You're drinking kool-aid too, just a different brand. So far, the majority of the leaked documents simply complicate and frustrate the international community's diplomatic efforts. Some of these efforts are laudable, such as dealing with and containing unsavory characters (like Mugabe) or unsavory governments (Iran and North Korea). How does throwing a monkey wrench in these delicate, but necessary, machinations benefit the citizens of the world?
One positive note is the exposure of the pressure applied to the German government to not prosecute CIA agents in a kidnapping case. Perhaps there will be other documents in the same vein. But the scarcity of this kind of exposure highlights my fear: long gone are the days when WikiLeaks was the refuge of the whistle-blower, giving a voice to the powerless in the pursuit of truth, and hopefully, justice. If this were *still* WikiLeaks' core mission, then the latest dump would have separated the chaff (Merkle is a teflon politician, Putin is an alpha dog) and highlighted the documents that detail morally dubious and corrupt government action.
More and more, WikiLeaks is conflating 'secret' with 'malfeasance'. Also, it's raison d'etre now seems to be to bloody the nose of the American government more than anything else. And we're all the poorer for it.
1. No I'm not. I work with both military and civilian researchers that have gone to Afghanistan. In the open press (search through the NY Times archive) are accounts of field commanders working with villagers, tribal elders, and farmers to understand the "human terrain." This community cooperation was utilized in Iraq and has been chronicled in many unclassified sources.
2. You're assuming that the Afghans have a mature court system. They do not, as should be evident by even a cursory review of reports in the open press. Commanders have to weigh and cross-check the evidence gathered from sources while also protecting these sources from reprisal. This is not a court of law; it's a battlefield and the methods of gathering, processing, and prosecuting intelligence from the local populace reflects the different context. This should be self evident.
3. The Army does its best to protect secrets, but like any organization, there are those that for either ideological, venal, or plain stupid reasons leak classified information. To expect otherwise is to be naiive. In a position of trust, it is fairly easy to steal 100K documents if they are electronic and can be burned surreptitiously to a CD or DVD. Which is just what Bradley Manning did.
I generally support WikiLeaks, but in this case Julian Assange has published information that most likely will cost Afghans their lives. The Taliban have already threatened as much. What's really tragic is that this leaked information, again at the possible cost of human lives, does not substantially broaden the public's understanding of the Afghan war.
I must say that the nature and tone of your questions betray a fundamental lack of understanding of how intelligence in counter-insurgency operations is gathered and how classified material is used and distributed.
Worst yet, your characterization of Afghans that work with ISAF against the Taliban as Quislings betrays true ignorance (and bigotry) on your part.
The documents contain identities of Afghans who are providing information to us about the Taliban. The Taliban have issued a press release promising to extract the names from the documents and kill our sources.
There can be no question that WikiLeaks has done evil here - and not against American or NATO forces, but against Afghan civilians who merely wish to remain free of Taliban dictatorship.
Why isn't the US military just as evil or even more so for putting the names in the documents in the first place?
Are you purposely being obtuse?
The names are necessary for building cases against the Taliban militants and governors that are fighting American/NATO forces as well as terrorizing the civilian populace. The documents containing the names were classified *precisely* to safeguard them from prying eyes and those that would do the sources harm.
And remember that those who aided and abetted the US military can hardly be considered innocent civilians -- to the occupied, they are fifth colonists or worse: Quislings.
So, you blithely dismiss folks that are striving to keep the repressive Taliban regime from returning to power? Including fathers who want their daughters to go to school without fear of acid thrown in their face.
"Just about every intelligence agency on the planet said before the Afghan campaign that invading Afghanistan would not yield a positive result vis a vis terrorism.."
Err... WTF are *you* smoking? Most of the world supported the overthrow of the Taliban and the putting of Al Qaeda on the run. Revisionist history already? C'mon, this happened only 8 years ago!
The surge in actual book sales was probably due to the preference most people would have had (especially 10 years ago) to read the physical book rather than a digital copy on a desktop CRT screen. The pirated versions were effective marketing tools leading interested readers to the *real* product.
When (if?) e-readers become more ubiquitous, would authors still be so nonchalant about directing readers to pirated versions that are no different from the actual product?
You most likely misunderstood. As a daily Metro rider I can tell you that they have announcements requesting the use of headphones with portable electronic devices so as to not disturb fellow riders.
You're thinking and explanations are extremely muddled. I think you're basically saying that deterrence never works and are using murder as an example to prove it. Your first mistake is using murder as a standin for ALL crimes. Do you think tax evasion would increase or decrease if there were no penalties for it? Take looting as another example. Looting accompanies natural disasters and periods of societal collapse. Why? Because law enforcement is not there to catch and punish the perpetrators. Many other deterrence examples exist, inlcuding an increase in punishment for the use of certain firearms during the commision of a robbery. Some criminals take this into account and may not use lethal weapons for this very reason.
Of course deterrence is not effective in crimes of passion. Any human caught up in the heat of the moment will not think through the consequences of their actions. More to the point, do you for one moment believe that if the the penalty for murder were significantly lessened that the rate premeditated murder would not rise? Or murders that occurred during kidnapping? Don't you think that kidnappers think twice about their crime given that, if their victim dies, they may be charged with a capital offense?
One other point... murder has NOT been wrong in all societies that ever existed. Even a casual review of history would show this. A quick refresher: Aztec human sacrifices, Killing slaves, Russian pogroms, Killing Native Americans, Khmer Rouge, etc. (I left out the most famous example to keep from invoking Godwin's Law). In these societies, murder was OK because there were neither the human rights values nor the comcommitnt punishment associated with the killing of certain groups. These two things go hand in hand. Why is it that as soon as a society comes to the realization that a group of people have been disenfranchised, laws are passed that acknowledge this fact and enforce compliance. Just because a society undergoes a value change does not ensure behavior modification follows. Enforcement is necessary. Kids understand this principle... what's so difficult about it?
At least the parent post wasn't modded insightful.
Punishment serves at least two purposes: Deterrence and Fair Restitution. How would either of those be served, and how could the concept of justice survive, if punishment is consistently less than the crime? Without this parity, justice would be a joke.
The problem with sharia law is that the punishments are completely out of line with the crime. Moreover, all members of society under sharia law are not treated equally. Although in the US we fail this particular test from time-to-time, there is at least the notion of equality under the law.
Instability in society is attributable to the fact that it's members are, for the most part, self-centered beings consumed with their own pleasure. Punishment, if meted out correctly, can serve as a counterbalance.
I agree with your assessment that Hawking's intent was to make an analogy.
However, you make a leap of logic in declaring that 'branes' are merely concepts. Abstract concepts, such as arithmetic, are useful in *describing* phenomena and in extending our knowledge of what is observable. In the end they are descriptive frameworks, *not* agents of cause. The alternative classificiation of 'branes' being physical of course leads the question you alluded to, but this still makes more sense than positing that an abstract concept gave birth to the universe. (Actually, that sounds like theology...)
The Nazis had designs for completely conquering Europe and becoming out-and-out occupiers. The US has no such ambitions and has publicly stated time and again that they have no interest in staying long-term in Iraq. Iraqis clashing with the US armed forces and the elected government do not deserve the positive connotation of resistance fighter... they are misguided at best, thugs at worst.
The swag analogy is completely wrong. Although the legal issues surrounding piggybacking on a wireless network are nuanced, the ethical issue is clear cut. It's plain wrong.
Companies put out swag knowing full well that many will take it without purchasing the product. Their primary intent is to advertise and gain name recognition.
A coffeshop owner is providing their network as a service to their paying customers. It is not their intent (unless they are extremely altruistic) to provide free network access to just anyone. Neither is it the intent of my neighbor to provide me with access; the fact that I *could* is a byproduct of the medium and his own negligence in adminstering it properly. Would it be ethical to take advantage of this? Absolutely not.
A better analogy would be coming a across an unattended buffet table. Would you (should you) take food was not intended for you? No, of course not.
Just because you're in a legally gray area or in a situation where you can take advantage of someone's ignorance does not mean you have an ethical green light. Quite the opposite.
Why is it so difficult to judge the intent of the provider and act accordingly? Imagine a world where we all took this into account rather than looking for ethical/legal loopholes to take advantage of one another.
Slashdot Mirror
You're drinking kool-aid too, just a different brand. So far, the majority of the leaked documents simply complicate and frustrate the international community's diplomatic efforts. Some of these efforts are laudable, such as dealing with and containing unsavory characters (like Mugabe) or unsavory governments (Iran and North Korea). How does throwing a monkey wrench in these delicate, but necessary, machinations benefit the citizens of the world?
One positive note is the exposure of the pressure applied to the German government to not prosecute CIA agents in a kidnapping case. Perhaps there will be other documents in the same vein. But the scarcity of this kind of exposure highlights my fear: long gone are the days when WikiLeaks was the refuge of the whistle-blower, giving a voice to the powerless in the pursuit of truth, and hopefully, justice. If this were *still* WikiLeaks' core mission, then the latest dump would have separated the chaff (Merkle is a teflon politician, Putin is an alpha dog) and highlighted the documents that detail morally dubious and corrupt government action.
More and more, WikiLeaks is conflating 'secret' with 'malfeasance'. Also, it's raison d'etre now seems to be to bloody the nose of the American government more than anything else. And we're all the poorer for it.
Well said.
1. No I'm not. I work with both military and civilian researchers that have gone to Afghanistan. In the open press (search through the NY Times archive) are accounts of field commanders working with villagers, tribal elders, and farmers to understand the "human terrain." This community cooperation was utilized in Iraq and has been chronicled in many unclassified sources.
2. You're assuming that the Afghans have a mature court system. They do not, as should be evident by even a cursory review of reports in the open press. Commanders have to weigh and cross-check the evidence gathered from sources while also protecting these sources from reprisal. This is not a court of law; it's a battlefield and the methods of gathering, processing, and prosecuting intelligence from the local populace reflects the different context. This should be self evident.
3. The Army does its best to protect secrets, but like any organization, there are those that for either ideological, venal, or plain stupid reasons leak classified information. To expect otherwise is to be naiive. In a position of trust, it is fairly easy to steal 100K documents if they are electronic and can be burned surreptitiously to a CD or DVD. Which is just what Bradley Manning did.
I generally support WikiLeaks, but in this case Julian Assange has published information that most likely will cost Afghans their lives. The Taliban have already threatened as much. What's really tragic is that this leaked information, again at the possible cost of human lives, does not substantially broaden the public's understanding of the Afghan war.
I must say that the nature and tone of your questions betray a fundamental lack of understanding of how intelligence in counter-insurgency operations is gathered and how classified material is used and distributed.
Worst yet, your characterization of Afghans that work with ISAF against the Taliban as Quislings betrays true ignorance (and bigotry) on your part.
Why isn't the US military just as evil or even more so for putting the names in the documents in the first place?
Are you purposely being obtuse?
The names are necessary for building cases against the Taliban militants and governors that are fighting American/NATO forces as well as terrorizing the civilian populace. The documents containing the names were classified *precisely* to safeguard them from prying eyes and those that would do the sources harm.
And remember that those who aided and abetted the US military can hardly be considered innocent civilians -- to the occupied, they are fifth colonists or worse: Quislings.
So, you blithely dismiss folks that are striving to keep the repressive Taliban regime from returning to power? Including fathers who want their daughters to go to school without fear of acid thrown in their face.
Really?
"Just about every intelligence agency on the planet said before the Afghan campaign that invading Afghanistan would not yield a positive result vis a vis terrorism.."
Err... WTF are *you* smoking? Most of the world supported the overthrow of the Taliban and the putting of Al Qaeda on the run. Revisionist history already? C'mon, this happened only 8 years ago!
The surge in actual book sales was probably due to the preference most people would have had (especially 10 years ago) to read the physical book rather than a digital copy on a desktop CRT screen. The pirated versions were effective marketing tools leading interested readers to the *real* product.
When (if?) e-readers become more ubiquitous, would authors still be so nonchalant about directing readers to pirated versions that are no different from the actual product?
You most likely misunderstood. As a daily Metro rider I can tell you that they have announcements requesting the use of headphones with portable electronic devices so as to not disturb fellow riders.
And that video has been universally decried ....
Universally? Sources please...
The subject was NOT handcuffed when he was tasered. He was tasered because he refused to be cuffed and refused to comply with officers' entreaties.
You're thinking and explanations are extremely muddled. I think you're basically saying that deterrence never works and are using murder as an example to prove it. Your first mistake is using murder as a standin for ALL crimes. Do you think tax evasion would increase or decrease if there were no penalties for it? Take looting as another example. Looting accompanies natural disasters and periods of societal collapse. Why? Because law enforcement is not there to catch and punish the perpetrators. Many other deterrence examples exist, inlcuding an increase in punishment for the use of certain firearms during the commision of a robbery. Some criminals take this into account and may not use lethal weapons for this very reason.
Of course deterrence is not effective in crimes of passion. Any human caught up in the heat of the moment will not think through the consequences of their actions. More to the point, do you for one moment believe that if the the penalty for murder were significantly lessened that the rate premeditated murder would not rise? Or murders that occurred during kidnapping? Don't you think that kidnappers think twice about their crime given that, if their victim dies, they may be charged with a capital offense?
One other point... murder has NOT been wrong in all societies that ever existed. Even a casual review of history would show this. A quick refresher: Aztec human sacrifices, Killing slaves, Russian pogroms, Killing Native Americans, Khmer Rouge, etc. (I left out the most famous example to keep from invoking Godwin's Law). In these societies, murder was OK because there were neither the human rights values nor the comcommitnt punishment associated with the killing of certain groups. These two things go hand in hand. Why is it that as soon as a society comes to the realization that a group of people have been disenfranchised, laws are passed that acknowledge this fact and enforce compliance. Just because a society undergoes a value change does not ensure behavior modification follows. Enforcement is necessary. Kids understand this principle... what's so difficult about it?
At least the parent post wasn't modded insightful.
Punishment serves at least two purposes: Deterrence and Fair Restitution. How would either of those be served, and how could the concept of justice survive, if punishment is consistently less than the crime? Without this parity, justice would be a joke.
The problem with sharia law is that the punishments are completely out of line with the crime. Moreover, all members of society under sharia law are not treated equally. Although in the US we fail this particular test from time-to-time, there is at least the notion of equality under the law.
Instability in society is attributable to the fact that it's members are, for the most part, self-centered beings consumed with their own pleasure. Punishment, if meted out correctly, can serve as a counterbalance.
I agree with your assessment that Hawking's intent was to make an analogy. However, you make a leap of logic in declaring that 'branes' are merely concepts. Abstract concepts, such as arithmetic, are useful in *describing* phenomena and in extending our knowledge of what is observable. In the end they are descriptive frameworks, *not* agents of cause. The alternative classificiation of 'branes' being physical of course leads the question you alluded to, but this still makes more sense than positing that an abstract concept gave birth to the universe. (Actually, that sounds like theology...)
Ridiculous.
The Nazis had designs for completely conquering Europe and becoming out-and-out occupiers. The US has no such ambitions and has publicly stated time and again that they have no interest in staying long-term in Iraq. Iraqis clashing with the US armed forces and the elected government do not deserve the positive connotation of resistance fighter... they are misguided at best, thugs at worst.
The swag analogy is completely wrong. Although the legal issues surrounding piggybacking on a wireless network are nuanced, the ethical issue is clear cut. It's plain wrong.
Companies put out swag knowing full well that many will take it without purchasing the product. Their primary intent is to advertise and gain name recognition.
A coffeshop owner is providing their network as a service to their paying customers. It is not their intent (unless they are extremely altruistic) to provide free network access to just anyone. Neither is it the intent of my neighbor to provide me with access; the fact that I *could* is a byproduct of the medium and his own negligence in adminstering it properly. Would it be ethical to take advantage of this? Absolutely not.
A better analogy would be coming a across an unattended buffet table. Would you (should you) take food was not intended for you? No, of course not.
Just because you're in a legally gray area or in a situation where you can take advantage of someone's ignorance does not mean you have an ethical green light. Quite the opposite.
Why is it so difficult to judge the intent of the provider and act accordingly? Imagine a world where we all took this into account rather than looking for ethical/legal loopholes to take advantage of one another.