News Wikileaks release classified documents

[edward]

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.

This thread isn't about the humanities. It is about a a war and the real world, not someones hypothetical perfect world that exists only in an academic glass bubble.

The Taliban; chop off heads, totally dominate their wives, beat women if they are raped, and refuse to allow education for their daughters. If you feel that they are your equal, lots of luck with that.

 

[apeiron]

Most of the responses above are too juvenile even to deserve a reply. But my point was about the standards of debate that should be expected of moderators.

Again, if anyone can show that "good guys vs bad guys" is a legitimate construct in academic political discussions, please provide the citations.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The Taliban is not Party to the Geneva Conventions. They never have been alleged to be Party to those treaties.

It does not matter (assuming that the Taliban are a recognized ruling body). The Geneva Conventions are a standard of international law regardless of whether or not a particular state or ruling body has signed it. You can not exempt signatories from prosecution on certain grounds and yet prosecute nonsignatories on those same grounds.

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

Afghanistan was a signatory. The Taliban is the ousted and former ruling body of Afghanistan, though not the ruling body that signed the treaty. The current conflict is largely considered a continuation of hostilities precipitate of the war which ousted the Taliban as Afghanistan's ruling body. It is debatable whether or not it would apply.

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.

The gangs in South Central are not the ousted and former ruling bodies of sovereign nations.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

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.

It did to some degree go back to 'combatants'. ZQrn was questioning the consistency of treatment of spies on both sides of the conflict, branching off of the question of Assange's culpability. Essentially, 'Why is it that their spies are criminals and ours are not?'. Here, still, the 'We're the good guys and they're the bad guys' explanation does not really seem worthy of the discussion.

 

[Evo]

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.

You have completely taken what Russ said out of context.

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.

P&WA is not even close to being a "scholarly debate". If I were to hold everyone that posted here to something even close to that, I'd have to delete 99.9% of what was posted. This forum is for members to discuss what is on their mind, as long as they adhere to the posted guidelines. Whether or not you like someone's terminology doesn't matter. Russ clearly explained what his reasoning was.

 

[ibnsos]

It does not matter (assuming that the Taliban are a recognized ruling body). The Geneva Conventions are a standard of international law regardless of whether or not a particular state or ruling body has signed it. You can not exempt signatories from prosecution on certain grounds and yet prosecute nonsignatories on those same grounds.
.

Ignoring the assumption, since that is debatable. Why would you not prosecute non-signators differently than signators? The Geneva Convention only applies to signatory nations. If one of the combatants is not a signatory nation and one is, the signatory nation is requried to follow the conventions only if the non-signatory nation also accepts and applies the conventions. (see Common Article 2)

 

[russ_watters]

Again, if anyone can show that "good guys vs bad guys" is a legitimate construct in academic political discussions, please provide the citations.

As I said, 'good guys' and 'bad guys' are defined by international mandate via the UN and in addition have clear grounds in international moral code and law. This is not a matter of opinion and most certainly is relevant in a political discussion about the just-ness of a war.

Failing to take the proper stand or any stand on which side is "good" and which side is "bad", particularly with an internationally recognized mandate and a clear moral difference between the two sides is both immoral and cowardly. There is no true neutrality here: choosing not to take a stand is choosing to allow this sort of evil to continue:

 

[russ_watters]

I agree that "good guys" and "bad guys" is too simple. Most dangerous and radicalized jihadists are good people to someone.

Moral relativism is both logically self-contradictory and completely irrelevant here. As an international standard exists and a judgement about the group in question exists, there is a clear answer to the question of which side a 3rd party should be on.

 

[apeiron]

You have completely taken what Russ said out of context.

In what way?

P&WA is not even close to being a "scholarly debate". If I were to hold everyone that posted here to something even close to that, I'd have to delete 99.9% of what was posted. This forum is for members to discuss what is on their mind, as long as they adhere to the posted guidelines. Whether or not you like someone's terminology doesn't matter. Russ clearly explained what his reasoning was.

Agreed, it is not even close.

Russ was talking in absolute terms - there is no question, etc. ZQrn was making the obvious point there are always two sides to things. And in particular, US supporters would view a traitor doing damage to the Taliban differently. You called this trolling and banned him.

Some are allowed to speak their minds, and other's aren't.

 

[apeiron]

As I said, 'good guys' and 'bad guys' are defined by international mandate via the UN and in addition have clear grounds in international moral code and law. This is not a matter of opinion and most certainly is relevant in a political discussion about the just-ness of a war.

Failing to take the proper stand or any stand on which side is "good" and which side is "bad", particularly with an internationally recognized mandate and a clear moral difference between the two sides is both immoral and cowardly. There is no true neutrality here: choosing not to take a stand is choosing to allow this sort of evil to continue:

First, do you feel I have a right here to argue for moral relativism - that there is no absolute moral code that would make one culture good, another evil?

Second, do you feel I have a right here to argue for realpolitik - that the public face of international relations conceals more diverse motives, a wider negotiation of power?

Third, do you feel I have a right to argue for both these things without being labelled with ad hominens such as immoral and cowardly?

And I would extend these question to the other moderators entering into this discussion.

 

[Proton Soup]

As I said, 'good guys' and 'bad guys' are defined by international mandate via the UN and in addition have clear grounds in international moral code and law. This is not a matter of opinion and most certainly is relevant in a political discussion about the just-ness of a war.

Failing to take the proper stand or any stand on which side is "good" and which side is "bad", particularly with an internationally recognized mandate and a clear moral difference between the two sides is both immoral and cowardly. There is no true neutrality here: choosing not to take a stand is choosing to allow this sort of evil to continue:

that is an interesting picture. and an interesting narrative in the text (yes, i can read it). and believe me, I'm with you on the evil that it represents. it's the sort of thing i could see myself resorting to vigilantism to correct, were it to be happening locally (i will not live in a mexico).

but... are we really at a point where the purpose of our military is to fight evil and stamp out injustice in the world?

 

[russ_watters]

but... are we really at a point where the purpose of our military is to fight evil and stamp out injustice in the world?

Though that is an interesting question and one I have a pretty strong opinion on, I don't see how it is relevant here. We have a mandate to stamp out this injustice and that is enough for this war.

 

[Proton Soup]

Though that is an interesting question and one I have a pretty strong opinion on, I don't see how it is relevant here. We have a mandate to stamp out this injustice and that is enough for this war.

i think that by posting that picture, you are making that argument. that is why it is relevant here. plus, it sets the precedent. and by setting the precedent, that means that it won't be just this injustice for just this war.

 

[russ_watters]

i think that by posting that picture, you are making that argument. that is why it is relevant here. plus, it sets the precedent. and by setting the precedent, that means that it won't be just this injustice for just this war.

Moral absolutism requires it, but practical reality means we have to pick and choose where to apply it based on a variety of criteria. And we've done so in a lot of places and not done so in a lot of others.

 

[Proton Soup]

Moral absolutism requires it, but practical reality means we have to pick and choose where to apply it based on a variety of criteria. And we've done so in a lot of places and not done so in a lot of others.

yes, we are inconsistent. and to be honest, i think a lot of that has to do with financial interest. for instance, we did not get involved in Rwanda. UN peacekeepers were there. they were not allowed to interfere. now, this will probably change, and i expect we will begin to see more involvement in africa, but not because of any sense of moral absolutism. rather, the chinese have taken an interest there, and for good reason. africa is a rich source of natural resources like rare Earth metals. in the end, it's all about the benjamins.

 

[apeiron]

Though that is an interesting question and one I have a pretty strong opinion on, I don't see how it is relevant here. We have a mandate to stamp out this injustice and that is enough for this war.

If Russ says that absolute morality demands the US invades countries with the kind of practices featured on the cover of Time, then there is quite a list of countries to work through still.

Turkey...
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=the-woman-gets-her-nose-cut-off-by-the-husband-2010-04-05

Pakistan...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8425820.stm

India...
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41740.htm

Bangladesh...
http://womenagainstshariah.blogspot.com/2009/08/179-acid-attacks-against-women-in.html

Saudi Arabia
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2005/12/08/saudi-arabia-court-orders-eye-be-gouged-out

Moral absolutism requires it, but practical reality means we have to pick and choose where to apply it based on a variety of criteria. And we've done so in a lot of places and not done so in a lot of others.

So we have to pick and chose who gets invaded because practical reality > moral absolutism? This is at least consistent with the position that US interests > principle of free speech.

I personally don't like barbaric punishments or irresponsible uses of free speech privileges. But I also don't believe that things can be changed in the world by starting from inflexible positions and failing to understand the other point of view.

Moral absolutism is self-defeating and surprising in anyone claiming to have a scientific world view. In science, all is merely hypothesis. The capacity to doubt is the first principle. There are no right answers, just well tested models.

 

[ZQrn]

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

Afghanistan as per the original government before coup d'êtat assisted by a foreign force was placed there.

Who said he was a traitor?

Russ

What?

That.

Did you read my earlier response to this?

I have no idea of which one you speak.

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.

Oh bravo, for the second time you abuse your position to maintain order because you can't stand the opinion of another. Cry me a river, I could post all the misinformed crap I wanted here as long as ever posted ended with 'And that is why America is awesome, just accept it.' What you did here is really below the standard of any politics board and wouldn't only cost you your mod powers but probably get you banned on any board seriously catering towards 'high quality' political debate from a world wide perspective that doesn't a priori assert that the US is always magically the good guys and can just police the world.

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.

Luckily I don't command an army so I doubt they care whether or not I stand with them or not.

Besides, enough countries that did command an army were neutral in various conflicts.

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, he would be a spy if he actually entered US soil and broke local laws. He is basically 'neutral', he has obtained information whilst living in his own country, he has never entered the US under the promise that he'd respect local laws. He has been given information whose release could be considered harmful to the US, and has released it publicly, the most you can accuse him of is not being allied to the US and going out of his way and operation of his own non profit foundation to protect US interests.

He has not broken any US laws on US soil to obtain that information. He does provide a platform for US traitors to function on, though.

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.

That's nonsensical, soldiers are often ordered to break those conventions, and you really can't try every individual solider on that to determine which of them has broken them. The conventions are also between governments, that is commanders, and not soldiers.

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

No, he chose to not ally himself with what you would call the 'good guys', and trust me, outside of the US that view is hardly universal or internationally recognized. A lot of people worldwide think that the US should just leave and stop trying to police the world.

Another thing, being, about that guy from the Pentagon Papers about Assange:Edit:removed link to blog

Moral relativism is both logically self-contradictory and completely irrelevant here. As an international standard exists and a judgement about the group in question exists, there is a clear answer to the question of which side a 3rd party should be on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_public_opinion_on_the_war_in_Afghanistan

Okay, so be it, you're the bad guys then if you want to believe that international standards make right and wrong.

Also read this part:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intern...c_opinion_compared_to_American_public_opinion

Stop living in your isolated US Bubble, the 'international standard', doesn't think your country is as much the 'good guy' as your country thinks it is.

Luckily though I don't believe international standards are anything remotely relevant, but hey, your party.

Though that is an interesting question and one I have a pretty strong opinion on, I don't see how it is relevant here. We have a mandate to stamp out this injustice and that is enough for this war.

A photoshopped propaganda picture?

Also, you beg the question here, you take for granted that your vision on right and wrong is the One True Right to judge over that of others.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2994924.stm
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/27/news/27iht-pew.4.6365578.html

Stop living in your bubble and your isolated view that US is some how internationally recognized as the good guys. The world for the most part doesn't like the US. The majority of the citizens of first world countries hold an unfavourable view of the US, US policies, US-style democracy and how the US policies the world. You keep asserting that the US is automatically the good guys due to some 'international standard' but even that standard doesn't agree, the majority of the world does not like the US.

 

[Gokul43201]

Moral relativism is both logically self-contradictory and completely irrelevant here.

If it's irrelevant, then your proclaiming summary judgment upon it is an off-topic, below-the-belt move that doesn't belong in the thread. Save it for the Philosophy forum.

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

You can not make the case that Assange chose to ally himself with one side without (as a necessary but not sufficient condition) showing that wikileaks has a policy (stated or demonstrated) to not accept leaks from that side, or to treat leaks from that side in a different manner to leaks from the other side. If they have no such policy, or show no such history, they are not allied with any particular side.

And taking the argument further, it would be cowardly (or perhaps overreaching) to assert that someone being critical of one side is automatically allied with the other side.

 

[Evo]

Russ

No. Here is what Russ said

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

That.

You need to explain what I questioned.

I have no idea of which one you speak.

Then you need to go back and read my post again.

Oh bravo, for the second time you abuse your position to maintain order because you can't stand the opinion of another. Cry me a river, I could post all the misinformed crap I wanted here as long as ever posted ended with 'And that is why America is awesome, just accept it.' What you did here is really below the standard of any politics board and wouldn't only cost you your mod powers but probably get you banned on any board seriously catering towards 'high quality' political debate from a world wide perspective that doesn't a priori assert that the US is always magically the good guys and can just police the world.

We have guidelines for posting here, if you don't like them, you do not have to post here.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Ignoring the assumption, since that is debatable. Why would you not prosecute non-signators differently than signators? The Geneva Convention only applies to signatory nations. If one of the combatants is not a signatory nation and one is, the signatory nation is requried to follow the conventions only if the non-signatory nation also accepts and applies the conventions. (see Common Article 2)

See Article 1: "The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances."
My emphasis added.

edit: Sorry I sort of skipped over the first part of the post. As I noted the GC is a standard of international law. Exempting signatories from certain charges and laying them upon others would be akin to the US prohibiting "cruel and unusual punishment" of citizens but allowing it in the case of noncitizens. Setting a standard means no exceptions in either direction.

Moral absolutism is self-defeating and surprising in anyone claiming to have a scientific world view. In science, all is merely hypothesis. The capacity to doubt is the first principle. There are no right answers, just well tested models.

If I remember correctly from former discussions Russ is a realist/utilitarian. I do not believe he intended in his quote to promote an absolutist doctrine [with exceptions].

Of course that conversation is one we have already had (and should have; as Gokul points out) in Philosophy.

 

[ZQrn]

No. Here is what Russ said

And he also said this

You need to explain what I questioned.

I have no idea what you mean with 'what', be more descriptive.

And please, you have a very nasty history of only quoting the parts that are the easiest and just ignoring the rest.

Then you need to go back and read my post again.

I have no idea which post you speak of, be more descriptive.

Do you honestly think that if you ask 'what?' or 'read my post again' without pointing out what you mean I can just read your mind and gather what you mean?

Oh wait, I forgot, right wing and moral absolutist policy is completely based on ignoring to try to appreciate the situation from another's perspective. Do you honestly think I can gather what you want to hear if you just say 'what'

We have guidelines for posting here, if you don't like them, please feel free to leave.

I'm fine with the guidelines, the point is that you aren't fine with the guidelines and just make decisions as you please. There isn't a single guideline which says you can't make 'uninformed' posts and I never made them. I just don't agree with your moral absolutism on this issue (and I quote and reply to every single point you address at me, you might want to try that)

 

[Evo]

And he also said this

That was in response to the person(s)that leaked the video, not assange.

I have no idea what you mean with 'what', be more descriptive.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2819873&postcount=133

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

Okay, what does that mean?

And please, you have a very nasty history of only quoting the parts that are the easiest and just ignoring the rest.

I only respond to parts that need clarification, not everything is worthy of a response. Also please stop with the bad attitude.

I have no idea which post you speak of, be more descriptive.

I posted it twice in two separate posts. It's all there if you had read it. https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2819873&postcount=133

Did you read my earlier response to this?

Originally Posted by Evo
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?

It appears that you blast off responses without taking time to stop and think. This type of posting is detrimental to carrying on a conversation. It appears that you keep flooding the thread with posts just to get a response in.

 

[Gokul43201]

That was in response to the person(s)that leaked the video, not assange.

How can you possibly say that?

Here's the quote (bolding mine):

Ehh, I would say that if the purpose is whistleblowing, then legitimate whistleblowing is commendable - and wikileaks has done some legitimate whistleblowing. But the helicopter incident and this are at best fishing expeditions* and at worst dangerously damaging treason.

Clearly, russ is aiming the treason charge at wikileaks (i.e., Assange). The quote is NOT about the person that leaked the video.

 

[BobG]

As I said, 'good guys' and 'bad guys' are defined by international mandate via the UN and in addition have clear grounds in international moral code and law. This is not a matter of opinion and most certainly is relevant in a political discussion about the just-ness of a war.

Failing to take the proper stand or any stand on which side is "good" and which side is "bad", particularly with an internationally recognized mandate and a clear moral difference between the two sides is both immoral and cowardly. There is no true neutrality here: choosing not to take a stand is choosing to allow this sort of evil to continue:

Are UN resolutions and sanctions a good criteria for determining "good guys" and "bad guys"?

What happens if our country doesn't like how the UN implements a resolution we agreed to - particularly if the UN sees a particular violation as being more trivial and deserving of a much lesser punishment than the punishment the US thinks would be appropriate?

While I actually agree with your position in this circumstance, I just find it ironic when supporters of the Iraq invasion revert to this particular argument for the Afghanistan war. Although, once again, while the UN denied recognition of the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan and while it imposed sanctions for years before 9/11, the UN never saw fit to impose an invasion of Afghanistan to remove the Taliban.

Nor did the US ask the UN to take any action against Afghanistan after 9/11. This was a situation where the US was reacting to an attack on US soil and asking the UN to resolve the situation would have been inappropriate for that type of situation.

In other words, the US didn't ask the UN to endorse an invasion of Afghanistan and then have to withdraw the resolution because it became obvious that an endorsement wouldn't be forthcoming.

I think the magazine cover is an effective emotional hook to sell the idea of why we need to stay in Afghanistan. A more effective rational argument would compare the overall condition of women in Afghanistan with Karzai in power to the overall condition of women with the Taliban in power.

There is a difference and conditions for women are better under Karzai than the Taliban, but it's a stretch to say that's because Karzai is a champion of women's rights. In reality, he forces Afghanis to bend a little to appease the Western allies keeping Karzai in power. This is a cultural issue more than it is a political issue. American views about women's rights don't just conflict with the Taliban's views or Karzai's views - American views conflict with Afghani views.

I agree that the Taliban is the official "bad guys" in this scenario, but I think the difference between the Afghani "good guys" and "bad guys" may be slightly exaggerated.

 

[BobG]

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.

It does not matter (assuming that the Taliban are a recognized ruling body). The Geneva Conventions are a standard of international law regardless of whether or not a particular state or ruling body has signed it. You can not exempt signatories from prosecution on certain grounds and yet prosecute nonsignatories on those same grounds.


Afghanistan was a signatory. The Taliban is the ousted and former ruling body of Afghanistan, though not the ruling body that signed the treaty. The current conflict is largely considered a continuation of hostilities precipitate of the war which ousted the Taliban as Afghanistan's ruling body. It is debatable whether or not it would apply.


The gangs in South Central are not the ousted and former ruling bodies of sovereign nations.

I think talk2glenn did a poor job explaining his point, instead choosing the fun, but ineffective style of "only an idiot wouldn't know the history of Afghanistan" style of argument.

As a result, the fact that the Taliban was not recognized by the UN as the legitimate government of Afghanistan even before 9/11 was glossed over. I believe that is the point that talk2glenn was trying to make. The Taliban was the de facto winner of a long civil war in Afghanistan, but that civil war was still ongoing as far as the UN was concerned, since the UN still recognized the government that the Taliban deposed.

But, the fact that he did leave that point out combined with the fact that you failed to address it, means talk2glenn gets to make a scathing attack on you in the near future. See what I mean about that being a fun style? It will certainly be fun for him, anyway.

The issue of whether non-recognized ruling bodies are covered by the Geneva Convention is debatable, although, admittedly, the only reason any debate exists is because civilians in the Bush administration came up with an entirely new interpretation of the GC than anyone had ever came up with before.

 

[Evo]

How can you possibly say that?

Here's the quote (bolding mine):

Clearly, russ is aiming the treason charge at wikileaks (i.e., Assange). The quote is NOT about the person that leaked the video.

I scrolled up and read your post he was responding to, yes, you're right.

 

[russ_watters]

So we have to pick and chose who gets invaded because practical reality > moral absolutism?

You misunderstand. The practical reality is that we are simply incapable of fixing all of those problems simultaneously. It's not that one trumps the other, it's just that dealing with reality has to be a component of how moral absolutism is defined and applied.

This is at least consistent with the position that US interests > principle of free speech.

What does any of this have to do with freedom of speech?

Moral absolutism is self-defeating and surprising in anyone claiming to have a scientific world view. In science, all is merely hypothesis. The capacity to doubt is the first principle. There are no right answers, just well tested models.

Wow. With such a flawed view of science, it is unsurprising that you don't see how someone with a scientific worldview can be a moral absolutist.

The principle behind my moral absolutism is exactly the same as the principle behind my scientific worldview: the way the universe works/should work is logical.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ [re: Assange and "treason"]

Since you read where I made my position completely clear, (it's quoted in this post of yours!) I don't know why you are arguing about this.

No, he would be a spy if he actually entered US soil and broke local laws.

You mean like jaywalking? You're just making this crap up as you go along. A spy most certainly does not have to be in the country he's spying against to be a spy. He just has to deal in that country's secrets. Now with the internet, you can be anywhere in the world and do spying for or against virtually any country.

He is basically 'neutral', he has obtained information whilst living in his own country, he has never entered the US under the promise that he'd respect local laws.

One does not have to promise not to break a country's laws to be bound by them/charged with espionage. Heck, you don't have to believe me: believe Assange:

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange gave a bit more detail about why he thinks he’d be in hot water if he went to the U.S. now.

Assange claimed to have a source “inside the U.S. government” who told him that the government was at one point mulling the idea of charging Assange “as a co-conspirator for espionage.”

http://blogs.wsj.com/dispatch/2010/07/27/assange-us-weighed-charging-me-with-espionage/

And some analysis:

Do they have a case?

It depends on how Assange got his information. U.S. law defines espionage as transmitting classified national security information "with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation.

If WikiLeaks was actively involved in removing the documents from the Pentagon -- hacking into a computer, for instance -- there would likely be a clear cut criminal case against the organization. But if WikiLeaks merely received the documents from someone who broke the law in leaking them, the law is much less clear.

In 2006, a Federal Court ruled that employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee could be prosecuted for receiving and transmitting classified U.S. information to Israel, even though they did not themselves leak the information. But WikiLeaks is not a foreign lobbyist and courts have generally given media organizations -- though it's not clear whether the group qualifies -- much more leeway.

Now regarding treason - Assange didn't commit treason against the US, but he's an Australian citizen and Australia has troops in Afghanistan. So this is treason against his home country:

Wikileaks founder Australian Julian Assange could have committed a serious criminal offence in helping an enemy of the Australian Defence Force (ADF), the lobby group, the Australia Defence Association (ADA) says.

ADA executive director Neil James said much of the 92,201 assorted US military, intelligence and diplomatic documents leaked by Wikileaks would not be new to anyone familiar with the Afghanistan war or wars in general.

But this latest material went well beyond justifiable whistleblowing, he said.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-new...ave-committed-offence-ada-20100728-10vp8.html

Okay, so be it, you're the bad guys then if you want to believe that international standards make right and wrong.

A public opinion poll does not qualitfy as an "international standard". We're talking about law and policy.

A photoshopped propaganda picture?

Are you claiming this photo is faked? Evidence?

...the majority of the world does not like the US.

Whether true or not, that has no relevance.

 

[russ_watters]

If it's irrelevant, then your proclaiming summary judgment upon it is an off-topic, below-the-belt move that doesn't belong in the thread. Save it for the Philosophy forum.

[shrug] Ivan provided his opinion, I provided mine. There isn't anything below the belt in what either of us posted. And I agree that the discussion should be in the philosophy forum.

You can not make the case that Assange chose to ally himself with one side without (as a necessary but not sufficient condition) showing that wikileaks has a policy (stated or demonstrated) to not accept leaks from that side, or to treat leaks from that side in a different manner to leaks from the other side. If they have no such policy, or show no such history, they are not allied with any particular side.

You're wrong by two full steps there, Gokul:
1. Espionage is an action, not a philosophical position or thought crime. What they believe is right and wrong or if they philosophically support one side over the other is irrelevant: they spied for our enemy. By their actions, they have allied themselves with our enemy.

2. You can spy for/against both sides simultaneously if you want.

And taking the argument further, it would be cowardly (or perhaps overreaching) to assert that someone being critical of one side is automatically allied with the other side.

Same as #1 above and I'll give a more direct analogy: regardless of what is going on in someone's head, if they fire a gun for one side, they have by their actions allied themself with that side.

Clearly, russ is aiming the treason charge at wikileaks (i.e., Assange). The quote is NOT about the person that leaked the video.

Perhaps I was sloppy - and honestly I don't remember what was going on in my head when I wrote that - but since I made my position explicitly clear elsewhere, could we please move along? There is no point in dwelling on an error that was long ago corrected.

 

[russ_watters]

Are UN resolutions and sanctions a good criteria for determining "good guys" and "bad guys"?

More to the point, it is the only internationally recognized standard for making such determinations. People are focusing on my strongly/absolutely worded statements because they don't like the absolutism and decisiveness of the statement and as a result are missing the point.

What happens if our country doesn't like how the UN implements a resolution we agreed to, particularly if the UN sees a particular violation as being more trivial and deserving of a much lesser punishment than the punishment the US thinks would be appropriate?

An example of that would be the Iraq war. In essence, Bush decided that the UN wasn't taking its own threats seriously.

IIRC, there was never any official condemnation of the US, calls for Hussein to be reinstated, etc. and Hussein was an internationally recognized criminal dictator, so it is tough to call us the "bad guys" there, but it is less clear-cut than Afghanistan, so "good guys" is probably too strong.

While I actually agree with your position in this circumstance, I just find it ironic when supporters of the Iraq invasion revert to this particular argument for the Afghanistan war.

If you're referring to me, there, my position on Iraq is too complicated to simply call me a "supporter". Afghanistan was a necessary and immediately needed war and we didn't have the resources to fight both simultaneously, so we should not have invaded Iraq at the same time. But if you look at who Hussein was and where Iraq is today, it is tough to call Iraq a "bad" war.

Although, once again, while the UN denied recognition of the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan and while it imposed sanctions for years before 9/11, the UN never saw fit to impose an invasion of Afghanistan to remove the Taliban.

Quite right, but Al Qaeda never executed quite such a daring attack before. With their harboring/support of an entity waging war on the US, the Taliban was itself for all intents and purposes waging war on the US. The US didn't ask for UN authorization, nor do I think it was required.

Nor did the US ask the UN to take any action against Afghanistan after 9/11. This was a situation where the US was reacting to an attack on US soil and asking the UN to resolve the situation would have been inappropriate for that type of situation.

Agreed. The UN essentially stayed out until it was time to start supporting the provisional government.

In other words, the US didn't ask the UN to endorse an invasion of Afghanistan and then have to withdraw the resolution because it became obvious that an endorsement wouldn't be forthcoming.

I'm not sure that's a complete sentence...what are you trying to say there? Are you saying the US was afraid that if they asked for UN endorsement that it wouldn't have happened and they would have hade to withdraw the resolution? Speculation and needless, to me. Bush was not the type to ask permission, nor in this case should he have.

I think the magazine cover is an effective emotional hook to sell the idea of why we need to stay in Afghanistan. A more effective rational argument would compare the overall condition of women in Afghanistan with Karzai in power to the overall condition of women with the Taliban in power.

Meh - I wanted a clear-cut example of evil and this one was delivered in my mailbox the day before. I wanted people to be forced to take a stand because there was a lot of waffling going on. With rare exception (and there was one above), I doubt many people really question what the stakes are/have been for women in Afghanistan and few people do when it is shoved in their face.

There is a difference and conditions for women are better under Karzai than the Taliban, but it's a stretch to say that's because Karzai is a champion of women's rights.

Oh, I certainy wouldn't make that claim. I have no illusions about how difficult it will be to permanently change the culture of Afghanistan and how much easier it is to make people bend to our will when we have 100,000 troops in their country.

I agree that the Taliban is the official "bad guys" in this scenario, but I think the difference between the Afghani "good guys" and "bad guys" may be slightly exaggerated.

I didn't mean to imply that the current Afghani government is the "good guys". We are, and they are our allies, but they are certainly an imperfect work in progress. If we're the "good guys" and the Taliban the "bad guys", the current government would at least be the "better than the Taliban guys", but there may not be anything stronger than that to be said for them.

The issue of whether non-recognized ruling bodies are covered by the Geneva Convention is debatable, although, admittedly, the only reason any debate exists is because civilians in the Bush administration came up with an entirely new interpretation of the GC than anyone had ever came up with before.

Heh - I see it as being the opposite: the issue and debate exists because how to deal our enemies in Afghanistan isn't adequately dealt with by the GC and as a result, the Bush admin had to make a decision without existing precedent to go by.

 

[heusdens]

but... are we really at a point where the purpose of our military is to fight evil and stamp out injustice in the world?

Which evil? The military occupation there is an evil in itself, and the proclaimed enemy now were then the "freedom fighters" that joined the "free world" in their struggle against the "evil empire" (the Soviet Union).

 

[apeiron]

Wow. With such a flawed view of science, it is unsurprising that you don't see how someone with a scientific worldview can be a moral absolutist.

The principle behind my moral absolutism is exactly the same as the principle behind my scientific worldview: the way the universe works/should work is logical.

Wow, and I would really believe that if you supported your claims with science-based accounts of human morality rather than gory emotive photographs.

If you claim that science backs moral absolutism, please show me where? Game theory? Cultural anthropology? Ecology? Neuroscience? I mean where is the theory and its evidence that says anything about human affairs is absolute? Cosmologists don't even say that about the laws of the universe, so who the heck knows what you think you are talking about?

 

[heusdens]

...
There is a difference and conditions for women are better under Karzai than the Taliban, but it's a stretch to say that's because Karzai is a champion of women's rights. ...

And the position of women in Afghanistan (i.e in the region that were under control of the Afghan government) was good at the time the Soviet Union was mixing into the Afghan situation (which they were asked to do by the Afghan government of that time), but then - that was for the US not something of any consideration, so they paied and trained the opposing Mujahedien (the fundamentalist Islamic fighters) cause they were then the "freedom fighters" that would free the Afghans from the "evil" Soviets...

 

[rootX]

And the position of women in Afghanistan (i.e in the region that were under control of the Afghan government) was good at the time the Soviet Union was mixing into the Afghan situation (which they were asked to do by the Afghan government of that time), but then - that was for the US not something of any consideration, so they paied and trained the opposing Mujahedien (the fundamentalist Islamic fighters) cause they were then the "freedom fighters" that would free the Afghans from the "evil" Soviets...

I will be very interested in any study on the position of women under Soviet Union. Thanks.

 

[Evo]

The thread has gone off topic. Actually the off topic posts are more interesting than the OP. Closed.