4 ms·

States occupy a distinct place in the legal spectrum. If you kill someone deliberately, you're a murderer. If a government kills someone, it's either a capital

States occupy a distinct place in the legal spectrum. If you kill someone deliberately, you're a murderer. If a government kills someone, it's either a capital punishment, an act of war, or an assassination. But the idea that national governments can commit "crimes" has always been tenuous at best, because there is exists no supranational entity with the willingness and the authority to enforce violence against rule-breaking states. The United States and international coalitions have acted as the surrogates of the rules-based order several times, like in Korea and Afghanistan, but a CIA employee acting on behalf of and on direct order from his government enjoys a certain immunity from prosecution, like states at large.

whatshisface 4y ago
States can't just "kill someone," they have to initiate criminal proceedings. You're describing a version of sovereignty that hasn't been recognized since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215. In the modern world authority derives from the consent of the governed and is bound by law.
- rolph 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directorate_of_Operations_(CIA) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directorate_of_Operations_(CIA...
  - whatshisface 4y ago
    This would be a better link to make that point with [0] since the controversy section on that one only links to it, but my response would still be that government employees cannot overturn the rule of law by getting away with a few crimes any more than people who are not government employees can. Could you imagine if the police would give up on a law every time they had a cold case? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee
- bloak 4y ago
  Maybe some states have to initiate criminal proceedings before killing people, but other states are happy to kill people, including their own citizens, including children, without any criminal proceedings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Awla... (To be fair, most countries have vague laws and corrupt courts so having a court in country X decide that someone should be executed is hardly any better, in practice, than having Barack Obama order the execution.)
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - imwillofficial 4y ago
    Ruby ridge, waco
- formerkrogemp 4y ago
  > States can't just "kill someone," they have to initiate criminal proceedings. You're describing a version of sovereignty that hasn't been recognized since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215. In the modern world authority derives from the consent of the governed and is bound by law. Bullshit. Millions of people have directly lost their lives due to the actions of the American government and citizens. Where were the criminal proceedings and due process for "collateral" damage in dozens of countries worldwide?
- jaywalk 4y ago
  Oh, please. We have a confirmed account of Obama ordering the (successful) execution of an American citizen without due process. So it's not just theoretical.
- dzonga 4y ago
  I'm sure when the CIA / FBI reads this, they have a smile on their faces. Plenty of people i.e US citizens / residents have been killed not just on foreign soil but on US soil as well. Extra-judicial killings happen to this day. Foreign one's well that's just collateral damage ;) if you're a non threat of course, they might put the child-porn charge just to extend your suffering.
- x86_64Ubuntu 4y ago
  Plenty of civil rights activists were killed by the state or with the tacit approval of the state.
ianhawes 4y ago
> but a CIA employee acting on behalf of and on direct order from his government enjoys a certain immunity from prosecution, like states at large Said employee enjoys immunity from prosecution in the United States. The US prosecutes foreign hackers operating on behalf of other countries all the time. They're rarely apprehended for obvious reasons, but the US is playing a very dangerous game with the liberty of their own hackers.
- ganoushoreilly 4y ago
  Many, Many, US "Hackers" have shown up on lists in foreign countries. After OPM and associated Briefs, many in the top offices of these agencies were explicitly briefed as such. Some have dealt with harassment with stolen identities, some have even been approached in "friendly" countries and questioned. This isn't new. While other governments may not be as overt with the vast majority of know "hackers" the same happens to many in the US that are found out. Some have to be strategic on flights out of the country to make sure they maintain friendly countries etc. All said, most of it is political posturing and I don't expect people to be eradicated or disappeared but that is a very real possibility in some countries. When it becomes "fun" is when you're at Defcon and you see people that also recognize you, but both of you know you're on opposite sides. So the US isn't playing any game that other countries aren't. Unless you work in the US govt. in one of these agencies doing this type of work, respectfully, you are looking at it from a tainted lens.
DeathArrow 4y ago
> But the idea that national governments can commit "crimes" has always been tenuous at best, because there is exists no supranational entity with the willingness and the authority to enforce violence against rule-breaking states. There shouldn't be any supranational entity. In a democracy, governments should be accountable for their doing.

whatshisface 4y ago

States can't just "kill someone," they have to initiate criminal proceedings. You're describing a version of sovereignty that hasn't been recognized since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215. In the modern world authority derives from the consent of the governed and is bound by law.

rolph 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directorate_of_Operations_(CIA) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directorate_of_Operations_(CIA...
- whatshisface 4y ago
  This would be a better link to make that point with [0] since the controversy section on that one only links to it, but my response would still be that government employees cannot overturn the rule of law by getting away with a few crimes any more than people who are not government employees can. Could you imagine if the police would give up on a law every time they had a cold case? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee
bloak 4y ago
Maybe some states have to initiate criminal proceedings before killing people, but other states are happy to kill people, including their own citizens, including children, without any criminal proceedings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Awla... (To be fair, most countries have vague laws and corrupt courts so having a court in country X decide that someone should be executed is hardly any better, in practice, than having Barack Obama order the execution.)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- imwillofficial 4y ago
  Ruby ridge, waco
formerkrogemp 4y ago
> States can't just "kill someone," they have to initiate criminal proceedings. You're describing a version of sovereignty that hasn't been recognized since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215. In the modern world authority derives from the consent of the governed and is bound by law. Bullshit. Millions of people have directly lost their lives due to the actions of the American government and citizens. Where were the criminal proceedings and due process for "collateral" damage in dozens of countries worldwide?
jaywalk 4y ago
Oh, please. We have a confirmed account of Obama ordering the (successful) execution of an American citizen without due process. So it's not just theoretical.
dzonga 4y ago
I'm sure when the CIA / FBI reads this, they have a smile on their faces. Plenty of people i.e US citizens / residents have been killed not just on foreign soil but on US soil as well. Extra-judicial killings happen to this day. Foreign one's well that's just collateral damage ;) if you're a non threat of course, they might put the child-porn charge just to extend your suffering.
x86_64Ubuntu 4y ago
Plenty of civil rights activists were killed by the state or with the tacit approval of the state.

ianhawes 4y ago

> but a CIA employee acting on behalf of and on direct order from his government enjoys a certain immunity from prosecution, like states at large Said employee enjoys immunity from prosecution in the United States. The US prosecutes foreign hackers operating on behalf of other countries all the time. They're rarely apprehended for obvious reasons, but the US is playing a very dangerous game with the liberty of their own hackers.

ganoushoreilly 4y ago
Many, Many, US "Hackers" have shown up on lists in foreign countries. After OPM and associated Briefs, many in the top offices of these agencies were explicitly briefed as such. Some have dealt with harassment with stolen identities, some have even been approached in "friendly" countries and questioned. This isn't new. While other governments may not be as overt with the vast majority of know "hackers" the same happens to many in the US that are found out. Some have to be strategic on flights out of the country to make sure they maintain friendly countries etc. All said, most of it is political posturing and I don't expect people to be eradicated or disappeared but that is a very real possibility in some countries. When it becomes "fun" is when you're at Defcon and you see people that also recognize you, but both of you know you're on opposite sides. So the US isn't playing any game that other countries aren't. Unless you work in the US govt. in one of these agencies doing this type of work, respectfully, you are looking at it from a tainted lens.

DeathArrow 4y ago

> But the idea that national governments can commit "crimes" has always been tenuous at best, because there is exists no supranational entity with the willingness and the authority to enforce violence against rule-breaking states. There shouldn't be any supranational entity. In a democracy, governments should be accountable for their doing.