News Should the world be subject to US law?

[nismaratwork]

It's ok, I understand your irritation because I get just as irritated at people who feel the need push for ever more colloquial writing. Some of us actually want to use language correctly without any kind of stylistic conformity.


Have you ever noticed how comedy is used to attempt to ridicule people into appeasing the sacred authority of the one who makes the audience laugh?

There's using language, and there's purple prose... somewhere between Hemingway and Joyce I trust that a man of your vocabulary can find a better balance than, "jingoist nationalist ideologism".

You also read such sinister motives into very selective mediums, such as comedy, which would be a good point if the object of ridicule were authority. In fact, I'm not so much in conflict with your ideas, as your extreme belief in secret evils hidden in common social interaction. While you comb through my (I cringe to call it) comedy, you could note the larger issues instead: I'm a moral relativist, so nationalism and such concepts just don't hold for me.

Oooooh... and my comment about your origin referred to a previous experience with this unfortunate side of your behaviour, and was not meant to disparage your heritage. I was simply trying to confirm that I had the correct drum-beating Kool-Aid-jocky.

Can we be done now, unless you have something substantive and relating to the OP to add? I'm sure we could go off-topic for pages, but this really has nothing to do with the thread.

 

[brainstorm]

There's using language, and there's purple prose... somewhere between Hemingway and Joyce I trust that a man of your vocabulary can find a better balance than, "jingoist nationalist ideologism".

nationalist ideologism is just the propagation of nationalist ideology. Jingoism is when people are fervent about it. Being a moral relativist, you would have no qualms with nationalist jingoists bullying others into agreeing with them, but I would expect little less from someone who's subjected themself to broad-band ridicule and superiorism of comedy. You can deny that comedy has the effects I mentioned because it bothers you to think something that makes you feel so good can be negative in any way, but realize you're biased. I enjoy a good laugh too, but I'm beyond the need to validate everything that makes me feel good to convince myself that things I like must be good for the universe because I like them.

Oooooh... and my comment about your origin referred to a previous experience with this unfortunate side of your behaviour, and was not meant to disparage your heritage. I was simply trying to confirm that I had the correct drum-beating Kool-Aid-jocky.

So you half-apologize for shifting the focus to my person identity and then insult me in the same breath? Got passive-aggression?

Can we be done now, unless you have something substantive and relating to the OP to add? I'm sure we could go off-topic for pages, but this really has nothing to do with the thread.

I hope so, but since we both seem to be people who get the last word, you will probably reply once more.

 

[nismaratwork]

nationalist ideologism is just the propagation of nationalist ideology. Jingoism is when people are fervent about it. Being a moral relativist, you would have no qualms with nationalist jingoists bullying others into agreeing with them, but I would expect little less from someone who's subjected themself to broad-band ridicule and superiorism of comedy. You can deny that comedy has the effects I mentioned because it bothers you to think something that makes you feel so good can be negative in any way, but realize you're biased. I enjoy a good laugh too, but I'm beyond the need to validate everything that makes me feel good to convince myself that things I like must be good for the universe because I like them.


So you half-apologize for shifting the focus to my person identity and then insult me in the same breath? Got passive-aggression?


I hope so, but since we both seem to be people who get the last word, you will probably reply once more.

So I'm a heartless, passive-aggressive, who has fallen to the evils of comedy. Well, I can see why you'd write me off!

Oh, and the whole, "I'm sure you'll have the last word," bit isn't effective much out of college as a rhetorical device. It's part of your overall charm, just like you confuse moral relativism with being a dick and passive aggression with simple... aggression.

Where's the passive brainstorm?... I responded to a multi-paragraph rant of yours by laughing (HARD) in real life. I told you as much, and I'd say there's nothing passive to be found; I'm aggressively opposed to you rigid view that still smells of the binding glue in a textbook.

 

[JaredJames]

If the 'philosophical types' spent half as much time learning real world subjects such as engineering, mathematics, medicine (etc), as they do learning the dictionary, I can't help but think how much better off the world would be.

I'm sorry brainstorm, but you remind me of a friend of mine. She would win arguments with me purely on the grounds I couldn't understand a word she said without the explicit help of a translator / thesaurus. (I'm not saying using such language is wrong, but for some reason I only ever find that language style is used within philosophical discussions.)

 

[brainstorm]

So I'm a heartless, passive-aggressive, who has fallen to the evils of comedy. Well, I can see why you'd write me off!

That's amazing. You can use the exact same words I might say sincerely, but with sarcasm. It's like seeing my own image in a mirror with little red horns on my head;)

Oh, and the whole, "I'm sure you'll have the last word," bit isn't effective much out of college as a rhetorical device. It's part of your overall charm, just like you confuse moral relativism with being a dick and passive aggression with simple... aggression.

Probably no rhetorical device is effective with you since you've become completely dominating with your aggressive comic ridicule toughening (let me guess, you're going to ridicule me again for using too many modifiers with an awkwardly-formulated gerund. It's easy to feel superior when you can do by ridiculing others instead of with rational argumentation, huh?

Where's the passive brainstorm?... I responded to a multi-paragraph rant of yours by laughing (HARD) in real life. I told you as much, and I'd say there's nothing passive to be found; I'm aggressively opposed to you rigid view that still smells of the binding glue in a textbook.

So you're interested less in whether I'm right or wrong as you are in whether my writing style sounds like a textbook or not? Why, because truth is a popularity contest?

If the 'philosophical types' spent half as much time learning real world subjects such as engineering, mathematics, medicine (etc), as they do learning the dictionary, I can't help but think how much better off the world would be.

Everyone should actually do both. The problem with the world is that people specialize into either and end up lacking in either practical experience or the ability to think sufficiently critically about it.

 

[JaredJames]

Have you ever considered that this was because you're semi-literate

Hmm, interesting, but given the topic of conversation was nuclear power generation - a topic I had studied (albeit lightly) the week before in university (and quite heavily at A-level) and one she only had Greenpeace 'views' for...

My competence in the subject, even if not to the level of people here, was not the issue in this debate.

and a little dense (and probably stubborn too)?

Dense? Ooh I'd like to know what basis that is made with?

Stubborn? You give me facts, I'll amend my opinion. You give me garbled text with no relevant content or support, I'll hold firm. So stubborn is a yes / no answer. It all comes down to the quality of argument given.

Why would you assume it was her fault for the way she expressed herself?

Because when questioned regarding the meaning of the words / phrases she couldn't explain them or tell me what they mean. If she doesn't know what she's talking about, how can I and more importantly, how can I (or even her) be sure they are applicable to the discussion?

This is one example, but there were many with exactly the same outline as this (usually debate sparked because she would make a claim on a topic I was studying / had studied that I felt wrong to let pass).

 

[nismaratwork]

Brainstorm, did you seriously just accuse jarednjames of being "semi-literate"... dense... and stubborn because he took umbrage with the use of language to obfuscate rather than clarify? That's a bit harsh, don't you think?

As for the "I'm the devil in the mirror" concept, that's part of the POINT of how comedy and all of its sub-types can be used to great effect. Yes, you can use comedy, like fear or lust to manipulate for ill, but it's not some naturally evil tool. Your own words happen to be the best means to point out your errors in thinking, and I prefer a comedic tone to a combative one.

For instance, you profess a preference for civilized discourse of a high level, yet you used that to essentially call jarednjames a dick. To be fair, you went on a bit longer than that, but what you said boils down to dismissing someone as a dick for poor or no reasons.

 

[brainstorm]

Brainstorm, did you seriously just accuse jarednjames of being "semi-literate"... dense... and stubborn because he took umbrage with the use of language to obfuscate rather than clarify? That's a bit harsh, don't you think?

Harsh? yes. My only point, though, was to cast a shadow of doubt on the assumption that she was automatically wrong because of her style of language-use. There's no reason to assume that style is more important than content, ever, imo EXCEPT when style is intentionally used to obfuscate content(lessness).

As for the "I'm the devil in the mirror" concept, that's part of the POINT of how comedy and all of its sub-types can be used to great effect. Yes, you can use comedy, like fear or lust to manipulate for ill, but it's not some naturally evil tool. Your own words happen to be the best means to point out your errors in thinking, and I prefer a comedic tone to a combative one.

Comedy can be a less direct form of confrontation/combat (did I mention passive-aggression in an earlier post?). Don't take the devilish imagery too harshly. I'm not one to elevate the label of "evil" too high. When you mention "fear," "lust" and "manipulating for ill," those are pretty good expression that define what "evil" is, but it's an everyday thing so don't get frantic about the idea of holy water just yet. I like playing with religious language/metaphors but all I really meant to say was that you expressed something that I would have said sincerely with sarcasm. It's like if I would think (sincerely), "religion takes away people's pain" and you would say, "religion is the opium of the people" as a sarcastic critique of the pain-stilling effect. It's just two different connotations of the same words.

For instance, you profess a preference for civilized discourse of a high level, yet you used that to essentially call jarednjames a dick. To be fair, you went on a bit longer than that, but what you said boils down to dismissing someone as a dick for poor or no reasons.

Maybe I just wanted to achieve a sincere exchange, and here you are addressing me sincerely, in which case I would sincerely apologize for anyone feeling like i was "just calling them a dick." I respect your thoughts and style of expressing them if you respect mine. I have no interest in undermining anyone except by arguing my own reasoning vs. theirs.

 

[JaredJames]

Harsh? yes. My only point, though, was to cast a shadow of doubt on the assumption that she was automatically wrong because of her style of language-use. There's no reason to assume that style is more important than content, ever, imo EXCEPT when style is intentionally used to obfuscate content(lessness).

At no point did I say she was wrong, nor did I think she was. I simply said I couldn't argue back because I didn't understand half the stuff she said (and when asked for clarification, neither did she in most cases).

You can use whatever words you like, my point is simple. There is a general level of discussion here at PF that I've observed fairly consistently in all topics. However, it is only in philosophy (or when someone attached to said subject) are in a discussion that language suddenly hits a higher level (specific technical discussion aside). I wasn't attacking anyone (or didn't mean to), just pointing out a little issue I take with certain uses of language.

After all, improper use of English goes both ways on the spectrum.

It's actually why I hold a dislike to philosophy. The debates use such obscure language that it just seems like people are regurgitating a textbook / reeling off things they don't truly understand or deliberately trying to use it to 'overwhelm' the opposition / debaters.

Instead of saying "extreme patriotism in the form of aggressive foreign policy" they say "jingoism", which frankly is something I don't see the majority of people understanding, even by PF's standards.

 

[brainstorm]

At no point did I say she was wrong, nor did I think she was. I simply said I couldn't argue back because I didn't understand half the stuff she said (and when asked for clarification, neither did she in most cases).

I actually have the same frustration with liberal-arts exclusivists, which is why it riles me up to have to defend myself against accusations of being equally constrained.

You can use whatever words you like, my point is simple. There is a general level of discussion here at PF that I've observed fairly consistently in all topics. However, it is only in philosophy (or when someone attached to said subject) are in a discussion that language suddenly hits a higher level (specific technical discussion aside). I wasn't attacking anyone (or didn't mean to), just pointing out a little issue I take with certain uses of language.

I guess I should apologize for overreacting then. It's all too often that I hear people undermine others on the basis of their expressive style and I find it an ad hominem diversion from staying focussed on substance/content. Since I read "higher level language" the same as any other language I can clearly comprehend, I don't make a point of distinguishing sub-genres. I focus on sorting out BS from sincere argumentation, whatever the writing style.

After all, improper use of English goes both ways on the spectrum.

But "proper" is so subjective/aesthetic/arbitrary.

It's actually why I hold a dislike to philosophy. The debates use such obscure language that it just seems like people are regurgitating a textbook / reeling off things they don't truly understand or deliberately trying to use it to 'overwhelm' the opposition / debaters.

Well, don't assume this is in the essence of philosophy. Complex philosophical concepts can usually be expressed in a relatively simple style. It's just that the people who care enough to translate from one style to another are often fluid enough in both styles to go in either direction. People who try to overwhelm with language instead of soliciting comprehension-based true validation of argumentation are often insecure about their own reasoning, imo.

Instead of saying "extreme patriotism in the form of aggressive foreign policy" they say "jingoism", which frankly is something I don't see the majority of people understanding, even by PF's standards.

What can I say? One word is simpler than multiple words and jingoism is a standard SAT word. If a word comes to mind, I use it because I think that's the purpose of language. Why would I avoid using a word that comes to mind and works in favor of choosing other words? To put energy/concern into that, I would have to be submissive to some internalized image of popular consciousness, which would censor my intellectual independence. Sorry, but I'm not into subjugating myself to popular laziness (I could have said "sloth" but laziness was the first and simplest word that came to mind).

 

[mugaliens]

Claims have been made there regarding the possibility that a non-US citizen not living in the US is (1) subject to US law, and (2) can be extradited for violations of same, when their actions are not violations of local law.

That's not the correct issue, and is improperly stating the case.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Court" that system is higher than U.S. law. If Assange is extradited to the U.S., it's because he broke international law.

Titling this thread as if the world is or should be subject to US law completely ignores the entire system and body of international law under which Assange is being held and will be processed.

 

[turbo]

There's a robust system of international law made of agreements between countries, and that system is higher than U.S. law.

If that were true, then Bush, Cheney, and other high officials in the US would be subject to arrest and trial for war crimes if they traveled outside the US. International law is a fiction.

Too many people have died (including our own troops) based on falsehoods, like WMDs, Yellow-cake, etc, that were patently false and trumped up. I may have been too young to appreciate the wrongful initiation of the Viet-Nam war (I was born in '52), but I was old enough to grieve with the families that had their sons sent home in boxes. We should never permit our political leaders to claim grievances and war-powers that cannot be substantiated. Not just in the US - everywhere.

 

[Evo]

If that were true, then Bush, Cheney, and other high officials in the US would be subject to arrest and trial for war crimes if they traveled outside the US. International law is a fiction.

Too many people have died (including our own troops) based on falsehoods, like WMDs, Yellow-cake, etc, that were patently false and trumped up. I may have been too young to appreciate the wrongful initiation of the Viet-Nam war (I was born in '52), but I was old enough to grieve with the families that had their sons sent home in boxes. We should never permit our political leaders to claim grievances and war-powers that cannot be substantiated. Not just in the US - everywhere.

So, the way to address this is to release protected information that puts our servicemen's lives in danger?

I agree with Rhody about the danger that madman has put our servicemen in.

 

[Mathnomalous]

I agree with Rhody about the danger that madman has put our servicemen in.

Because apparently they were not already in danger in an active warzone.

 

[cristo]

Reverse this, an American citizen residing in the US hacks UK military computers, has he broken US law or UK law?

He's broken British law, but of course would never be extradited due to the bizarre unilateral extradition treaties that we somehow agreed to. I think that is the major issue that annoys Brits about the McKinnon case. I have no problem with sending a British citizen who has committed a crime against the US to be tried in the US, but that the reverse would not happen is somewhat irking.

 

[nismaratwork]

He's broken British law, but of course would never be extradited due to the bizarre unilateral extradition treaties that we somehow agreed to. I think that is the major issue that annoys Brits about the McKinnon case. I have no problem with sending a British citizen who has committed a crime against the US to be tried in the US, but that the reverse would not happen is somewhat irking.

I don't mean this to be insulting, but why is it one-sided? The USA provides massive benefits to the UK, but I don't think anyone claimed it would be free. It's not a very nice thing, and I feel the irkage and understand it, but it makes sense. I wouldn't have expected that the UK would do any differently were they in a similarly potent position... in fact we already know how that story goes...

 

[WhoWee]

Because apparently they were not already in danger in an active warzone.

Life and death is beyond the game of being a smarty pants - just saying.

 

[Mathnomalous]

Life and death is beyond the game of being a smarty pants - just saying.

Just saying... what? Life and death of whom? What message are you trying to get across here?

 

[WhoWee]

Just saying... what? Life and death of whom? What message are you trying to get across here?

Your question actually makes my point - a cavalier attitude of "hey, they're in a war zone - what do they expect" with no consideration for their safety is at best irresponsible.

As for "who?" - it's easy to sit at a keyboard and assume that someone/anyone an unknown life has no value or little value.

It's ok to be a smarty pants - but in the real world, people can be killed for very little reason.

 

[CAC1001]

Just saying... what? Life and death of whom? What message are you trying to get across here?

Okay, very simple example here, but imagine a team of soldiers is moving into a building to capture a group of terrorists, and some guy contacts the terrorists and tells them specifically a vulnerable area the soldier team must move through where they can be ambushed.

When this is discovered, people say that the person who contacted the terrorists is no good and have put the soldier team in danger. To which you say, "Because apparently they were not already in danger in an active warzone "

 

[Mathnomalous]

Your question actually makes my point - a cavalier attitude of "hey, they're in a war zone - what do they expect" with no consideration for their safety is at best irresponsible.

As for "who?" - it's easy to sit at a keyboard and assume that someone/anyone an unknown life has no value or little value.

It's ok to be a smarty pants - but in the real world, people can be killed for very little reason.

You know the fastest way to remove the danger our servicepeople face? Bring them all home. The last thing anyone should comment about is the danger troops face in an active warzone. They expect it, they train for it, and they probably do not appreciate a random internet commando telling them how much more dangerous it can be.

 

[JaredJames]

Accepting the danger you are faced with in an active war zone is part of signing up to the military.

However, when you sign up you don't agree to be put into a situation which is compromised because key details have been passed on for the enemies advantage.

Why can you not see the difference between accepting the risk of a war zone by being in the military and the additional and unnecessary risk posed by leaked information?

 

[rethunk]

Has anyone stopped to ask whether the 'leaks' really constitute an increased risk to troops, undercover personnel, etc?

From BBC news website,

"Daniel Ellsberg, the former military analyst who in 1971 released the Pentagon Papers which detailed government lies and cover-ups in the Vietnam War, is sceptical of whether the government really believes that lives are at stake.

He told the BBC's World Today programme that US officials made that same argument every time there was a potentially embarrassing leak.

The best justification they can find for secrecy is that lives are at stake. Actually, lives are at stake as a result of the silences and lies which a lot of these leaks reveal," he said.

The same charges were made against the Pentagon Papers and turned out to be quite invalid."

 

[JaredJames]

I was under the impression they detailed names and locations of informants.

 

[rethunk]

That does sound a step too far, if true.

But you've also got to ask who the personnel, local security or whoever are who would pass this stuff on in the first place. If wikileaks weren't doing this would these people still get exposed on the internet or however? (I'm not saying that makes it right BTW!)...

 

[WhoWee]

You know the fastest way to remove the danger our servicepeople face? Bring them all home. The last thing anyone should comment about is the danger troops face in an active warzone. They expect it, they train for it, and they probably do not appreciate a random internet commando telling them how much more dangerous it can be.

Let's be clear - am I the "random internet commando "?

Any action, by any person, that puts any single life in MORE danger - is inexcuseable.

 

[WhoWee]

Has anyone stopped to ask whether the 'leaks' really constitute an increased risk to troops, undercover personnel, etc?

From BBC news website,

"Daniel Ellsberg, the former military analyst who in 1971 released the Pentagon Papers which detailed government lies and cover-ups in the Vietnam War, is sceptical of whether the government really believes that lives are at stake.

He told the BBC's World Today programme that US officials made that same argument every time there was a potentially embarrassing leak.

The best justification they can find for secrecy is that lives are at stake. Actually, lives are at stake as a result of the silences and lies which a lot of these leaks reveal," he said.

The same charges were made against the Pentagon Papers and turned out to be quite invalid."

How many pieces of information were released? Do you honestly believe that anyone could possibly know at this point if anyone has been injured?

 

[Mathnomalous]

Let's be clear - am I the "random internet commando "?

Rechecking my post, I only see your name above the quotation box. I do not know why you consider yourself a victim or the target of a random phrase.

Any action, by any person, that puts any single life in MORE danger - is inexcuseable.

Seriously? That is the conditional? It is OK if lives are placed in danger but unacceptable if lives are placed in more danger? I thought the objective was to not place them in any kind of danger, especially the unnecessary kind. I cannot debate against this type of absurdity.

Question: If a US citizen obtained and released without authorization classified Russian files, would you support the extradition (from any country) of said US citizen to Russia, given that releasing classified Russian files without authorization is probably against Russian law?

 

[Mathnomalous]

How many pieces of information were released? Do you honestly believe that anyone could possibly know at this point if anyone has been injured?

To date, Wikileaks has released approximately 1500 US DoS documents. I would imagine the people claiming about probable loss of life would have a good idea of who has perished as a consequence of the Wikileaks release. Vague comments about probable loss of life are nothing more than emotional appeals.

 

[WhoWee]

Rechecking my post I again, I only see your name above the quotation box. I do not know why you consider yourself a victim or the target of a random phrase.



Seriously? That is the conditional? It is OK if lives are placed in danger but unacceptable if lives are placed in more danger? I thought the objective was to not place them in any kind of danger, especially the unnecessary kind. I cannot debate against this type of absurdity.

Question: If a US citizen obtained and released without authorization classified Russian files, would you support the extradition (from any country) of said US citizen to Russia, given that releasing classified Russian files without authorization is probably against Russian law?

In response to your comment that "Because apparently they were not already in danger in an active warzone. ", I'm conceding that yes, a war zone is a dangerous place. I'll even concede that if you remove OUR people from the war zone they would be safer - although I don't think you can also remove locals that provided assistance to our personnel

Given this, I use the term MORE danger - satisfied?

As I said, it's one thing to make smart comments, but the consequences of leaked information can be death to soldiers and/or innocents.