92,000 classified military documents leaked

[Meekychuppet]

Meeky- I find it interesting that you feel that you are qualified to comment on, or have the right of access to 'everything'- is that what you mean?

Rather like laymen doing surgery, isn't it?

If the surgery is done without consent and without the knowledge of the public.

Oh wait, the Americans did that too...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You said you didn't care when they died since they were going to die away, and were already dying. That, in my book, is fucked up.

No I didn't. I said that the argument that people will die because of this is spurious when people are dying anyway. Openness is always a restraint on government, and I am quite certain that, in UK at least, the body count would be far less had we had the facts. Truth is that we would never have gone to war.

How is what you just said different from what I said? It appears irrelevant to you that people will be killed specifically because of this information, and there's every likelihood that will happen, justified by information in the leaked papers or not. I know this because I've seen it happen before, at least twice in widely separated countries. (One of which was putatively more "civilized" than the region under discussion.)

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Meeky- I find it interesting that you feel that you are qualified to comment on, or have the right of access to 'everything'- is that what you mean?

Rather like laymen doing surgery, isn't it?

If the surgery is done without consent and without the knowledge of the public.

Oh wait, the Americans did that too...

Oh good, another red herring. Got some mustard sauce?

[Ian]

The simple fact is you can't trust the general public with this information because we don't know what to do with it.

Why? Because you say so?

Because the general public still think vaccines cause autism.
What the fuck does the general public know about using information?

Whoa, slow down there son. The general public? Can you prove that?

You're a member of the general public. Are you telling me that you can't handle information?

Not the kind that requires training and experience to deal with.

Or is the entire populous qualified to pass professional judgement on, say, a medical journal?

Or on national security information? Nevermind it even being a fraction of that information.

The good news in all thi is that the reports are all six years to six months old. Nothing too fresh. But that's not the point. The general public has absolutely no right to know everything that's been passed in confidence between military commands or on diplomatic channels. To even think otherwise is incredibly naive.

How about the public getting to review messages involving undercover operatives in a Mexican drug cartel? Or a classified assessment of weak points of an Air Force base in Turkey? Or a disparaging biography of a foreign leader with whom your country nevertheless needs to continue relations. Is "national security" nothing more than an abstract concept to you?

Meeky, I'd beg you to accept that my argument is not based upon an ideology, but on the fact that I understand these matters a lot better than you do.

[Trolldor]

In every instance and every case where the 'public' has asked for information, it's actually been a handful of qualified and informed individuals who have dealt with it. Everyone else just goes "Rabble rabble rabble".

[Meekychuppet]

Meeky- I find it interesting that you feel that you are qualified to comment on, or have the right of access to 'everything'- is that what you mean?

Rather like laymen doing surgery, isn't it?

If the surgery is done without consent and without the knowledge of the public.

Oh wait, the Americans did that too...

Oh good, another red herring. Got some mustard sauce?

You brought it up, not me.

[Meekychuppet]

You said you didn't care when they died since they were going to die away, and were already dying. That, in my book, is fucked up.

No I didn't. I said that the argument that people will die because of this is spurious when people are dying anyway. Openness is always a restraint on government, and I am quite certain that, in UK at least, the body count would be far less had we had the facts. Truth is that we would never have gone to war.

How is what you just said different from what I said? It appears irrelevant to you that people will be killed specifically because of this information, and there's every likelihood that will happen, justified by information in the leaked papers or not. I know this because I've seen it happen before, at least twice in widely separated countries. (One of which was putatively more "civilized" than the region under discussion.)

The argument that this would cost lives only holds water if people aren't being killed in droves anyway. The fact is they are, and USA lied about it for a reason.

[Coito ergo sum]

Whether more or fewer people will die depends on the kind of information disclosed. It's possible disclosure will save lives. It's possible disclosure will disclose atrocities, and become a restraint on bad conduct. It's also possible that the information could be of a kind that would save lives, and allow NATO to finally get things resolved over there.

I think it can't be categorically stated that the release of the information is good, or bad. It depends on the information. The problem here is that someone grabbed 92,000 pages of documents and willy-nilly, recklessly, published them without regard for what kind of information was actually contained in them.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Meeky- I find it interesting that you feel that you are qualified to comment on, or have the right of access to 'everything'- is that what you mean?

Rather like laymen doing surgery, isn't it?

If the surgery is done without consent and without the knowledge of the public.

Oh wait, the Americans did that too...

Oh good, another red herring. Got some mustard sauce?

You brought it up, not me.

Not the red herring, I didn't.

[Meekychuppet]

Or on national security information? Nevermind it even being a fraction of that information.

Give us the rest of it then.

The good news in all thi is that the reports are all six years to six months old. Nothing too fresh. But that's not the point. The general public has absolutely no right to know everything that's been passed in confidence between military commands or on diplomatic channels. To even think otherwise is incredibly naive.

We own it. We pay for it. If you want people to accept your privacy then pay your own stationery bill.

How about the public getting to review messages involving undercover operatives in a Mexican drug cartel? Or a classified assessment of weak points of an Air Force base in Turkey? Or a disparaging biography of a foreign leader with whom your country nevertheless needs to continue relations. Is "national security" nothing more than an abstract concept to you?

Why not?

Meeky, I'd beg you to accept that my argument is not based upon an ideology, but on the fact that I understand these matters a lot better than you do.

You only understand them because you have access to them. This is just an argument from authority. Additionally, you also are arguing from an ideological standpoint, one of authoritarianism.

[Meekychuppet]

Not the red herring, I didn't.

You did. You made an analogy that has nothing to do with the issue. If you don't want to talk about that then don't post it.

[Coito ergo sum]

We own it. We pay for it. If you want people to accept your privacy then pay your own stationery bill.

Would you have supported a leak of the plans for the invasion of Normandy?

[Rum]

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Not the red herring, I didn't.

You did. You made an analogy that has nothing to do with the issue. If you don't want to talk about that then don't post it.

The analogy was good, even if you missed the point.

[Trolldor]

I wish people would stop saying the argument from authority is an automatic fallacy.
It's not.