There recently was a baseball player, I think was only half paying attention to the news, who has a history of problems with alcohol.  He was doing something and ended up having a drink.  Rather than shift the blame onto everything but himself, he stepped right up and said he screwed up.  He made that decision, it was a stupid decision, and he was going to start again on his path to avoiding alcohol.
I have way more respect for that player because he took his lumps for his failing.
To often we let people abdicate responsibility and we need to stop that trend.

You mean like when they were intercepting the lawyers communications and we only discovered it because they accidentally included the secret document in discovery and then the Judge blocked them from using the only proof the Government was spying on them?  And allowed the Government to argue there was no proof of them spying on the lawyers communications?

We already have 2 sets of rules, not everyone wants to see that.
Anonymous might have just released it because they could, but maybe also because exposing hypocrisy and watching them try to spin it all might be lulzy

If we lived in a world where truth wasn’t what was convenient to make things better, then it would be wrong to see dox out there.  But in the face of a well orchestrated coverup…

https://thepiratebay.se/torrent/7007197

I’m not saying these things didn’t happen, but that if this is the only thing you hear about or the only thing you choose to accept, then it can twist your perspective into believing that’s all there is.

Or you can let U.S. military press releases and U.S. gov’t approved “journalism” twist your perspective into believing that’s all there is. 

Or you can think for your damn self and ask the obvious question, “If this sort of thing did happen a lot would the U.S. military chain of command have a vested interest in covering it up wherever they could?”  I won’t insult your intelligence by answering that for you.

If you’re arguing our domestic justice system is inherently unfair

I’m arguing that the US justice system is an accretion of a millennium of case law and that our rules of evidence, for example, aren’t intrinsically ‘fair’ or ‘unfair’. It’s possible to have a fair trial in a way that has little to do with the way that we do things here.

http://www.tgdaily.com/security-features/61273-anonymous-talks-haditha-raids-syrian-servers 

If you’re arguing our domestic justice system is inherently unfair (and I *think* that’s what you’re getting at – I can’t really tell) then it needs fixing just as much as the parallel military justice system that let the Haditha plea deal occur.  That’s the great thing about all political systems in a democracy – they *can* be fixed.  The best way to do that for our justice system is up for debate:  Better funding for public defenders?  Correcting economic disparities in society as a whole?  Eliminating profit motives from our incarceration industry?  All excellent ideas and well worth talking about.  On the other hand, writing off the problem with a cynical “par for the course” comment does no one any good.

Regardless of my digression (sorry about the soapbox), the core point remains:  One instance of injustice (the Haditha prosecutors cutting a sweetheart deal with the defendants) does not excuse another.  That’s the way warlords and juntas justify their actions, not the way a nation of laws works.

With that said, my comments were about the actions of Anonymous.  Two wrongs don’t make a right.  Will Anonymous’ stunt bring back the dead?  No.  Will it bring justice to the victims?  No.  Does it piss on the entire concept of fair trial?  Yes.

Everyone’s beef here should be with the criminals who killed at Haditha and the prosecutors who derilicted their duty, not the defense or the concept of attorney/client privilege.

EDIT: Typos.

As to “Until one sees what it there, it is much to early to decide the privilege has been breached,” doesn’t that appear a bit backwards?  You appear to be advocating that we should we should all lie back and prostrate ourselves and place our loving trust in the wise arms of Anonymous.  And not even in Anonymous to perform its specialty of defeating security measures, but in Anonymous’ ability to parse the fine points of constitutional law.

Frankly, I wouldn’t trust my own judge to make a call like releasing data between me and my attorney.  It’s no one’s business but the attorney’s and the client’s – NO ONE’s:  Not the judge’s, not the other party’s, not the “public’s,” not even (and, yes, I know this sounds horrible) the victims of Haditha.  This is akin to, but substantially worse due to the size of the leak, releasing the identities of those who gave confidential evidence to the prosecution.  Are you in favor of that as well?

Face it:  If this had been the US govt hacking into the computer of a Guantanamo detainee’s defense attorney and releasing it to the public “in the interests of fighting terrorism” the crowd at BoingBoing (including myself) would be digging out their pitchforks and Molotov cocktails.  Playing by two different sets of rules is corrosive to justice, regardless of whether the Bush administration or Anonymous is playing the game.

In the end, Anonymous is doing this not out of any sense of justice, but for the reason they do everything:  Because they can.

EDIT: Fixed typos.

I think these generally get covered up, as a matter of necessity, and as a matter of course. Collateral damage. Acceptable losses… I dont see much of a difference between civilians getting blown up next to a target, or maliciously gunned down by rogue soldiers.

Well… At least the rogue soldiers aren’t supposed to be killing civilians.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7ZRGU-9Vps&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

Just because the media isn’t reporting it doesn’t mean it’s not happening. If you have a Twitter you can follow Anons to stay updated.

For a completely different perspective, see the documentary, “Voices of Iraq”.  

So i guess in a bizarre twist theyve become a what Washington feared wikileaks would become (but never would have).