5 ms·

So was Protasevich, a fugitive from Belarussian justice. So you agree with both hijackings?

by pseingatl 5y ago

bayesian_horse 5y ago
There is a slight difference between Belarussian justice and US justice, isn't there?
- Arech 5y ago
  Not so many when you talk about interests of those who in power.
  - bayesian_horse 5y ago
    Quite enough so that I would know which one I prefer.
    - Arech 5y ago
      May be. But once you get to know something dirty about those in power and your conscience doesn't agree to be silent, your preference doesn't matter at all, you are in trouble. Ask Snowden or Manning for details.
      - bayesian_horse 5y ago
        Both broke the law, with quite serious consequences for their country and individual soldiers. This can't just be ignored. Even if their decision may be morally justified (to some people they weren't), breaking the rules has to come with consequences. There are issues with the US justice system, but it is a far cry from anything in Belarus or Russia. And if there is to be any secrecy around national security - most believe there should be - then there must also be consequences for breaking this secrecy, regardless of the justification.
        Arech 5y ago
        We're in the loop here, b/c from lukashenko's (as well as putin's, btw) point of view, *exactly the same* rules applies to journalists. Which means that either you have to review you thoughts and change them, or you are fine with killing journalists and any other dissidents (who obviously "broke the law, with quite serious consequences for their country and individual soldiers"). You just can't bet on two sides of a coin.
        bayesian_horse 5y ago
        Still with the BS arguments. There is a world of difference between a justice system like in the US and the one in Belarus. If you can't see that, how can you ever defend democracy? But you probably don't ever need to, because the US system is already quite trustworthy (despite a lot of faults) and on average does quite well.
        hutzlibu 5y ago
        "And if there is to be any secrecy around national security - most believe there should be - then there must also be consequences for breaking this secrecy, regardless of the justification. " I believe in the necessary secrecy of some state organisations - but only if they are trustworthy and play by the rules set by the democratic institutions. And Snowden showed that they don't do this and cannot really be trusted. And he tried the proper way to report and it did not worked. So he became: a whistleblower And a hunted man by the law breaking agencies whose cimes he unveiled. So why is your conclusion, there should be only consequences for him?
        bayesian_horse 5y ago
        That is indeed some black and white thinking! The US executive is a whole lot more trustworthy than most others. In fact, your very prosperity and freedom depends on this truth to a larger degree than you might want to admit. And it is not clear that Snowden tried "the proper way". He says so, but he doesn't want to prove that in court. Instead he defects to an enemy state and cooperates with their intelligence services. And yes, he did defect and cooperate, the only question is what exactly he did (and still does) and how much of all of this was his intention. The crimes Snowden committed, if any (it's not clear he could even be convicted), are absolutely legitimate. Publishing secrets you were sworn to keep secret has to be punishable. If someone decides to break those laws, out of ethical considerations, they must also face the consequences.
- FpUser 5y ago
  Yes and there is also a difference between the way US justice operates and let's say Scandinavian. They do not turn their countries into prison planet where collusion between government and private enterprise encourages large scale abuse. Do you want to apply the same logic here?
  - bayesian_horse 5y ago
    That is one BS argument right there. Even with all the problems with the US justice system, I'm pretty sure most citizens actually prefer for it to work the way it does currently, rather than not at all. And I'd rather see Snowden face the music than defect to the Russian intelligence services. There is no way he can refuse cooperation with them. I'm not even entirely convinced that Russia had no role in his actions prior to his defection, or that he really intended to go some place else.
    - whimsicalism 5y ago
      > most citizens actually prefer for it to work the way it does currently, rather than not at all. This is a terrible defense for forcing down the planes of people taking political asylum. The choice is not between disrespecting asylum or not having any justice system whatsoever, and it is ridiculous to suggest so. > And I'd rather see Snowden face the music than defect to the Russian intelligence services Ah yes, the classic strategy of defecting to Russian intelligence services by leaving Russia to go to Bolivia.
      - bayesian_horse 5y ago
        I have not defended forcing down planes in the case of Belarus. More so in the case of the US persuing claims that other nations agree too. Snowden said he wanted to go to Bolivia... There is no proof he actually intended to go there or that the Russians wouldn't be waiting to work with him there. Regardless of Snowden's original intentions, he has no power to refuse cooperation with Russian intelligence services. At the very least, he has been trotted out for propaganda reasons like a trained pony. So in essence, yes, he ultimately defected by not standing trial.

So was Protasevich, a fugitive from Belarussian justice. So you agree with both hijackings?

bayesian_horse 5y ago

There is a slight difference between Belarussian justice and US justice, isn't there?

Arech 5y ago
Not so many when you talk about interests of those who in power.
- bayesian_horse 5y ago
  Quite enough so that I would know which one I prefer.
  - Arech 5y ago
    May be. But once you get to know something dirty about those in power and your conscience doesn't agree to be silent, your preference doesn't matter at all, you are in trouble. Ask Snowden or Manning for details.
    - bayesian_horse 5y ago
      Both broke the law, with quite serious consequences for their country and individual soldiers. This can't just be ignored. Even if their decision may be morally justified (to some people they weren't), breaking the rules has to come with consequences. There are issues with the US justice system, but it is a far cry from anything in Belarus or Russia. And if there is to be any secrecy around national security - most believe there should be - then there must also be consequences for breaking this secrecy, regardless of the justification.
      - Arech 5y ago
        We're in the loop here, b/c from lukashenko's (as well as putin's, btw) point of view, *exactly the same* rules applies to journalists. Which means that either you have to review you thoughts and change them, or you are fine with killing journalists and any other dissidents (who obviously "broke the law, with quite serious consequences for their country and individual soldiers"). You just can't bet on two sides of a coin.
        bayesian_horse 5y ago
        Still with the BS arguments. There is a world of difference between a justice system like in the US and the one in Belarus. If you can't see that, how can you ever defend democracy? But you probably don't ever need to, because the US system is already quite trustworthy (despite a lot of faults) and on average does quite well.
      - hutzlibu 5y ago
        "And if there is to be any secrecy around national security - most believe there should be - then there must also be consequences for breaking this secrecy, regardless of the justification. " I believe in the necessary secrecy of some state organisations - but only if they are trustworthy and play by the rules set by the democratic institutions. And Snowden showed that they don't do this and cannot really be trusted. And he tried the proper way to report and it did not worked. So he became: a whistleblower And a hunted man by the law breaking agencies whose cimes he unveiled. So why is your conclusion, there should be only consequences for him?
        bayesian_horse 5y ago
        That is indeed some black and white thinking! The US executive is a whole lot more trustworthy than most others. In fact, your very prosperity and freedom depends on this truth to a larger degree than you might want to admit. And it is not clear that Snowden tried "the proper way". He says so, but he doesn't want to prove that in court. Instead he defects to an enemy state and cooperates with their intelligence services. And yes, he did defect and cooperate, the only question is what exactly he did (and still does) and how much of all of this was his intention. The crimes Snowden committed, if any (it's not clear he could even be convicted), are absolutely legitimate. Publishing secrets you were sworn to keep secret has to be punishable. If someone decides to break those laws, out of ethical considerations, they must also face the consequences.
FpUser 5y ago
Yes and there is also a difference between the way US justice operates and let's say Scandinavian. They do not turn their countries into prison planet where collusion between government and private enterprise encourages large scale abuse. Do you want to apply the same logic here?
- bayesian_horse 5y ago
  That is one BS argument right there. Even with all the problems with the US justice system, I'm pretty sure most citizens actually prefer for it to work the way it does currently, rather than not at all. And I'd rather see Snowden face the music than defect to the Russian intelligence services. There is no way he can refuse cooperation with them. I'm not even entirely convinced that Russia had no role in his actions prior to his defection, or that he really intended to go some place else.
  - whimsicalism 5y ago
    > most citizens actually prefer for it to work the way it does currently, rather than not at all. This is a terrible defense for forcing down the planes of people taking political asylum. The choice is not between disrespecting asylum or not having any justice system whatsoever, and it is ridiculous to suggest so. > And I'd rather see Snowden face the music than defect to the Russian intelligence services Ah yes, the classic strategy of defecting to Russian intelligence services by leaving Russia to go to Bolivia.
    - bayesian_horse 5y ago
      I have not defended forcing down planes in the case of Belarus. More so in the case of the US persuing claims that other nations agree too. Snowden said he wanted to go to Bolivia... There is no proof he actually intended to go there or that the Russians wouldn't be waiting to work with him there. Regardless of Snowden's original intentions, he has no power to refuse cooperation with Russian intelligence services. At the very least, he has been trotted out for propaganda reasons like a trained pony. So in essence, yes, he ultimately defected by not standing trial.