6 ms·

Whistleblower? Which US law is the "whistleblower" accusing the government of breaking?

by Alex63 16y ago

mcantelon 16y ago
US law may permit killing non-American civilians (as shown in the "Collateral Murder" video), but international law frowns upon it.
- confuzatron 16y ago
  International law does cover treatment of civilians during conflicts, but I'm afraid you are wrong - international law doesn't automatically class any and all civilian deaths as war crimes. This is pretty basic stuff.
  - mcantelon 16y ago
    During "Collateral Murder", an Apache gunship shot up, with no warning, a civilian van that exhibited no aggression. Would this be legal under international law?
    - Alex63 16y ago
      Article 5 of the 4th Geneva Convention states (in part): Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State. So your question comes down to whether the crew of that gunship suspected the van of containing persons who threatened the security of the Afghan state. I don't know the answer to that. Do you?
      - mcantelon 16y ago
        Watching that video, there doesn't seem to be a reason to suspect the van of being engaged in hostile activities. Your interpretation of that law would allow the military to kill any civilians they please, merely stating that they suspected them. I suspect this interpretation is incorrect.
        Alex63 16y ago
        I'm sorry, in the interest of brevity I may have been unclear. I don't think that I'm "interpreting" the Geneva Conventions. I reported what the convention said, and explained that to know whether the US had violated the conventions, we would have to know whether there was "suspicion". It would be up to a court to determine this. While the video is one piece of evidence, we have no way of knowing what other information was available (e.g., did the daily intel briefing warn crews that Taliban forces were using white vans to transport fighters). My point was that the GC does not make all civilian deaths illegal.
        mcantelon 16y ago
        My guess is a court would find "suspicion" unwarranted without reason for it. As the military hasn't cited any reason for the killing of the civilians in the van (no daily intel briefing warning of white vans was revealed in defense of the military), it would seem that there isn't one. Obviously civilians can be killed if there is a rational reason for it (i.e. aggression), but it's fairly certain that killing civilians without reason is not legal under international law otherwise death squads would be considerably more popular.
        russell_h 16y ago
        What interpretation? Your disagreement seems to be with the Geneva Convention itself.
        mcantelon 16y ago
        When a law allows certain activity based on "suspicion" it means reality-based suspicion, not suspicion based on an individuals hunches or psychic prowess.
    - fdschoeneman 16y ago
      I'm not sure what you mean by a "civilian van." As if there are or were at the time insurgent vehicles that were clearly marked as "non-civilian." And if you actually watched the video you'll see that the US personnel believed the occupants of the van were removing weapons from the site. After action footage redeemed this view, and showed the presence of RPG's. Also, ask yourself, why was that van tooling around in the middle of a warzone with kids inside? If the driver was a "civilian" then he demonstrated very poor judgement at the least, and a willingness to use children as human shields at the worst. I'm inclined to believe it was the worst.
      - mcantelon 16y ago
        >if you actually watched the video you'll see that the US personnel believed the occupants of the van were removing weapons from the site. They can believe that the occupants are also Martians, but that doesn't qualify as a belief based on reason. >After action footage redeemed this view, and showed the presence of RPG's. The van was a civilian vehicle. There were no RPGs found originating from the van. >Also, ask yourself, why was that van tooling around in the middle of a warzone with kids inside? My guess is the citizens in the van were Iraqi, hence their proximity to the country. >If the driver was a "civilian" then he demonstrated very poor judgement at the least, and a willingness to use children as human shields at the worst. I'm open to evidence that the van was 1) an insurgent van and 2) using the children as human shields, but a belief without evidence isn't reasonable.
        fdschoeneman 16y ago
        I'm glad you're open and reasonable. Now ask yourself some questions: 1) Did you see any other "civilian" vehicles or civilians on the street in the footage? No. Where do you think the "civilians" and their vehicles were? The answer is, they were at home, hunkered down, because they knew there was fighting going on. There had been fighting going on in this neighborhood for weeks. That's a "reasonable" reaction to living in a fucking war zone. That's what I'd do. That's probably what you'd do. And if I had kids, it sure as fuck is what I would do. The last thing I would do is put my kids in a car and drive around in it as some kind of a mobile aid station. Even if my best friend was sitting their in the street, bleeding out, I wouldn't risk my kids lives to pick him up in a war zone. Furthermore, if you watched the entire video, and I suspect you didn't, you'd find that the same Apache crew was tracking another black and unmarked "civilian" vehicle just a few minutes before they fired on the Reuters journalists and guess what? That other vehicile (which may have been the same one) dropped off armed insurgents into a firefight. So yes, Apache crew belief may have been incorrect -- though there is ample evidence to support that it was correct -- but it wasn't "unreasonable." Listen, I think you're angry about war. War sucks. It's terrible. And I'm glad most of the fighting seems to be over in Iraq and that we'll get the hell out of there soon. But Assange edited that video to make US forces look like murders, which isn't the truth. They are just normal guys doing a very, very difficult job, and who sometimes make mistakes. You want to be angry, get angry at Bush and Obama. Wikileaks got it wrong, intentionally.
- Alex63 16y ago
  Which particular international law are you referring to? The Geneva Conventions?
sophacles 16y ago
A whistleblower points out wrongdoing. This is different from pointing out lawbreaking. Please note for future reference: legality and morality are at best loosely related. Just because something is legal does not make it right, and vice versa.
- Alex63 16y ago
  I understand (and agree to some extent with) your larger point, but my concern was with the specific term "whistleblower", which is usually associated with someone who identifies a crime occurring within their own organization. Whistleblowers are often protected because of the recognition that publicizing a crime is usually in the public good. In this case, I hesitate to use the term "whistleblower" because I think it implies circumstances and motivations that do not apply. At this point we are all speculating, but it appears that the alleged leaker made classified information available to another party, knowing that it would be made public, because they disagreed with US policy. In my mind, revealing privileged information because you do not agree with a policy is not the same thing as "whistleblowing". Would you classify Kim Philby, or Robert Hanssen as "whistleblowers"?
  - sophacles 16y ago
    I would not classify Kim Philby or Robert Hanssen as whistleblowers. Of course both of them traded secrets to their sworn enemy for money. This is a much different situation than releasing secrets to the public out of a desire to uncover improper government lies. In fact other than the release of secrets, the situations are very different, your analogy is a strawman. As for whistleblowing: Shawn Carpenter, Peter Buxtun, and Wendell Potter have all received that label, while not informing on their bosses about illegal activities, just reprehensible ones. There are plenty more.
    - Alex63 16y ago
      Both Philby and Hanssen were agents of their respective governments, with a sworn duty to protect their country's secrets, as was the alleged leaker. People who work in these organizations, who hold top secret security clearances and handle sensitive information, are understandably expected to adhere to standard of personal behavior which does not include making personal judgments about government policy (in Philby's case, it is questionable whether he was motivated by money). Surely we agree that government agents (in their many forms) cannot choose which directives to obey based on their personal beliefs about the rightness/wrongness of the policy, although they must disobey unlawful commands/orders. This is admittedly a fine line to draw, but most government organizations offer avenues to report concerns without releasing sensitive information to the public. With respect to your examples of "whistleblowers", I'll accept that designation for Carpenter and Buxtun, but in both cases I think they were reporting something that was clearly illegal (Carpenter) or at odds with accepted standards (Buxtun). And both Carpenter and Buxtun did report their concerns through appropriate channels before "leaking".

Whistleblower? Which US law is the "whistleblower" accusing the government of breaking?

by Alex63 16y ago

Whistleblower? Which US law is the "whistleblower" accusing the government of breaking?

US law may permit killing non-American civilians (as shown in the "Collateral Murder" video), but international law frowns upon it.

confuzatron 16y ago
International law does cover treatment of civilians during conflicts, but I'm afraid you are wrong - international law doesn't automatically class any and all civilian deaths as war crimes. This is pretty basic stuff.
- mcantelon 16y ago
  During "Collateral Murder", an Apache gunship shot up, with no warning, a civilian van that exhibited no aggression. Would this be legal under international law?
  - Alex63 16y ago
    Article 5 of the 4th Geneva Convention states (in part): Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State. So your question comes down to whether the crew of that gunship suspected the van of containing persons who threatened the security of the Afghan state. I don't know the answer to that. Do you?
    - mcantelon 16y ago
      Watching that video, there doesn't seem to be a reason to suspect the van of being engaged in hostile activities. Your interpretation of that law would allow the military to kill any civilians they please, merely stating that they suspected them. I suspect this interpretation is incorrect.
      - Alex63 16y ago
        I'm sorry, in the interest of brevity I may have been unclear. I don't think that I'm "interpreting" the Geneva Conventions. I reported what the convention said, and explained that to know whether the US had violated the conventions, we would have to know whether there was "suspicion". It would be up to a court to determine this. While the video is one piece of evidence, we have no way of knowing what other information was available (e.g., did the daily intel briefing warn crews that Taliban forces were using white vans to transport fighters). My point was that the GC does not make all civilian deaths illegal.
        mcantelon 16y ago
        My guess is a court would find "suspicion" unwarranted without reason for it. As the military hasn't cited any reason for the killing of the civilians in the van (no daily intel briefing warning of white vans was revealed in defense of the military), it would seem that there isn't one. Obviously civilians can be killed if there is a rational reason for it (i.e. aggression), but it's fairly certain that killing civilians without reason is not legal under international law otherwise death squads would be considerably more popular.
      - russell_h 16y ago
        What interpretation? Your disagreement seems to be with the Geneva Convention itself.
        mcantelon 16y ago
        When a law allows certain activity based on "suspicion" it means reality-based suspicion, not suspicion based on an individuals hunches or psychic prowess.
  - fdschoeneman 16y ago
    I'm not sure what you mean by a "civilian van." As if there are or were at the time insurgent vehicles that were clearly marked as "non-civilian." And if you actually watched the video you'll see that the US personnel believed the occupants of the van were removing weapons from the site. After action footage redeemed this view, and showed the presence of RPG's. Also, ask yourself, why was that van tooling around in the middle of a warzone with kids inside? If the driver was a "civilian" then he demonstrated very poor judgement at the least, and a willingness to use children as human shields at the worst. I'm inclined to believe it was the worst.
    - mcantelon 16y ago
      >if you actually watched the video you'll see that the US personnel believed the occupants of the van were removing weapons from the site. They can believe that the occupants are also Martians, but that doesn't qualify as a belief based on reason. >After action footage redeemed this view, and showed the presence of RPG's. The van was a civilian vehicle. There were no RPGs found originating from the van. >Also, ask yourself, why was that van tooling around in the middle of a warzone with kids inside? My guess is the citizens in the van were Iraqi, hence their proximity to the country. >If the driver was a "civilian" then he demonstrated very poor judgement at the least, and a willingness to use children as human shields at the worst. I'm open to evidence that the van was 1) an insurgent van and 2) using the children as human shields, but a belief without evidence isn't reasonable.
      - fdschoeneman 16y ago
        I'm glad you're open and reasonable. Now ask yourself some questions: 1) Did you see any other "civilian" vehicles or civilians on the street in the footage? No. Where do you think the "civilians" and their vehicles were? The answer is, they were at home, hunkered down, because they knew there was fighting going on. There had been fighting going on in this neighborhood for weeks. That's a "reasonable" reaction to living in a fucking war zone. That's what I'd do. That's probably what you'd do. And if I had kids, it sure as fuck is what I would do. The last thing I would do is put my kids in a car and drive around in it as some kind of a mobile aid station. Even if my best friend was sitting their in the street, bleeding out, I wouldn't risk my kids lives to pick him up in a war zone. Furthermore, if you watched the entire video, and I suspect you didn't, you'd find that the same Apache crew was tracking another black and unmarked "civilian" vehicle just a few minutes before they fired on the Reuters journalists and guess what? That other vehicile (which may have been the same one) dropped off armed insurgents into a firefight. So yes, Apache crew belief may have been incorrect -- though there is ample evidence to support that it was correct -- but it wasn't "unreasonable." Listen, I think you're angry about war. War sucks. It's terrible. And I'm glad most of the fighting seems to be over in Iraq and that we'll get the hell out of there soon. But Assange edited that video to make US forces look like murders, which isn't the truth. They are just normal guys doing a very, very difficult job, and who sometimes make mistakes. You want to be angry, get angry at Bush and Obama. Wikileaks got it wrong, intentionally.
Alex63 16y ago
Which particular international law are you referring to? The Geneva Conventions?

sophacles 16y ago

A whistleblower points out wrongdoing. This is different from pointing out lawbreaking. Please note for future reference: legality and morality are at best loosely related. Just because something is legal does not make it right, and vice versa.

Alex63 16y ago
I understand (and agree to some extent with) your larger point, but my concern was with the specific term "whistleblower", which is usually associated with someone who identifies a crime occurring within their own organization. Whistleblowers are often protected because of the recognition that publicizing a crime is usually in the public good. In this case, I hesitate to use the term "whistleblower" because I think it implies circumstances and motivations that do not apply. At this point we are all speculating, but it appears that the alleged leaker made classified information available to another party, knowing that it would be made public, because they disagreed with US policy. In my mind, revealing privileged information because you do not agree with a policy is not the same thing as "whistleblowing". Would you classify Kim Philby, or Robert Hanssen as "whistleblowers"?
- sophacles 16y ago
  I would not classify Kim Philby or Robert Hanssen as whistleblowers. Of course both of them traded secrets to their sworn enemy for money. This is a much different situation than releasing secrets to the public out of a desire to uncover improper government lies. In fact other than the release of secrets, the situations are very different, your analogy is a strawman. As for whistleblowing: Shawn Carpenter, Peter Buxtun, and Wendell Potter have all received that label, while not informing on their bosses about illegal activities, just reprehensible ones. There are plenty more.
  - Alex63 16y ago
    Both Philby and Hanssen were agents of their respective governments, with a sworn duty to protect their country's secrets, as was the alleged leaker. People who work in these organizations, who hold top secret security clearances and handle sensitive information, are understandably expected to adhere to standard of personal behavior which does not include making personal judgments about government policy (in Philby's case, it is questionable whether he was motivated by money). Surely we agree that government agents (in their many forms) cannot choose which directives to obey based on their personal beliefs about the rightness/wrongness of the policy, although they must disobey unlawful commands/orders. This is admittedly a fine line to draw, but most government organizations offer avenues to report concerns without releasing sensitive information to the public. With respect to your examples of "whistleblowers", I'll accept that designation for Carpenter and Buxtun, but in both cases I think they were reporting something that was clearly illegal (Carpenter) or at odds with accepted standards (Buxtun). And both Carpenter and Buxtun did report their concerns through appropriate channels before "leaking".