5y ago0 comments

> Wikileaks made a request to the US government that it had to know the US government would refuse (for the reason I gave in my other post in response to you upthread). It did that so it could disingenuously claim that it gave the US government a chance to protect people's names and the US government refused, making it seem like it's the US government's fault

It's the U.S. government who committed war crimes here and used secrecy to conceal their crimes. Of course it's the U.S. government's fault. The option to not commit war crimes and use the secrets act to conceal it was there. They didn't take it.

The U.S. Government proved it will use 'top secret' to hide not only information that is actually top secret but also information that is embarrassing. This would be a pretty clear motivator for the Pentagon not to respond and for WikiLeaks to go ahead with the publication.

> Wikileaks could have published that information without publishing anyone's name.

No. Names as such are vital. It lets you know WHO needs to be held accountable. Most leaks are published with names in them. There are names that the U.S. government could have suggested (not demand) to be redacted and WikiLeaks could have agreed to either some or all of the requests. They refused to cooperate. It's pretty clearly on them.

I also love how the people exposing war crimes are getting more heat that the actual war criminals who never spent a day behind bars. Speaks volumes.

0 comments

pdonis5y ago

> it's the U.S. government's fault

Even if the US government is at fault, that still doesn't mean Wikileaks can't also be at fault. Two wrongs don't make a right.

> Names as such are vital. It lets you know WHO needs to be held accountable.

Names of US government officials who made decisions that are being questioned, perhaps.

Names of people in other countries with oppressive regimes, who passed on information on the understanding that their names would be kept confidential, no.

AsyncAwaitOP5y ago

> Even if the US government is at fault, that still doesn't mean Wikileaks can't also be at fault. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Between the two wrongs, am going to focus on the one where the most powerful military on Earth guns down civilians & journalists. Especially given Julian has already paid dearly for exposing what we should have known. The war criminals themselves haven't spent a day behind bars.

> Names of people in other countries with oppressive regimes, who passed on information on the understanding that their names would be kept confidential, no.

WikiLeaks asked for these names so they can redact them. The Pentagon refused. This is on them, as are the war crimes themselves.

pdonis5y ago

> Julian has already paid dearly

IMO this would actually be a valid argument--Assange has already effectively served a sentence even though he hasn't been officially tried--but Assange's defense apparently did not make it.\

I note, btw, that this kind of consideration (as well as other considerations you have raised) is also one that a US President could take into account in deciding whether or not to pardon Assange. Do you think the President should do that?

pdonis5y ago

> WikiLeaks asked for these names so they can redact them.

No, they asked for those names knowing that the US government couldn't possibly give them since that would expose the identities of people who would then be put at risk of their lives. In other words, they purposely put the US government in a "heads I win, tails you lose" situation. As I've already said upthread.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

pdonis5y ago

> it's the U.S. government's fault

Even if the US government is at fault, that still doesn't mean Wikileaks can't also be at fault. Two wrongs don't make a right.

> Names as such are vital. It lets you know WHO needs to be held accountable.

Names of US government officials who made decisions that are being questioned, perhaps.

Names of people in other countries with oppressive regimes, who passed on information on the understanding that their names would be kept confidential, no.

AsyncAwaitOP5y ago

> Even if the US government is at fault, that still doesn't mean Wikileaks can't also be at fault. Two wrongs don't make a right.

> Names of people in other countries with oppressive regimes, who passed on information on the understanding that their names would be kept confidential, no.

WikiLeaks asked for these names so they can redact them. The Pentagon refused. This is on them, as are the war crimes themselves.

pdonis5y ago

> Julian has already paid dearly

IMO this would actually be a valid argument--Assange has already effectively served a sentence even though he hasn't been officially tried--but Assange's defense apparently did not make it.\

pdonis5y ago

> WikiLeaks asked for these names so they can redact them.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse