Early Friday morning, I caught the tail end of a BBC chat programme dealing with Julian Assange and the WikiLeaks document dump. One of the BBC talking heads (I don't recall his name) arrogantly whined that he believed Julian Assange had no regard for human life because in previous document releases, WikiLeaks published the names of Afghans and Iraqis who cooperated with U.S., British, and other NATO powers invading and occupying their countries.
I'm confused. It's disregard for human life to publish documents naming people who cooperate with invaders and occupiers and in naming them may get them killed, but it isn't disregarding human life to actually invade and occupy a country, killing people in the process. Could someone please explain the morality to me, because I continue to look at this and the statist view makes utterly no moral sense to me.
I know, I know, I don't think like a statist. Anarchists and libertarians are constantly told we're not "serious" and won't be taken "seriously" by policy people and political scientists because we refuse to say yes to the state. Because apparently the only things you can say about war, secrets, and mass murder are "yes," "more," "faster," and "better."