3 ms·

"Yet given how the events turned out it seems that he was right. He was hiding in the embassy in fear that they would try to send him to the US." If only we co

"Yet given how the events turned out it seems that he was right. He was hiding in the embassy in fear that they would try to send him to the US." If only we could all flee when faced with consequences for breaking laws that we disagree with. "Transparency is a government duty. It is a shame but totally justified that private citizens have to 3nforce it. As for "criminal", sounds like yet another victimless crime. If anything they are exposing crimes." There are absolutely reasons for state secrecy and the breadth of information crossed a line between what was necessary for informing the public, versus damaging to the diplomatic relations and ability to conduct diplomacy with much of the rest of the world. "Thank you for disclosing that. How many people did you kill (directly or indirectly) and why didn't you try to expose warcrimes?" Oh, goodness. Thanks for adding to taking the time to provide your perspective and add to the discussion.

klibertp 5y ago
> If only we could all flee Tell that to Snowden. > There are absolutely reasons for state secrecy and Sorry, I have to: that's just, like, your opinion man. Have you ever thought that you might be wrong on this? How about the state stops doing the things they need to keep secret? You may call it naive, but some will call it being just, you know?
- bladegash 5y ago
  Fortunately you and I do not individually make that decision. Society does and it has deemed, through democratically elected leaders and participation in a social contract that there is a case to be made to state secrets.
  - GordonS 5y ago
    I accept that sometimes information cannot be made public for reasons of national security, but that get out clause seems to be very over-used. How many members of Western society do you think would agree that war crimes should be routinely covered up? I'd guess very, very few.
  - klibertp 5y ago
    The fact that something can be done doesn't mean it should. At one point, society deemed it acceptable to amputate various parts of a body as a form of punishment. Imagine you have a time machine and get to go watch a public torture and execution ca. 1200AD. Would you consider literally frying someone slowly into charcoal something you can "make a case" for? Why not? The social contract of there and then says it's fine? There are places today where the social contract is still pretty much the same it was throughout human history: "we'll murder our way to any resources we need, and if you try to stop us you're dead (and if not, we might even share a bit)". Would you say this contract is good and just? Would you support it? And if not, why should we support yours, if it's precisely how your own "social contract" looks like to anyone that is not you? Which part of the Afghan society voted you and your friends in? Why is your social contract important and just, yet theirs doesn't mean anything to you? Moreover, you went there specifically to break their contract: there's no way a full-scale invasion doesn't break at least the guarantee of single jurisdiction. So, your social contract - good; their - bad. Because terrorists? On a related note: "society does and it has deemed" sounds to me like "and God said it was good". It's not an argument, it's an observation at best, but most often utterly empty. If you want to tell us that killing civilians with an attack helicopter should be kept under wraps, you should really give us the reasons why you personally think so. You really cannot speak for the "society", now can you? Or are you Borg?
ttybird2 5y ago
"If only we could all flee when faced with consequences for breaking laws that we disagree with." These who can flee the overreach of foregin countries trying to enforce their unjust laws on them, do so. "versus damaging to the diplomatic relations and ability to conduct diplomacy with much of the rest of the world." Yeah, if a country commits horrible warcrimes then most of the world will not want to deal with them. It was not assange who was responsible for this but the US itself. One would not accuse a rape victim of ruining the reputation of their abuser. "Oh, goodness. Thanks for adding to taking the time to provide your perspective and add to the discussion." Pray tell. If it is zero then you can just say so, and if you did try to expose warcrimes I will take it back.

klibertp 5y ago

> If only we could all flee Tell that to Snowden. > There are absolutely reasons for state secrecy and Sorry, I have to: that's just, like, your opinion man. Have you ever thought that you might be wrong on this? How about the state stops doing the things they need to keep secret? You may call it naive, but some will call it being just, you know?

bladegash 5y ago
Fortunately you and I do not individually make that decision. Society does and it has deemed, through democratically elected leaders and participation in a social contract that there is a case to be made to state secrets.
- GordonS 5y ago
  I accept that sometimes information cannot be made public for reasons of national security, but that get out clause seems to be very over-used. How many members of Western society do you think would agree that war crimes should be routinely covered up? I'd guess very, very few.
- klibertp 5y ago
  The fact that something can be done doesn't mean it should. At one point, society deemed it acceptable to amputate various parts of a body as a form of punishment. Imagine you have a time machine and get to go watch a public torture and execution ca. 1200AD. Would you consider literally frying someone slowly into charcoal something you can "make a case" for? Why not? The social contract of there and then says it's fine? There are places today where the social contract is still pretty much the same it was throughout human history: "we'll murder our way to any resources we need, and if you try to stop us you're dead (and if not, we might even share a bit)". Would you say this contract is good and just? Would you support it? And if not, why should we support yours, if it's precisely how your own "social contract" looks like to anyone that is not you? Which part of the Afghan society voted you and your friends in? Why is your social contract important and just, yet theirs doesn't mean anything to you? Moreover, you went there specifically to break their contract: there's no way a full-scale invasion doesn't break at least the guarantee of single jurisdiction. So, your social contract - good; their - bad. Because terrorists? On a related note: "society does and it has deemed" sounds to me like "and God said it was good". It's not an argument, it's an observation at best, but most often utterly empty. If you want to tell us that killing civilians with an attack helicopter should be kept under wraps, you should really give us the reasons why you personally think so. You really cannot speak for the "society", now can you? Or are you Borg?

ttybird2 5y ago

"If only we could all flee when faced with consequences for breaking laws that we disagree with." These who can flee the overreach of foregin countries trying to enforce their unjust laws on them, do so. "versus damaging to the diplomatic relations and ability to conduct diplomacy with much of the rest of the world." Yeah, if a country commits horrible warcrimes then most of the world will not want to deal with them. It was not assange who was responsible for this but the US itself. One would not accuse a rape victim of ruining the reputation of their abuser. "Oh, goodness. Thanks for adding to taking the time to provide your perspective and add to the discussion." Pray tell. If it is zero then you can just say so, and if you did try to expose warcrimes I will take it back.