When pressed, Julian Assange cannot guarantee that the leaked "War Logs" won't cost lives

[Turborama]

There is an awful amount of material here that you couldn't have looked through personally. Could it cost lives? Is it putting people in danger publishing this?
We've gone through the material and reviewed it and looked for cases where innocent informers, ie an old man saying next door there is a Taliban, or what he believes is Taliban, so we've looked for those cases and there's a particular type of report that frequently has that - those have been withheld and also the source says they have done some work in doing this as well. So I think it's unlikely that that will happen. We've worked hard to make sure there's not a significant chance of anybody coming to harm.

But you can't guarantee it?
Any information can be abused for another purpose so we can't guarantee it. But our understanding of the material is that it's vastly more likely to save lives than cost lives.

Is there anything in there that can threaten national security?
We have to be extremely careful of this term that has been abused over the years - national security is something that is about the security of the nation. There is nothing in this material that threatens US security. I would go so far as to say there is no information that can currently threaten the security of the US as an entire nation. If you're talking about individuals - soldiers, a company - it's a different story. But we should be careful when we use the term.


From his interview with Britain's Channel 4 News: http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/international_politics/afghan+leak+wikileaks+julian+assange+tells+all/3723392

[Warren Stupidity]

1. our understanding of the material is that it's vastly more likely to save lives than cost lives.

You obviously have a problem with wikileaks. Would you prefer to remain ignorant, restricted to the diet of information bullshit doled out from our government and the corporate media?

[Turborama]

3. No, I don't have a problem with Wikileaks per se

I am concerned that this release has not gone through enough due dilligence to ensure that it wouldn't cost lives, though.

"our understanding of the material is that it's vastly more likely to save lives than cost lives"

That's a guesstimate. Not good enough when he's releasing information that could lead to people's deaths.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. you do understand that we are killing people every day in our stupid wars?

Is that part of you equation of harm here?

How exactly do you evaluate the 'due diligence' that wikileaks has done? What are your criteria?

[Turborama]

9. Are you putting a lot of faith into this release stopping the war?

If not, how exactly would it save lives rather than cost them?

It sure seems like Julian is. If that gamble doesn't pay off and more people die than would have if this hadn't been released he will have blood on his hands?


To answer your question, my idea of due diligence is not releasing it until he can say.

"We've worked hard to make sure there's no chance of anybody coming to harm"

Not

"We've worked hard to make sure there's not a significant chance of anybody coming to harm."

Why do you want this war to end? To save lives? To save money? Both?

[pocoloco]

10. Oh, you mean exactly like when we send out a drone,

we make absolutely sure no civilians will be harmed?

[Turborama]

13. No, I don't. We're not talking about the rights or wrongs of sending out drones

We're talking about what Julian actually said about how careful he was when considering whether the release of these documents would cause more deaths.

This should be quite easy to understand...

"We've worked hard to make sure there's no chance of anybody coming to harm" is due diligence.



"We've worked hard to make sure there's not a significant chance of anybody coming to harm" is not.



Why do you want this war to end? To save lives? To save money? Both?

[Warren Stupidity]

14. I put faith in an informed citizenry.

That faith may be misplaced, but I go with 'let the truth be known' every time. I find no credible argument here that this information is causing any harm other than the embarrassment of having yet another failed war revealed in its dismal details.

If you wish to make the case that there is specific information in the release that is going to cause people to be physically harmed, do so. So far all you have done is claim that the release is wrong because it might cause some nebulous harm. By that standard we should have no news reporting at all.

[Turborama]

16. "So far" what I have done is show concern that Julian cannot promise

the information he has released is guaranteed not to cost more lives.

[Warren Stupidity]

22. so far you have not even tried to demonstrate that it would

and without a clear and compelling case for harm there is no reason to suppress free speech. The onus us on you to make the case for suppression.

[Hawkowl]

26. So you are pro murdering civilians?

No? Oh, so you are just pro-covering up the deaths of children and old folks? No? You just don't want to be told about US forces wantonly killing women and children, because in a purported democracy you would be culpable (yes, partially culpable. We all are).

In a democracy, where the majority gives approval for widespread, state sponsored murder and mayhem, do you think a free press is necessary to keep the government honest as in Vietnam (with nightly uncensored coverage) or do you prefer the sanitized, no news, not even viewing the returning of the caskets to Dover? Which variation on freedom of the press and freedom of access to information is going to save more lives? What will save more innocent lives?

There are no guarantees about ANYTHING (except we all die). So you can not assert that the leaks can guarantee either costing more or costing less lives. In fact it could be that it costs more lives, but far fewer innocent lives? Now which side are you on?

Your post and assertion is more than a little simplistic and even though you'd like to keep the question simple, reality is complicated--except that we all will die.

[Turborama]

31. Of course not.

I'm pro people being careful about danger to human lives when they release information, whoever they are. If we're going to make this about me personally, if I had some information and there was any possibility of people dying if I released it without thoroughly going through it and making sure there would be no danger to human life, I would not release it.

It really is that simple.

[Hawkowl]

40. Not so simple

Because what if by not releasing the information, MORE people die. See people are going to die in the war not matter what you do. If one has an ethical obligation to minimize the number of dead innocents, even though it may end up killing some of your "own", what is your ethical choice?

That is the point I'm trying to make. By releasing the secrets, yes more of "our" side may be killed in the short term, but if it shortens the war significantly, it may save far more lives of all sides.

My point is not to pass judgment on the leaking of the secrets, but to illustrate what factors make it a moral dilemma.

[Turborama]

41. You're right, it is a moral dilemma with a lot of ifs and buts

I'm just setting out my hypothetical position that I wouldn't release them until there were no "what if this meant x, y or z would die?" dilemmas in any of the documents I had in my control. That's why I couldn't work for WikiLeaks.

I actually started this thread to engender a debate on the moral dilemmas that the release of these documents bring up. There are sure to be negative and positive unintended consequences and Julian has obviously veered on the side of the positive. I'm not so sure that the positive intended and unintended consequences for the Afghan people and our troops won't be weighed out by the negatives, though. Only time will tell now Julian has made his gamble and the genie is out of the bottle.

[GodlessBiker]

5. Isn't the statement that the release may cost lives also a guesstimate?

[Vinnie From Indy]

6. Really?

It is astonishing to read that some such as yourself put forth a hyper-sensitive concern about the danger these documents MIGHT pose to the lives of some people while seeming to ignore the truckloads of ACTUAL dead bodies that this war is causing every week. These documents may actually save far more lives than they endanger.

[Turborama]

11. In answer to this question: "Would you prefer to remain ignorant

, restricted to the diet of information bullshit doled out from our government and the corporate media?"

That's a false premise, seeing as to "remain ignorant and restricted" I'd have to be in that condition already.

See here for just the latest example of how I question sources of information wherever it comes from: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x388592

I am skeptical about all sources of information, even WikiLeaks.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. hmm.. so now you are claiming that this dangerous information is bullshit too?

You started out in your OP claiming that the wikileaks release was too dangerous, and now when asked if you would prefer instead to not have this information, to be more ignorant than you would be without it, counter with 'it's bullshit too'. So which is it? Are the wikileaks dangerous information that should be suppressed, or bullshit of no consequence?


Oddly, the administration has uttered pretty much the same talking points. Dangerous truth! Dubious bullshit!

[Turborama]

15. Quote me where I said "it's bullshit too", please.

You're being dishonest in your characterization of what I'm saying.

I started out in my OP "claiming" nothing. I directly quoted Julian Assange.

I later said: I am skeptical of all sources of information, including Wikileaks.

I'll add that I am as skeptical about Julian's motives as I am about anyone else's.

What, because it comes from WikiLeaks you don't have any skepticism?

[Warren Stupidity]

23. I am not simultaneously claiming that this information

should be suppressed unless it can be proven to cause no harm and claiming that the suppression of this information is not a loss because it is of dubious value. I have indeed restated your case for clarity as you appear to be reluctant to do so yourself.

[Turborama]

29. Can you read English, or are you using Babel Fish?

You haven't restated my "case", you're just continuously mischaracterizing my "case".

I haven't "claimed" it "should be suppressed unless it can be be proven to cause no harm". I have expressed concern that it appears Julian released these documents without reviewing them thoroughly enough.

I haven't "claimed" anything about the "value" of this information, you're just making shit up again there.

I find it supremely ironic that someone who seems to want to stop the war to save lives is attacking me and twisting my words around like a Faux news anchor for expressing my concerns about the premature release of this information potentially costing lives.


Why won't you answer this question?

What, because it comes from WikiLeaks you don't have any skepticism?

Or this one?

Why do you want this war to end? To save lives? To save money? Both?

(typo edit)

[earthside]

2. Secrecy Costs Lives.

And secrecy destroys democracy and freedom.

War cost lives. Unnecessary wars cost lives. Escalation costs lives.

Thank god for Daniel Ellsberg forty years ago and thank god for Wikileaks now.

[avaistheone1]

18. +1,000,000,000,000

[Smarmie Doofus]

7. It has elements of a classic moral dilemma. *Not* leaking them "may cost lives" also.

But not much of one. Assessing the situation as a whole, it ... publishing the material...seems infinitely more likely to save lives than "cost" them.


But I can understand the DOD et al hiding behind the "may cost lives" thingie.

What else... fer pete's sake... are they going to say?

[Bragi]

8. Obama's war is costing far more lives

If we are to compare these two, then I'm sad to say that Obama's body count in Afghanistan will exceed that of Assange by numerous orders of magnitude.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

17. Daniel Ellsberg ended the Vietnam War

and who knows what Wikileaks has the potential to do. Unfortunately many of us want to bury our heads in the sand and trust that the President is doing the right thing. Not me.

[jody]

19. And the Obama administration cannot guarantee it will not save lives. n/t

[TheKentuckian]

20. There are no guarantees in life but truth is mandatory

to a functioning democracy.

The excuses are repugnant and deadly dangerous.

[hulka38]

21. How is he supposed to guarantee that Turborama?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

24. I can't guarantee that my farts won't cause WWIII

either.

[donco6]

25. Starting unjustified wars kills people.

So let's not do that anymore.

[Turborama]

38. Very true. n/t

[BootinUp]

27. There are no revelations of great import with regard to the war effort

only on the ground details which "could" put lives at risk.

Not the popular position at DU but still a fact.

[TheKentuckian]

28. Bring em home then, they'll be safe as you or me.

[golfguru]

30. The unholy alliance with Pakistan is already costing lives

The Wikileaks has exposed what is well known, that the Pakistani gov't is
helping the Taliban insurgents, while cashing in $Billions of US aid.

After all Taliban is a creation of Pakistan's intelligence services.
No one ever kills their own progeny.

[IndianaGreen]

32. If you really wanted to save lives, you would be demanding an end to all these wars

Not just in Iraq and Af/Pak, but in the other 73 countries in which we are militarily involved to one extent or another.

[vaberella]

33. But it could put US soldiers in an even more precarious and dangerous atmosphere.

Thanks for letting me know.

[IndianaGreen]

34. Bomb Iran, or let Israel bomb Iran, and you will see our GIs

in a clusterchuck of "precarious and dangerous" atmospheres.

[vaberella]

37. Dude, it doesn't matter what we do.

This war is just not ending since we joined it. We leave, we'll be coming back in because we'll be leaving the region to these fuckers who are set out to take us out. And they will always get new recruits because of our actions or past actions. Even the Dems in office don't make sense and no one here who says, "Get our troops out now." makes sense to me because we'll be going right back in. It's like just delaying the inevitable. We should have nipped this before Bush threw us in, because I just can't us seeing leaving Afghanistan with a corrupt and utterly crippled government and with neighboring nations too weak to hold them off on their own who happen to have nuclear weapons---Pakistan. Just by mentioning Israel we have another issue. This is a mess and I blame Bush and his cronies for it and I don't see ANYONE with a damned clue on how to end this. One that makes sense anyway. Unless we got nuts and bomb Afghanistan out of the map like the right wing would love to do---like that would change anything----and we'd have more innocent lives. It's a mess.

[Jennicut]

35. Eh, is there really anything new and explosive in these documents?

Only some of us Americans remain ignorant to the civilian deaths. Maybe the info on Pakistan?
Will any of this shake up the public enough to put pressure on President Obama to bring to troops home earlier? I don't know. It is such a weird angle the media has to take here because they are never ever on the very liberal side of anything. They are to the right of a moderate President most of the time. Time will tell but I have no problem with the documents coming out. I will just say Obama should have listened to certain people in his administration instead of others. I hope he gets that eventually.

[boppers]

36. There are some puzzle pieces that people didn't know about being confirmed..

For example, the Taliban are using much more advanced weaponry than published, the anti-IED devices are crap, raids attributed to the Afghan Army were actually US operations, that the US has assassination teams, that the US was piloting air attacks from Nevada, that there are far more frequent civilian casualties on both sides than published in western media....

Nothing that an astute information seeker wouldn't already know about, but it's all collected into one place, and many "rumors" now have somewhat official documentation for their origins.

[ChiciB1]

39. So??? We're KILLING People Now Anyway!! Thanks Wikileaks... Keep

the PRESSURE ON!! Killing is Killing, but KILLING for PROFIT is worse than exposing said KILLING and trying to STOP IT!!

It may very well cause some KILLING, but THERE IS A DISTINCTION about WHO wants to continue and WHO wants it to STOP!!

And don't get me started on the WASTE OF MONEY!!

[jamalhernandez]

42. The Pentagon contradicts your concern

"Pentagon still reviewing records, but so far finds no threat to U.S. security"

"An ongoing Pentagon review of the massive flood of secret documents made public by the WikiLeaks website has so far found no evidence that the disclosure harmed U.S. national security or endangered American troops in the field, a Pentagon official told NBC News on Monday." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38417666/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia

[Turborama]

44. That was on Monday and was an, "as far as we know" statement.

Things have changed since then: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4481920

[area51]

43. I'll tell you what will cost lives.

Continuing Obama's two wars of choice.