5 ms·

It's difficult for me to read this objectively, because I "know in my heart" that the persecution of Assange is unjust. Nevertheless, it is important to put tha

It's difficult for me to read this objectively, because I "know in my heart" that the persecution of Assange is unjust. Nevertheless, it is important to put that aside and absorb the information without bias. Let the prosecution make its best case without attachment to outcome. Still, there are some rather shocking revelations about the conduct of the government of my homeland. Torture, of course; but also murder of a detainee to terrify other detainees; "puerile attitude to killing, with juvenile nicknames given to assassination targets"; the attempted murder without trial of a US citizen, also a journalist; the attempts to block and cover these actions, which suggests that the perpetrators and enablers themselves knew they were crimes.

raxxorrax 6y ago
The law must serve justice, not the other way around. If the law allows for political prosecution, it needs to be reformed. Many laws are completely inadequate for digital "crimes". Although these "crimes" did put focus on an illegal war of aggression instigated by neocons and parts of the press. There is just so much the law can serve.
- ianhawes 6y ago
  "Equal justice under the law" unfortunately cannot coexist with "The law must serve justice".
  - srtjstjsj 6y ago
    What do you mean? They exactly coexist.
  - raxxorrax 6y ago
    I disagree completely. Perhaps you wanted to refer to weighting culpability of people being accused, but that isn't a contradiction.
latch 6y ago
I'm generally an "ends justifies the means" kinda guy, but I think anyone with that position needs to be aware of what the "means" actually are. Maybe that's why I'm a bit shocked that you're shocked. These things have been going on for a long time and they're well documented. I'll just give three examples: the My Lai massacre, the imprisonment/trial of Omar Khadr (a child soldier) and the extrajudicial execution of Anwar Nasser al-Awlaki (an American citizen). (To be clear, I don't think any of the above are justifiable. As a Canadian, I was particularly ashamed of Canada's position towards Khadr. But I don't go around a) thinking these things don't happen and b) that they're alway black and white)
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- tdons 6y ago
  Might makes right, èh? The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
- useriousbro 6y ago
  Just curious what ends you think justify these means? and do you think the US (and other 5 eyes) is achieving those ends?
  - latch 6y ago
    If you allow me to ignore the slippery slope argument, the typical justification given for extrajudicial killing (clear and immediate threat) at the very least, makes this a not-so black and white issue.
    - useriousbro 6y ago
      Are you saying that the targets referenced in this article/hearing were clear and immediate threat to Americans on the other side of the world? or maybe they were minutes from launching a nuke? Also do you think its correct to investigate very carefully anyone involved in such activities openly after the fact (once the perceived threat is no longer present) to ensure that these powers are not abused? There was an Iain (M?) Banks book (maybe transitions?) that sort of represents my basic thoughts on this.. A policemen goes extra-judicial and tortures a suspect to find the location of a kidnapped child (or something like that).. the kid or whatever it was was saved but the policeman felt he should be criminally charged and tried after the fact and the torture should certainly not be legalised or glorified as it worked that one time in exceptional circumstances. - I think that there are times when humans do carry out a wrong to stop a greater wrong - but that should be part of the burden this actor must accept when taking action. otherwise the creative among us will not be able to stop our subconscious manipulating the laws that allow us to circumnavigate protocol. I spend all day implementing controls in ERP systems etc. and I have to admit that when I have to raise a PO or Req you are damn right i use every fast track and workaround i know of to expedite it (I basically can't help it). So I try hard to create processes even I cannot manipulate. to be clear I think my ability to "work a process" is what makes me good at creating more robust processes - which is why I think politicians and law makers have a hard job and why we need to hold them to account.
Cthulhu_ 6y ago
While I do think he and others are guilty of leaking government secrets, it was done with the public interest in mind - exposing war crimes, for which I still hope the US will be held responsible for. Therefore any punishment should be mitigated. Second, I do not trust he would be given a fair treatment or due process in the US - I mean he helped leak documents that prove that the US committed war crimes, a country that commits war crimes does not have any kind of moral credit left when it comes to legal cases like this.

raxxorrax 6y ago

The law must serve justice, not the other way around. If the law allows for political prosecution, it needs to be reformed. Many laws are completely inadequate for digital "crimes". Although these "crimes" did put focus on an illegal war of aggression instigated by neocons and parts of the press. There is just so much the law can serve.

ianhawes 6y ago
"Equal justice under the law" unfortunately cannot coexist with "The law must serve justice".
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  What do you mean? They exactly coexist.
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  I disagree completely. Perhaps you wanted to refer to weighting culpability of people being accused, but that isn't a contradiction.

latch 6y ago

I'm generally an "ends justifies the means" kinda guy, but I think anyone with that position needs to be aware of what the "means" actually are. Maybe that's why I'm a bit shocked that you're shocked. These things have been going on for a long time and they're well documented. I'll just give three examples: the My Lai massacre, the imprisonment/trial of Omar Khadr (a child soldier) and the extrajudicial execution of Anwar Nasser al-Awlaki (an American citizen). (To be clear, I don't think any of the above are justifiable. As a Canadian, I was particularly ashamed of Canada's position towards Khadr. But I don't go around a) thinking these things don't happen and b) that they're alway black and white)

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
tdons 6y ago
Might makes right, èh? The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
useriousbro 6y ago
Just curious what ends you think justify these means? and do you think the US (and other 5 eyes) is achieving those ends?
- latch 6y ago
  If you allow me to ignore the slippery slope argument, the typical justification given for extrajudicial killing (clear and immediate threat) at the very least, makes this a not-so black and white issue.
  - useriousbro 6y ago
    Are you saying that the targets referenced in this article/hearing were clear and immediate threat to Americans on the other side of the world? or maybe they were minutes from launching a nuke? Also do you think its correct to investigate very carefully anyone involved in such activities openly after the fact (once the perceived threat is no longer present) to ensure that these powers are not abused? There was an Iain (M?) Banks book (maybe transitions?) that sort of represents my basic thoughts on this.. A policemen goes extra-judicial and tortures a suspect to find the location of a kidnapped child (or something like that).. the kid or whatever it was was saved but the policeman felt he should be criminally charged and tried after the fact and the torture should certainly not be legalised or glorified as it worked that one time in exceptional circumstances. - I think that there are times when humans do carry out a wrong to stop a greater wrong - but that should be part of the burden this actor must accept when taking action. otherwise the creative among us will not be able to stop our subconscious manipulating the laws that allow us to circumnavigate protocol. I spend all day implementing controls in ERP systems etc. and I have to admit that when I have to raise a PO or Req you are damn right i use every fast track and workaround i know of to expedite it (I basically can't help it). So I try hard to create processes even I cannot manipulate. to be clear I think my ability to "work a process" is what makes me good at creating more robust processes - which is why I think politicians and law makers have a hard job and why we need to hold them to account.

Cthulhu_ 6y ago

While I do think he and others are guilty of leaking government secrets, it was done with the public interest in mind - exposing war crimes, for which I still hope the US will be held responsible for. Therefore any punishment should be mitigated. Second, I do not trust he would be given a fair treatment or due process in the US - I mean he helped leak documents that prove that the US committed war crimes, a country that commits war crimes does not have any kind of moral credit left when it comes to legal cases like this.