Meh, countries know they spy on each other. Sometimes they even use those processes to move information, just a different version of Nixon’s “For god’s sake, would someone leak this already?”
Leaking sources and/or methods gets people killed. Good people often living in terrible places and circumstances, many of them. Maybe most. It also makes good information more difficult to come by for a long time.
Nations spying on nations (even allies) feels terrible but in practice is probably a net good for all. It reduces uncertainty, and uncertainty has historically been a major trigger for armed conflict as one side feared the other side was preparing to strike, so struck first to gain the initiative in case their fears were well-founded. History has shown that judgment to be inaccurate in some significant cases. Wars have also been avoided by good intel.
On the non-kinetic side, espionage better informs policymakers as international agreements are forged and followed. Uncertainty between nations is generally a bad thing for both nations.
We badly need to address nations spying on their own citizens, especially reciprocity arrangements to circumvent restrictions on such. But pending an unlikely utopia of humans all learning how to cooperate at scale for the first time in human history, nations spying on nations is probably a good thing for the planet.
This is extremely important in the context of India and Pakistan. The spy networks of each country in the other are part of the reason why the two have not been at it in a full blown war in recent years.
The only instance of Hanssen causing deaths seem to be when he exposed "Martynov and Motorin" to be working for the FBI. They were arrested, tried, convicted and executed by the Soviet government.
Getting corrupt spies to be exposed doesn't really seem to be a great datum to back your argument. He might have actually saved more lives indirectly since he stopped them from leaking secret Soviet information to the US. Anything else?
What's the strongest argument you have against the evidence presented? Your personal convincing isn't really pertinent to the fact that the example given fits the request: someone killed as a result of an intel leak.
> the example given fits the request: someone killed as a result of an intel leak
Two corrupt spies being regularly tried and executed is definitely not "tons troughout history". That was your claim, not "someone killed as a result of an intel leak", and if all you have is other spies dying then I don't have any problem with it.
What I would have a problem with is civilian deaths resulting from leaks, but for what I see generally leaks reveal more often unauthorized civilian killings than they cause them.
but which do not actually matter here, because the example presented satisfied the condition of a person killed due to an intel leak:
- whether you agree with the killing
- whether it is 2 or 2 million
- what their profession is
- whether they are civilians
- whether you personally think they're corrupt
- what you personally have a problem with
literally none of your above views matter to the question here, because the question was whether an intel leak has ever gotten people killed (meaning >1), not "what do you, a random person on the internet, think about the fact that intel leaks have gotten people killed"
QED. anything else? Maybe the killings doesn't count because it's Tuesday, or some other new silly exclusionary criteria you made up?
The purpose of the comment section is to elucidate ideas. It's not for playing stupid one-upping games.
I'm asking for stronger evidence because the example provided is not very good given the obvious vocational risk with being a spy. Presumably there are stronger examples available.
Also, whistleblower policy has been a subject of presidential campaigns (Obama 2008). Fixating on a false choice is going to draw the ire of many who have written books and debating this topic at great depth and length.
as it turns out, no "stronger" evidence is needed of >1 people of any type being killed as a result of an intelligence leak, since very good examples were already presented
sorry you don't like the people in the examples (or maybe just don't like how they prove the claim right) but your opinion of them doesn't really matter, as my previous post says. The only thing that matters is that evidence was presented of >1 people being killed by an intelligence leak. QED.
any other stupid 1-upping games, to avoid the fact that the claim has been proven true?
Your claim being true (even tho your "tons of evidence" amounts to 1 weak case so far) or not, the opposite claim is a much stronger and compelling one.
Leaking civilian killings or military abuse in wars prevent more from happening, thus saving lives and many of them.
Sources?
Abu Grahib for one. How did that leak cause anyone to die? It has probably saved lives or prevented further abuse by causing accountability.
Assange's "US Army manual for Guantanamo prison camp" leak. Who knows how much further abuse that prevented from happening?
Assange's "Video of US helicopter fire killing civilians in Iraq"
And so on, and so on. You could actually say in this case that there are "tons of cases troughout history" and I'm presenting several to you that had a large impact. Where are your tons of cases with large impact? We're still waiting.
There's overwhelming evidence that leaks cause more good than they do harm. Prove otherwise if you can, but careful because if you attempt it you're also proving to me that you don't believe in truth.
Another question I have is, why are you more concerned by the potential deaths caused by a leak than by the deaths the leak is exposing?
> Leaking civilian killings or military abuse in wars prevent more from happening, thus saving lives and many of them.
maybe, maybe not, but completely irrelevant to the discussion, since we're evaluating one simple, objective, yes or no question you can find at the bottom of this post, not comparing anything
> There's overwhelming evidence that leaks cause more good than they do harm
same here as above: that's irrelevant to the below question
> the opposite claim is a much stronger and compelling one.
the opposite claim to >1 human in history being killed by an intelligence leak, is <=1 human in history being killed by an intelligence leak, which, again, my example proves false (and is a ridiculous claim to make)
the rest of your post repeats, for at least the third time, nothing but irrelevant, mostly emotional opinions, distracting from the topic at hand:
Yes or No, have >1 people been killed by an intelligence leak?
> maybe, maybe not, but completely irrelevant to the discussion, since we're evaluating one simple, objective, yes or no question you can find at the bottom of this post, not comparing anything
> the opposite claim to >1 human in history being killed by an intelligence leak, is <=1 human in history being killed by an intelligence leak
No.
I'm debating if leaks are a net positive overall, so my claim is that it doesn't matter if leaks sometimes cause deaths as leaks save more lives than they take, especially the lives of innocents. And by the way my claim is 100% clear in all of my comments. If you choose to engage me then accept to debate my claim or stop wasting time.
> Yes or No, have >1 people been killed by an intelligence leak?
This is a ridiculous thing to debate on, and you know it really well. Next thing we're going to debate idiotic stuff like "Yes or No, have >1 people been killed by drinking too much water?"
If all you cared about was "winning" the debate on a technicality, congratulations! Shame that it doesn't amount to anything in the real world.
If the point was to have a constructive discussion and gain some additional insight on the topic, then this was a complete waste of time, at least as long as you refuse to listen what other people have to say and fixate on a technicality.
> I'm debating if leaks are a net positive overall
No.
You're arguing with the claim that intelligence leaks have killed greater than 1 humans in history.
Everything else is a distraction from that question. If you can't agree on a common set of facts, like that one, you aren't ready to graduate to the next discussion, whether it be a comparative discussion of net benefits or anything else. And by the way that claim is 100% clear in all of my comments. If you choose to engage me then accept to discuss that claim or stop wasting time.
Your inability to acknowledge the simple truth of the claim we're discussing shows you to be the one treating this as a debate, and you're the one insisting on "winning" by refusing to acknowledge even a basic set of facts.
Until you can do that, you're not ready for the next topic, which, obviously, necessarily builds upon that shared set of facts. It's like trying to discuss the circumference of earth with someone who refuses to acknowledge it's round(ish).
if the question of whether people have died as a result of intelligence leaks is a waste of time for you, then you should not have made your reply to the thread that asked this question and answered it ("yes"), in which you argued with that answer
by failing to acknowledge the answer (again: "yes"), you fail to graduate to the next discussion, which, obviously, necessarily builds upon a shared understanding of facts
otherwise, it'd be like discussing the circumference of earth with one who fails to even acknowledge its roundness: you simply don't get to discuss the implications of the facts while you're arguing with those very facts
your own post above illustrates how bizarre it is that you're unable to acknowledge something so obviously true: should we expect you next to similarly refuse to acknowledge people have ever died from sex or bicycling or drinking too much water?
Sure. One can debate the Truman Doctrine, the way the Cold War was fought, the ethics of adopting a balance of power strategy, but those are all different discussions. Whether superpowers should use their intelligence apparatuses to implement their foreign political and military policies is another discussion.
Espionage, gathering secret intelligence, is arguably a net good for the planet.
I agree.
If Putin had better intel on Ukraine and the west (and the true state of his own armed forces) then he, most likely, would not have started the war.
Weird how the West knew exactly what Russia was going to do beforehand, yet couldn't stop it. All that intel couldn't help preventing a war apparently.
