3 ms·

Sorry but in times of war, the regular "proof beyond reasonable doubt" cannot apply anymore, or you lose said war.

by nubg 10mo ago

amiga386 10mo ago
If you're at war then declare war. You get sweeping powers to deal with existential threats. Go ahead and declare your country is at war. Is it? If you declare war without there being a bona fide casus belli, you'll be whisked out of power so fast your head will spin. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_South_Korean_martial_law_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_South_Korean_martial_law_... If you don't declare war, you don't get those emergency powers. You only get peacetime powers. Russia loves to go right up to the line, and then cross it a little bit, just to antagonise you. But unless you're willing to be the instigator of WW3, you'll stick to peacetime powers and peacetime courts with peacetime standards of evidence
- kspacewalk2 10mo ago
  >But unless you're willing to be the instigator of WW3, you'll stick to peacetime powers and peacetime courts with peacetime standards of evidence Clearly this will need to change somewhat, if the other side wants to engage in hybrid war tactics. Nothing new, Cold War was a thing.
- nubg 10mo ago
  But what if the other side - Russia - does wartime tactics without having formally declared war with NATO? Why do they get to keep this privilege?
  - amiga386 10mo ago
    Because they're an authoritarian shithole with a strongman leader who openly murders dissenters, personally controls all branches of government, controls the military and has people arrested just for holding up blank sheets of paper. He can pretend the country is not at war when it clearly is, and suffer no consequence, because nobody can replace him or even censure him without the country completely collapsing. When he eventually dies, the ensuing power vacuum will make the entire country a basket case. It's a dead country walking. Do you want to make your country such a nightmare country, so you can also cheat like they do?
    - nubg 10mo ago
      No, I want my country to have democratic rule of law on the inside (including when dealing with normal criminals of any kind, including murderers). But when dealing with an outside state-level aggressor, I want my country to be be a cunning, hypocritical, powerful strongman. The distinction under what mode a certain event should be treated should be pretty straightforward and can be determined using democratic means, e.g. a normal judge ruling "I rule this cable cutting incident to be an act of state-sponsored aggression against our democracy" (which would allow the alphabet agencies, special ops etc to "do their thing" with no repercussions whatsoever.) for example: 1) a murder happens between a husband and wife, two normies, after lengthy, normal court proceedings the proof who did it is not 100% conclusive, accused person goes free 2) a murder of an anti-russian political dissident happens, a russian ex speznas officer is caught in relation to the event -> he "disappears" one day and the case is closed I believe this is the only way to "win" this cold war.
      - mmooss 10mo ago
        People in other places don't have rights, and lives, and deserve freedom? If they don't, you don't. If they can be ruled out, so can you. Freedom and rights only exist if they are fundamentally universal.
        lostlogin 10mo ago
        Which powerful countries abide by this? Sadly, it seems a fiction.
        mmooss 10mo ago
        The list is very long - fair trials are universal in the democratic world. You'd better start advocating for freedom and democracy rather than using cynicism. If you don't, who will? Democracy is you; nobody is going to fix what you destroy. Cynicism is a tool for peacetime, a way of keeping things honest (maybe not the most effective way, but it has an effect). But when there is serious threat - when your platoon is facing the enemy - cynicism is a failure of duty to your team.
- type0 10mo ago
  No declarations of War has been needed for decades, internationally you only get disadvantages from doing that. Russia hasn't declared war to Ukraine, neither has Ukraine to Russia, so what.
mmooss 10mo ago
People love this 'expediency' for what they want, but once you destroy the rule of law and reason generally, nothing protects you. You're standing in a forest, lighting a forest fire to kill the other guy. There is lots of history about this most fundamental error.

Sorry but in times of war, the regular "proof beyond reasonable doubt" cannot apply anymore, or you lose said war.

by nubg 10mo ago

Sorry but in times of war, the regular "proof beyond reasonable doubt" cannot apply anymore, or you lose said war.

If you're at war then declare war. You get sweeping powers to deal with existential threats. Go ahead and declare your country is at war. Is it? If you declare war without there being a bona fide casus belli, you'll be whisked out of power so fast your head will spin. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_South_Korean_martial_law_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_South_Korean_martial_law_... If you don't declare war, you don't get those emergency powers. You only get peacetime powers. Russia loves to go right up to the line, and then cross it a little bit, just to antagonise you. But unless you're willing to be the instigator of WW3, you'll stick to peacetime powers and peacetime courts with peacetime standards of evidence

kspacewalk2 10mo ago
>But unless you're willing to be the instigator of WW3, you'll stick to peacetime powers and peacetime courts with peacetime standards of evidence Clearly this will need to change somewhat, if the other side wants to engage in hybrid war tactics. Nothing new, Cold War was a thing.
nubg 10mo ago
But what if the other side - Russia - does wartime tactics without having formally declared war with NATO? Why do they get to keep this privilege?
- amiga386 10mo ago
  Because they're an authoritarian shithole with a strongman leader who openly murders dissenters, personally controls all branches of government, controls the military and has people arrested just for holding up blank sheets of paper. He can pretend the country is not at war when it clearly is, and suffer no consequence, because nobody can replace him or even censure him without the country completely collapsing. When he eventually dies, the ensuing power vacuum will make the entire country a basket case. It's a dead country walking. Do you want to make your country such a nightmare country, so you can also cheat like they do?
  - nubg 10mo ago
    No, I want my country to have democratic rule of law on the inside (including when dealing with normal criminals of any kind, including murderers). But when dealing with an outside state-level aggressor, I want my country to be be a cunning, hypocritical, powerful strongman. The distinction under what mode a certain event should be treated should be pretty straightforward and can be determined using democratic means, e.g. a normal judge ruling "I rule this cable cutting incident to be an act of state-sponsored aggression against our democracy" (which would allow the alphabet agencies, special ops etc to "do their thing" with no repercussions whatsoever.) for example: 1) a murder happens between a husband and wife, two normies, after lengthy, normal court proceedings the proof who did it is not 100% conclusive, accused person goes free 2) a murder of an anti-russian political dissident happens, a russian ex speznas officer is caught in relation to the event -> he "disappears" one day and the case is closed I believe this is the only way to "win" this cold war.
    - mmooss 10mo ago
      People in other places don't have rights, and lives, and deserve freedom? If they don't, you don't. If they can be ruled out, so can you. Freedom and rights only exist if they are fundamentally universal.
      - lostlogin 10mo ago
        Which powerful countries abide by this? Sadly, it seems a fiction.
        mmooss 10mo ago
        The list is very long - fair trials are universal in the democratic world. You'd better start advocating for freedom and democracy rather than using cynicism. If you don't, who will? Democracy is you; nobody is going to fix what you destroy. Cynicism is a tool for peacetime, a way of keeping things honest (maybe not the most effective way, but it has an effect). But when there is serious threat - when your platoon is facing the enemy - cynicism is a failure of duty to your team.
type0 10mo ago
No declarations of War has been needed for decades, internationally you only get disadvantages from doing that. Russia hasn't declared war to Ukraine, neither has Ukraine to Russia, so what.

mmooss 10mo ago

People love this 'expediency' for what they want, but once you destroy the rule of law and reason generally, nothing protects you. You're standing in a forest, lighting a forest fire to kill the other guy. There is lots of history about this most fundamental error.