News Wikileaks release classified documents

[ZQrn]

Let's not get silly. This can be considered International espionage.

So can spying on the Taliban?

The only difference is that the US is a big player you don't want to offend, just as China is.

Do you know that the wikileaks site is blocked by the Australian government?

Sure, you know they blocked a lot more sites which are simply 'critical towards the Australian government', or sites that have to do with self-help with suicide for instance.

I personally don't believe in censorship as you probably already gathered, I also don't believe that 'x blocking y' is a good metre to determine whatever from y. I mean, China blocks youtube, is youtube now an evil?

Of course, some of the biggest censors of all times were the Taliban, and that's a road I don't want to go down to myself. I draw the line at a very clear and transparent point, at 0, which is similar to the views Assange holds I guess, reading up on him.

Don't get me wrong, I do think that an organisation has the right to protect its secrets, as in, to stop others from obtaining that information, possibly through the bullwhip of its own employes or staff. I also feel however that once information is out there it's free for all to use, information is not created, it has always existed and will always exist. It's not a conservative magnitude like mass or energy, I don't see how any person can 'own' it or control how it is used.

since when are collaborators innocent people?

I guess this depends on if you side with the cause of the US/UN here or not. If you do, then these people are heroes, if you side with the Taliban, they are traitors. As said, it's in the eye of the beholder.

I prefer to not use such terms in the absolute sense, but rather 'traitor with respect to ...', in that sense, the person that leaked it is a traitor with respect to the US, and a hero with respect to the Taliban, Assange is neither because he never took an oath of loyalty to either faction.

 

[edward]

since when are collaborators innocent people?

Since when does saving American lives make them guilty of anything??

 

[ZQrn]

Since when does saving American lives make them guilty of anything??

They kill Taliban lives in the process?

Unless you wish to assume that American lives are worth more.

 

[Evo]

since when are collaborators innocent people?

When they want their normal lives back and aren't carrying out raids?

 

[edward]

They kill Taliban lives in the process?

Unless you wish to assume that American lives are worth more.

You are damn right I think that American lives are worth more. This is war not a Sunday school picnic.

 

[ZQrn]

You are damn right I think that American lives are worth more. This is war not a Sunday school picnic.

Okay, since I don't share that axiom, I'm afraid it's hard to rely on it to convince me. I am neither a citizen of the US nor a subject of the Taliban. I have never taken an allegiance to any of them and it's going to take a lot before I do.

But you do realize your argument is basically the same as another saying 'You're damn right I think Taliban lives are worth more, therefore they are traitors and justfully punished, all hail Assange for his great work.'?

 

[Proton Soup]

Since when does saving American lives make them guilty of anything??

that is also an interesting characterization. but the one true thing may be that they are not bystanders. "innocent", to me at least, carries with it an implication of non-involvement. but i don't think that's what is being talked about, is it? aren't these allies?

 

[edward]

Okay, since I don't share that axiom, I'm afraid it's hard to rely on it to convince me. I am neither a citizen of the US nor a subject of the Taliban. I have never taken an allegiance to any of them and it's going to take a lot before I do.

But you do realize your argument is basically the same as another saying 'You're damn right I think Taliban lives are worth more, therefore they are traitors and justfully punished, all hail Assange for his great work.'?

You need to take your argument to the humanities forum.

 

[ZQrn]

You need to take your argument to the humanities forum.

Because the politics forum has as axiom that American lives are worth more and America is always right?

 

[Proton Soup]

When they want their normal lives back and aren't carrying out raids?

if they were doing the same for the other side, might we kill them? even though they want their normal lives back and aren't carrying out raids?

 

[Evo]

Because the politics forum has as axiom that American lives are worth more and America is always right?

No, Edward is correct, because it's off topic for this thread and would be more appropriate in that forum.

 

[Evo]

if they were doing the same for the other side, might we kill them? even though they want their normal lives back and aren't carrying out raids?

I am sure that there are those that help the Taliban, we probably know about many, but we don't publish their personal information on the internet, do we? I would be just as opposed to a nut that would do so.

 

[ZQrn]

if they were doing the same for the other side, might we kill them? even though they want their normal lives back and aren't carrying out raids?

I think we both realize what the difference is, we are moral / cultural relativists, they are moral / cultural absolutists.

The fishy thing about absolutism in this sense is that people always think the culture they grew up in is the best, it should be an indication that it's hardly an objective and impartial judgement.

I've not yet seen a single person say 'I believe that one culture can be better than another, and I believe that another culture than my own is the best.'

No, Edward is correct, because it's off topic for this thread and would be more appropriate in that forum.

But the point is he used that axiom as a given in his argument here. I am unconvinced and the burden of proof rests on him.

He can either drop the axiom, try to prove it, or agree that he cannot convince me as long as I don't adopt that axiom as a primitive.

I think the issue of absolutism / relativism by the way is very relevant to the the leaking of wikileaks, it's quite obvious in this thread that the people who believe in cultural absolutism think it's wrong, and the people who believe in cultural relativism are more apologetic. It also seems to pretty much be the defining building block that determines a person's side in this.

 

[Evo]

I've not yet seen a single person say 'I believe that one culture can be better than another, and I believe that another culture than my own is the best.'

I'm French, BTW.

But the point is he used that axiom as a given in his argument here. I am unconvinced and the burden of proof rests on him.

He merely pointed out that it belongs in another forum, it does.

 

[ZQrn]

I'm French, BTW.

And you believe the US culture is better than the French?

He merely pointed out that it belongs in another forum, it does.

I'm pretty sure the debate of moral absolutism / relativism on its own does.

However, he used the axiom 'American lives are worth more' in his reasoning, since I am not convinced of that (nor its negation) he has the burden of proof to show that this is true before he can continue, that or, agree to disagree, with which I am fine?

 

[lisab]

And you believe the US culture is better than the French?

Keep the discussion on things that people actually say. Nothing derails a debate faster than silly rhetorical questions.

I'm pretty sure the debate of moral absolutism / relativism on its own does.

However, he used the axiom 'American lives are worth more' in his reasoning, since I am not convinced of that (nor its negation) he has the burden of proof to show that this is true before he can continue, that or, agree to disagree, with which I am fine?

If Assange's actions contributed to the death of people, and those people are American or Afghani, he will be held responsible should he ever set foot on American soil. It's not a question of which life is worth more.

 

[turbo]

Let's try to keep nationalistic/divisive arguments out of this. When I was a kid, I was constantly hammered with claims that I was a frog or a "dumb frenchman" just because my mother was a Canadian immigrant with French-catholic background. She was tossed into school at the age of 6 knowing no English, and she graduated HS at the top of her class. So much for the "dumb frenchman".

Lets not pretend that one's origin or culture makes one superior to others.

 

[Proton Soup]

I think we both realize what the difference is, we are moral / cultural relativists, they are moral / cultural absolutists.

The fishy thing about absolutism in this sense is that people always think the culture they grew up in is the best, it should be an indication that it's hardly an objective and impartial judgement.

I've not yet seen a single person say 'I believe that one culture can be better than another, and I believe that another culture than my own is the best.'

now see, I'm not sure i agree with you, either. i think I'm being less relative, actually.

and actually, yes, i do think some cultures are superior to others. it doesn't mean i want to meddle with yours, but i think i can still sit back and judge for myself things that i consider constructive vs. those that are not so constructive. perhaps you've got a different yardstick than mine, but i suspect you do the same.

 

[ZQrn]

If Assange's actions contributed to the death of people, and those people are American or Afghani, he will be held responsible should he ever set foot on American soil. It's not a question of which life is worth more.

You don't honestly believe they would try him if he leaked inside information about the Taliban's operation which resulted into one swift missile strike taking them all out at once, do you?

Evo: I see you removed your post, but I still feel I should be courteous enough to say: 'That is indeed a counter example to my point then.'

As for Proton Soup, I'll be respond to you per PM shortly. Ignore and carry on.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, I'm not sure what you are giving ZQrn a hard time about, but you need to reread what he's saying more carefully - he's not wrong here. You are missing something very basic here he's pointing out to you.

No, I don't think so...

Then entire notion of the Bush Administration was that capture combatants are not part of a standing army and are therefore not participant to the Geneva Convention, for the exact reasons ZQrn specified.

The fact that the insurgents are violating the Geneva convention in the ways you describe is why they are not treated as ordinary POWs, in accordance with the Geneva Convention. Point being, if they want to be treated as POWs, they aught not violate the law.

 

[Evo]

You don't honestly believe they would try him if he leaked inside information about the Taliban's operation which resulted into one swift missile strike taking them all out at once, do you?

Since it didn't break our laws or affect our operations or the safety of our allies, how could we? Are you really thinking about what you are asking before you post?

 

[Proton Soup]

I am sure that there are those that help the Taliban, we probably know about many, but we don't publish their personal information on the internet, do we? I would be just as opposed to a nut that would do so.

ok then. and I'm not saying i want their information made public, i just don't see how they would qualify for some type of legally-protected status wrt to freedom of the press and publication of classified information.

 

[russ_watters]

I see these two cases as being quite different.

Yes.

In the helicopter incident, my recollection is that wikileaks produced a video that included some editorial content in addition to the raw footage. It is the editorializing that I object to.

Yes: The clearest show of editorializing was they titled the page "Collateral Murder".

My understanding of the present situation is that this is purely a dissemination of raw data.

Mostly - as I quoted earlier, there was a little bit of editorializing on the site. But what I object to the most is the damage that the release can cause.

Just for clarity, what makes the two different to me is the intent of the release. In the first case, it was intended as a typical "whistleblowing" - it was intended to bring to light an incident where the US acted improperly and then covered-up/didn't report what happened. The second case was indeed a raw dump of data, without any specific incidents on which to blow a whistle. Therefore: fishing expedition. That's the intent. The secondary effect - whether intended or not - was damage to the war effort.

 

[lisab]

You don't honestly believe they would try him if he leaked inside information about the Taliban's operation which resulted into one swift missile strike taking them all out at once, do you?

I'm unclear what you're trying to say. No, we would not prosecute someone who gave inside information, revealing the whereabouts of someone with whom we're at war (albeit undeclared). Seems obvious.

 

[ZQrn]

The fact that the insurgents are violating the Geneva convention in the ways you describe is why they are not treated as ordinary POWs, in accordance with the Geneva Convention. Point being, if they want to be treated as POWs, they aught not violate the law.

So what you imply here is that because the US detains some people who are 'heavily suspected' and tortures them, were I a sovereign nation I had the right to violate the Geneva Conventions on US soldiers?

Also, this is the argument you make, this is not the argument the Bush Administration originally made, which was the same argument I made, which is a correct argument. The Geneva Convention applies explicitly to soldiers, people who are ordered to attack you, not to terrorists, people who choose to attack you. I trust you see that both are very different.

Since it didn't break our laws or affect our operations or the safety of our allies, how could we? Are you really thinking about what you are asking before you post?

Lisab said:

If Assange's actions contributed to the death of people, and those people are American or Afghani, he will be held responsible should he ever set foot on American soil. It's not a question of which life is worth more.

Maybe she should have said then: 'If Assange's actions were counter to the US and/or its allies goals' by being instrument to murder ...'

Which was the point I was hinting at.

And again, Assange is not subject to the US Laws, he is no citizen of the US, and never swore an allegiance.

 

[Evo]

And again, Assange is not subject to the US Laws, he is no citizen of the US, and never swore an allegiance.

Incase you missed my previous response, look up "International espionage". Surely you are aware of this?

 

[russ_watters]

Some clarity on the issue of the named informants. These are civilians participating in the war effort by providing information. Clear-cut issue: they are spies and if caught subject to summary execution. It isn't murder for the Taliban to execute them, but some of the blood is on Wikileaks' hands. Perhaps that doesn't bother the editor of wikileaks, but it bothers me.

There are no issues of murder here: it is pureley an issue of harming the war effort of the US and current Afghan government. I suppose if one supports the Taliban, that would be considered a good thing, but there should be no ambiguity on which side the "good guys" are on: the current US action and Afghan government are UN sanctioned. Wikileaks is doing counterespionage for the "bad guys". One cannot be neutral on that.

 

[russ_watters]

So what you imply here is that because the US detains some people who are 'heavily suspected' and tortures them, were I a sovereign nation I had the right to violate the Geneva Conventions on US soldiers?

That bears no resenblance to what I said. I don't answer trolling.

 

[lisab]

So what you imply here is that because the US detains some people who are 'heavily suspected' and tortures them, were I a sovereign nation I had the right to violate the Geneva Conventions on US soldiers?

Also, this is the argument you make, this is not the argument the Bush Administration originally made, which was the same argument I made, which is a correct argument. The Geneva Convention applies explicitly to soldiers, people who are ordered to attack you, not to terrorists, people who choose to attack you. I trust you see that both are very different.



Lisab said:

If Assange's actions contributed to the death of people, and those people are American or Afghani, he will be held responsible should he ever set foot on American soil. It's not a question of which life is worth more.

Maybe she should have said then: 'If Assange's actions were counter to the US and/or its allies goals' by being instrument to murder ...'

Which was the point I was hinting at.

And again, Assange is not subject to the US Laws, he is no citizen of the US, and never swore an allegiance.

If someone stood in Mexico and shot and killed Americans, you can bet that person would face justice in American courts, no matter his allegiance or citizenship.

If Assange thinks it's legal in some air conditioned, finely appointed office somewhere and post information that kills Americans and/or Afghanis, let's let him test his beliefs by having him come to New York.

 

[russ_watters]

And again, Assange is not subject to the US Laws, he is no citizen of the US, and never swore an allegiance.

I certainly hope you are aware that you do not have to swear an allegiance to a country to be arrested in that country for spying against it.

 

[ZQrn]

Incase you missed my previous response, look up "International espionage". Surely you are aware of this?

Sure, and I'm just pointing out that the inside sources the US has in the Taliban are guilty of same international espionage.

Major difference being of course that the US is a big player that can carry its weight around, and the Taliban is not.

Some clarity on the issue of the named informants. These are civilians participating in the war effort by providing information. Clear-cut issue: they are spies and if caught subject to summary execution. It isn't murder for the Taliban to execute them, but some of the blood is on Wikileaks' hands.

There are no issues of murder here: it is pureley an issue of harming the war effort of the US and current Afghan government. I suppose if one supports the Taliban, that would be considered a good thing, but there should be no ambiguity on which side the "good guys" are on: the current action and government is UN sanctioned. Wikileaks is doing counterespionage for the "bad guys".

Exactly, I completely agree except that I am unsided and impartial here as I don't believe such things as 'good guys' or 'bad guys' even exist. There are people that are fighting for their survival and preservation of their way of live, nothing more. If one way of life is 'bad' or 'good' I'm not going to make a statement about.

I guess the difference is that some people say "We/they are the good guys", some ask themselves 'Who are the good guys?" and some on a fundamental level don't even believe such a thing can exist.

I certainly hope you are aware that you do not have to swear an allegiance to a country to be arrested in that country for spying against it.

Sure, but I'm just pointing out that he can't be arrested as a 'traitor', merely as an 'enemy'.

And I indeed believe that Assange is an enemy of the united states, his political believes, especially his nonbelieve in 'classified information' makes him an enemy of many a state because many states' operation relies on the classification of information and his political believes and actions are counterproductive to that end.

That bears no resenblance to what I said. I don't answer trolling.

No, but it's the implication of your logic that any army that violates the Geneva Conventions loses its own protection thereunder.

If someone stood in Mexico and shot and killed Americans, you can bet that person would face justice in American courts, no matter his allegiance or citizenship.

If Assange thinks it's legal in some air conditioned, finely appointed office somewhere and post information that kills Americans and/or Afghanis, let's let him test his beliefs by having him come to New York.

But that wasn't my point, my point was that you said that Assange, and by implication any person who harmed US or Afghani lives would face justice.

While in reality this only happens if the US or Afghani are sided with the US. If Assanjge for instance leaked information that led to the execution of a US born taliban mole deep into the highest levels of the USGOV, he would certainly not be tried for that in the US, rather named a hero.

It's not about nationality, it's about allegiance. There's prosecution if you lead to the deaths of their allies, and reward if you lead to the death of their enemies.

 

[russ_watters]

But the helicopter incidenct was in Iraq and your post mainly focused on that incident.

Reread: what you quoted from me was entirely about this most recent incident.

 

[Evo]

Sure, and I'm just pointing out that the inside sources the US has in the Taliban are guilty of same international espionage.

Please name the country that they would be harming. There has to be a country with laws against espionage that would be harmed.

Sure, but I'm just pointing out that he can't be arrested as a 'traitor', merely as an 'enemy'.

Who said he was a traitor?

While in reality this only happens if the US or Afghani are sided with the US.

What?

If Assanjge for instance leaked information that led to the execution of a US born taliban mole deep into the highest levels of the USGOV, he would certainly not be tried for that in the US, rather named a hero.

Did you read my earlier response to this?

Since it didn't break our laws or affect our operations or the safety of our allies, how could we? Are you really thinking about what you are asking before you post?

You're just trolling now. I'm afraid you've earned a time out. Take the time off to think about making better researched and informed posts.

 

[russ_watters]

Exactly, I completely agree except that I am unsided and impartial here as I don't believe such things as 'good guys' or 'bad guys' even exist.

On the good guys and bad guys part, just by being neutral you are at odds with the official position of essentially the entire world community. At best, I consider such a thing a cop out. At worst, it seems disingenuous.

Sure, but I'm just pointing out that he can't be arrested as a 'traitor', merely as an 'enemy'.

The thread has moved fast, so I'm not sure if anyone actually meant to imply that, but for clarity:

The soldier who leaked the documents = domestic spy and traitor
Assange = foreign spy

No, but it's the implication of your logic that any army that violates the Geneva Conventions loses its own protection thereunder.

Then at best you misunderstand. The Geneva convention lays out specific conduct requirements for soldiers to follow in order to be afforded Geneva Convention protection. Violating those specific requirements by individual soldiers results in forfeiting the protection. It would obviously be rediculous if the commission of a war crime by one soldier in an army caused the entire army to forfeit protection.

It's not about nationality, it's about allegiance. There's prosecution if you lead to the deaths of their allies, and reward if you lead to the death of their enemies.

Yes And in this case, Assange chose to ally himself with the internationally recognized "bad guys".

 

[talk2glenn]

Some clarity on the issue of the named informants. These are civilians participating in the war effort by providing information. Clear-cut issue: they are spies and if caught subject to summary execution. It isn't murder for the Taliban to execute them, but some of the blood is on Wikileaks' hands. Perhaps that doesn't bother the editor of wikileaks, but it bothers me.

This suggests a serious misunderstanding of the issues at hand.

A person is guilty of espionage, as defined under the Geneva Conventions, if they have spied on or committed acts of sabotage against an Occupying Power or Recognized National Government.

In the case of Afghanistan, the Taliban is neither an Occupying Power nor a national government. By definition, one cannot be guilty of "spying on" the Taliban, in any legal sense (perhaps in a moral or ethical sense?). This is not the subject of debate; this is fact.

One can only be a spy relative to the United States, as an Occpupying Power after the removal of the Taliban and before the handing over of Sovereignty to the Afghans, or the Afghan National Government, as the current recognized sovereign government.

The Taliban, as a body, is not subject to nor protected by the broader conventions. The only Article which applies, as affirmed by the US Supreme Court, is Common Article 3, which says only that persons captured in signatory countries, that are not uniformed soldiers of a national government party to the treaty, not taking active part in hostilities must be treated humanely. Article 3 explicitly states that it makes no legal judgments as to the status of Persons held under the Article, and it confers no other special Rights or Privleges on non-signatory Partys engaging in hostilities in a signatory country (ie, the Taliban being a non-party in a signatory country, Afghanistan).

If the Taliban kills anyone, as non-state actors it is murder by definition.

EDIT: And, I should add, if the Taliban kill anyone with the intent to wage war on or do damage to the Afghan National Government, the killers are guilty of espionage and may be executed, so long as they are treated humanely during their pre-execution detainment. The United States opts to hold them indefinitely, rather than execute them, as an ethical rather than legal policy.

 

[rootX]

If it is classified, absolutely yes!

It's my understanding that these documents are after action reports by soldiers. The wikileaks editor says they have a policy for minimizing harm, but they don't eliminate it: the release of after action reports can be very damaging to the war effort. Based on the mischaracterizations of the helicopter shooting tape they made and the anti-war/anti-government stance of the editor, I honestly don't think this guy can see beyond the propaganda value to the real military value of such information. He loves this stuff because of the propaganda, but he doesn't even see he's giving the enemy detailed information about our tactics.

Some information is just plain not fit for public consumption because the general public simply doesn't have the frame of reference needed to propertly process the information. It's a case where if misinterpreted, more facts can actually result in less understanding. His focusing on the laughing of the soldiers in the chopper video is a clear indication that he is simply unable to process what he's seeing.
By the same token, if people saw what happened after being put under anesthetic in an oral surgeon's office, there'd be even more fear of dentists than there already is.

You did not provide sufficient details how this incident is unsuitable for public. Rather you only reffered to the helicopter incident. I don't think these 90K files contain highly disturbing material. If they had any, it would have been in the media and on the wikileaks homepage.

 

[apeiron]

On the good guys and bad guys part, just by being neutral you are at odds with the official position of essentially the entire world community.

I think it is setting a very poor example to reduce the level of discussion to good guys vs bad guys. It is not scholarly. It is not intelligent.

And it is pretty clear from the responses to this thread that those of us who are not US citizens have a different perspective on things. If you insists on painting US actions as white, of course we are going to point out the black aspects that also seem obvious. But it is you who is forcing us into binary responses by saying things have to be either black or white - good guys vs bad guys.

The way people are being shouted down here, having posts deleted, being give time outs, etc, just increases resentment.

Moderators more than anyone else need to be studiedly neutral or scholarly in their responses and not attempt to impose their political biases on others. They should be leading by example.

Good and bad are subjective responses that you will not find in political science. We need to be talking objectively about power relationships, asymetrical warfare and other theory-backed constructs.

 

[Evo]

having posts deleted, being give time outs, etc, just increases resentment.

Resentment for making people follow the rules? Off topic posts will be deleted, as will misinformation, etc... You can read the rules for reasons a time out is given. I mentioned it was only a time out so members would know the member was not banned. Time outs and temporary bans are two different things.

No posts were deleted from this thread, BTW.

 

[apeiron]

Resentment for making people follow the rules? Off topic posts will be deleted, only one post was deleted and it was completely off topic. You can read the rules for reasons a time out is given. I mentioned it was only a time out so members would know the member was not banned.

I don't want to get into the individual cases, though I believe a third party reading ZQrn's posts would see he was responding to something lisab said, which she admitted was unclear.

There just seems to be a fundamental problem here to do with impartiality and knowledge-base.

It is not much of an issue perhaps when people want to have knockabout discussions of US internal politics (republicans vs democrats, cracks about Bush's IQ, etc) as who takes them seriously?

But when it comes to real world issues with real human consequences, then a higher level of debate is called for. And describing things as a choice between siding with the self-evidently good and the self-evidently evil is simply inflammatory talk.

If we are moderators, let's imagine how a professor of political science would frame these issues.

 

[apeiron]

No posts were deleted from this thread, BTW.

Odd, your response here made me think otherwise.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=419272

 

[rootX]

Odd, your response here made me think otherwise.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=419272

It was for some other thread ..

 

[Evo]

Odd, your response here made me think otherwise.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=419272

It was for some other thread ..

Correct. It was in the embedded journalists thread. The member doesn't even know what thread he posted in.

And this is dragging this thread off topic.

 

[lisab]

I don't want to get into the individual cases, though I believe a third party reading ZQrn's posts would see he was responding to something lisab said, which she admitted was unclear.

There just seems to be a fundamental problem here to do with impartiality and knowledge-base.

It is not much of an issue perhaps when people want to have knockabout discussions of US internal politics (republicans vs democrats, cracks about Bush's IQ, etc) as who takes them seriously?

But when it comes to real world issues with real human consequences, then a higher level of debate is called for. And describing things as a choice between siding with the self-evidently good and the self-evidently evil is simply inflammatory talk.

If we are moderators, let's imagine how a professor of political science would frame these issues.

If you debate a bunch of Americans, it should be no surprise to find they often have points of view which don't parallel yours (in fact it's a good bet). This isn't because of a lack of impartiality or an insufficient knowledge-base, or that "the level of debate isn't high enough". Consider that it may be because our collective experiences are quite different from yours; we are, after all, a different culture.

I find most well-educated European's world views to be valid, and I respect them; I often find they don't give that same acceptance to Americans on this forum.

 

[apeiron]

If you debate a bunch of Americans, it should be no surprise to find they often have points of view which don't parallel yours.

It is no surprise. My point was about moderators and their greater need to be impartial, objective, scholarly, if they are to have moral justification to enforce forum rules.

It is relevant to this thread as this thread is a prime example of how discussions spiral down into ugliness when members see people taking "might is right" and "if you don't like it, just leave" attitudes.

If Russ thinks good guys vs bad guys is a valid political science construct, then he is free to play by the rules and provide the citations.

 

[Hurkyl]

I think it is setting a very poor example to reduce the level of discussion to good guys vs bad guys. It is not scholarly. It is not intelligent.

Surely you would agree that pretending there are no "bad guys" (or "good guys") is disingenuous?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Surely you would agree that pretending there are no "bad guys" (or "good guys") is disingenuous?

I believe Apeiron only points out that these are crude and biased terms. It would be more appropriate, for intellectual discussion, to point out the issues of balance of power, law, and recognized 'moral authority'. To argue from a biased dichotomy of "good guys" vs "bad guys" would seem intellectually dishonest and possibly even patronizing.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I agree that "good guys" and "bad guys" is too simple. Most dangerous and radicalized jihadists are good people to someone. But the real point is that it doesn't matter. When you fight wars, you have to identify the enemy and kill them. Playing games with words has no value.

Historically, the lingo of war is much more offensive than "bad guys", which is about as benign as it gets.

So I think the point is valid, but irrelevant. Bad guys, enemies, radicalized jihadists, what's in a name?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I agree that "good guys" and "bad guys" is too simple. Most dangerous and radicalized jihadists are good people to someone. But the real point is that it doesn't matter. When you fight wars, you have to identify the enemy and kill them. Playing games with words has no value.

Historically, the lingo of war is much more offensive than "bad guys", which is about as benign as it gets.

So I think the point is valid, but irrelevant. Bad guys, enemies, radicalized jihadists, what's in a name?

If this were a MiniTru committee, perhaps. Since we are not all necessarily on the same page though, and since we are discussing the consistency in logic and law regarding charges against Assange and the like, we might present a more comprehensive view.

It may be proper to note for ZQrn, when he comes back, that as far as the treatment of spies is concerned, if it is decided that Geneva applies, then the Taliban will not be held criminally responsible for killing/executing spies (as they are specifically not covered by the GC). That Assange is apparently being charged with a crime is really only a matter of him being a resident of one of the US' allies; one who chooses to assist the US in prosecuting those who endanger operations in the conflict.

 

[talk2glenn]

It may be proper to note for ZQrn, when he comes back, that as far as the treatment of spies is concerned, if it is decided that Geneva applies, then the Taliban will not be held criminally responsible for killing/executing spies (as they are specifically not covered by the GC).

Why do we persist in this nonsense? The Taliban is not Party to the Geneva Conventions. They never have been alleged to be Party to those treaties. By definition, one can only "spy", in the context intended here, on a "national government".

The Taliban are non-state actors. They are not a government. Geneva does not apply. Can I be more clear?

By your logic, a gang in south central LA could claim that it was "executing spies" when/if it was caught assassinating criminal informants, and, under Geneva, not be prosecuted for murder. It's inane.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If this were a MiniTru committee, perhaps. Since we are not all necessarily on the same page though, and since we are discussing the consistency in logic and law regarding charges against Assange and the like, we might present a more comprehensive view.

Yikes, sorry, I thought particular subdiscussion went back to the combatants.

Yeah, for someone like Assange it gets a lot more complicated. "Good guy" "bad guy" is a pretty naive point of view on that one.