SUBSIM Radio Room Forums
Page 6 of 7 « First 2345 6 7
Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)
-   General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)
-   -   Defence departments love it: 92,000 documents on Afghanistan operations leaked (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=172855)

mookiemookie 07-30-10 04:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Third Man (Post 1456503)
Why woud that be absurd? Why wouldn't Her Assange, an admitted anti-war zealot, not give the info to the Taliban/Al Queda, before releasing it world wide? Is this such an outrageous idea? I think not.
And now for the insane-dreamland-pull-stuff-out-of-my-butt-with-no-basis-in-fact-truth-evidence-or-reality portion of our show....

The Third Man 07-30-10 04:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mookiemookie (Post 1456541)
And now for the insane-dreamland-pull-stuff-out-of-my-butt-with-no-basis-in-fact-truth-evidence-or-reality portion of our show....
So after approving the surge, and designating/senate approved, GWB's general it would be A-OK for Mr. Obama to declare surrender and leave Afghanistan with his tail between his legs?


I'm playing devil's advocate and asking you to either support the war or Barack Obama.

The Third Man 07-30-10 04:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird (Post 1456540)
What he did is not a war crime. A war crime is not the same like just any "crime committed in times of war". It even is questionable that the publication is a crime in itself - the legal status of the act is being hotly debated, and the moral status is hotly debated as well. For the legal status, it next would depend whose nations' lawcode you want to base on. What the american government may base on in laws can be something different than the German law. The british law. The laws of other nations the leaked reports comment on. the americans can only legally claim to prosecute the original source of the material, the whistleblower that is, if he is american and/or violated american institutions or procedures when copying the material. The crime, imo doesnot lie in the publication, but in the copying and steakling of the material. That that theft was illegal, imo is beyond doubt. Morally, I weigh this against the bigger crime of misleading the public, mismanaging the war since many years, deception over the political incompetence and the military probelms that have caused much bhigher deatzh tolls then admitted, and come to a result that compared to the government's big guilt the thief's guilt is absolutely minor only, a fromality that got violated in order to shed light on a much more severe and lethal crime that happens on and that governments conspirate over to betray their own people.

It is not a war crime what Assange did. Not more or less than it was "sexual harassement". The term war crime is a legal term defined in international treaties. Have a look at the Wikipedia link I gave for a first brief summary. Assange may be a narcisstic egocentric guy, he may crave for publicity or not, and may dream of more support for Wikileaks or not, but of all the four perpetrators - governments, military, the thief of the material, and the publisher - Assange is the one with the smallest guilt, if any at all. The overwhelming share of guilt lies with the governments.
Thank you for your reply but it doesn't seem to answer the question. Under international law can the founder of WikiLeaks , Julian Assange, be tried for war crimes? Too much opinion not enough law. A good lawyer could argue what he has done is a war crime for the many who have died in Afghanistan since he was in posession of the classified information..

antikristuseke 07-30-10 04:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Third Man (Post 1456536)
Wow. After being excluded for ten days because of my signature on this forum, to be told STFU is a shocker. I can only hope that justice is served equally on this forum.
You are free to report my post if you were offended by it. If the mods see this as a breach of rules on my part, they will pass out appropriate punishment. Personally I see it as an appropriate acronym to use given what you effectively accused a person of without any evidence.

The Third Man 07-30-10 05:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by antikristuseke (Post 1456562)
. Personally I see it as an appropriate acronym to use given what you effectively accused a person of without any evidence.
Which from my reading happens regularly on this forum without the invective you used toward me. I consider it unacceptable.

Skybird 07-30-10 05:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Third Man (Post 1456558)
Thank you for your reply but it doesn't seem to answer the question. Under international law can the founder of WikiLeaks , Julian Assange, be tried for war crimes? Too much opinion not enough law. A good lawyer could argue what he has done is a war crime for the many who have died in Afghanistan since he was in posession of the classified information..
Your question was answered. He cannot be sued for war crime because his action does not qualify the legal definition of "warcrime".You could as well ask if he could be sued for raping somebody. If you see somebody stealing a car you hardly can sue him for forging some elections.

Take note of that the term "war crime" is not randomly chosen, or is not arbitrarily in content, but is defined in international treaties and conventions. If you use the term, stick to these. If you don't, do not use the term as well.

Tribesman 07-30-10 05:13 PM
Quote:
A good lawyer could argue what he has done is a war crime
Even a really bad half trained failed lawyer wouldn't try to argue that.
As Sky said you are using specific terms where they cannot possibly apply in law.
As was asked earlier, name the war crime?
Unless you casn find some legal basis your questions about war crimes are pointless.

The Third Man 07-30-10 05:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird (Post 1456576)
Your question was answered. He cannot be sued for war crime because his action does not qualify the legal definition of "warcrime".You could as well ask if he could be sued for raping somebody. If you see somebody stealing a car you hardly can sue him for forging some elections.

Take note of that the term "war crime" is not randomly chosen, or is not arbitrarily in content, but is defined in international treaties and conventions. If you use the term, stick to these. If you don't, do not use the term as well.
Thank you again . Can you show the parts of international law which specifically exempt Herr Assange from prosecution under international law?


yep I want you to do the leg work. But I want you to look for the negative. Good luck!

Skybird 07-30-10 05:24 PM
You start to behave like troll. Your original question has been precisely answered. The answer to your question whether or not he could be sued over war crimes, has been given. The hint to a summary and quick overview what the legal understanding of "warcrimes" is, I now give to you for the second AND THE LAST time. Either you get the answer to your original question now, or you don't. The historic background of how the term emegred and got anchored in international conventions and bills, is included. If you would have read it the first time, you would know it by now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime

The Third Man 07-30-10 05:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird (Post 1456587)
You start to behave like troll.

Like most questions they don't end wit the answer given. but engender new questions. To label me a troll only shows the weakness of your answer(s).

Start over and perhaps you can see my question as something more than a ideological exercise, and help you in your effort to believe what you are saying. Just a thought.

August 07-30-10 06:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducimus (Post 1456437)
Taliban Says It Will Target Names Exposed by WikiLeaks
Militants were alerted to the leaked documents, which reveal details of informants, by news reports.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/30/t...html?GT1=43002
Requoting Ducimus to put this thread back on the track.

So what about this? Some folks here have cast doubt that this might happen. Some folks seem to think the media has done an acceptable job protecting real people from this exact thing.

No comments?

Kazuaki Shimazaki II 07-30-10 07:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by August (Post 1456631)
Requoting Ducimus to put this thread back on the track.

So what about this? Some folks here have cast doubt that this might happen. Some folks seem to think the media has done an acceptable job protecting real people from this exact thing.

No comments?
If you want mine, I've given them. Sad, but perfection is impossible or at lesat impractical, and trying to hold one side's feet to the fire for a small number of errors while not for the other side's (when it is really their job, and their failure to do it precipitated this) large amount of errors is hypocritical.

August 07-30-10 07:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II (Post 1456642)
If you want mine, I've given them. Sad, but perfection is impossible or at lesat impractical, and trying to hold one side's feet to the fire for a small number of errors while not for the other side's (when it is really their job, and their failure to do it precipitated this) large amount of errors is hypocritical.
Again you talk like this is the score of some game. Media 1, US Military 0?

Where do you get off saying that I don't hold my government responsible for their mistakes? I want to see the traitor who released this information court martialed, and if found guilty, given the maximum penalty allowed under the UCMJ. Is that enough for you not to see me as a hypocrite?

Kazuaki Shimazaki II 07-30-10 08:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by August (Post 1456653)
Again you talk like this is the score of some game. Media 1, US Military 0?
ON the question of whether they are competent (which you asked), one objective way to do so is by comparing the percentage they got right vs wrong.

To answer your point about consequences, permit an analogy. Suppose we are both architectural students. I get about 99% of the questions right on the exam, so I become an architect. You can't get 20% of them right, so you don't. One day, unfortunately, in an understaffed project (so I have to carry a heavy workload with little redundancy) I make a few errors among countless decisions and calculations in designing a building, and unfortunately it was in a bad spot so the building folded. Obviously, that the building collapsed is my responsibility, and the consequences of my error quite large compared to yours in the sxam. But it does not mean I'm less competent than you as an architect.

Quote:
Where do you get off saying that I don't hold my government responsible for their mistakes? I want to see the traitor who released this information court martialed, and if found guilty, given the maximum penalty allowed under the UCMJ. Is that enough for you not to see me as a hypocrite?
I know you are blaming them for this direction. Unfortunately, you are forsaking the forest for the trees.

August 07-30-10 09:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II (Post 1456678)
ON the question of whether they are competent (which you asked), one objective way to do so is by comparing the percentage they got right vs wrong.
Irrelevant. By publishing these documents they have created a completely new source of military intelligence for our enemy that is in addition to whatever wrongs that you imagine the US Government to have done.

Why can't you understand that?

You are defending something because you feel it's not as bad as different things done by someone else. That's like excusing rape because others have committed murder.

Bottom line here is that people will die directly because of the publishing of these documents for ratings and profit. Now either you think that is inexcusable or not.

Kazuaki Shimazaki II 07-30-10 09:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by August (Post 1456696)
Irrelevant. By publishing these documents they have created a completely new source of military intelligence for our enemy that is in addition to whatever wrongs that you imagine the US Government to have done.

Why can't you understand that?

You are defending something because you feel it's not as bad as different things done by someone else. That's like excusing rape because others have committed murder.

Bottom line here is that people will die directly because of the publishing of these documents for ratings and profit. Now either you think that is inexcusable or not.
What happened to the possibility US government's concealment of these documents (even you must accept that most of them are actually clean) being motivated by selfish desires? One side must be selfish and the other is purely altruistic? How politically reliable you are!

August 07-30-10 10:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II (Post 1456717)
What happened to the possibility US government's concealment of these documents (even you must accept that most of them are actually clean) being motivated by selfish desires? One side must be selfish and the other is purely altruistic? How politically reliable you are!
Yeah ok. Like any government ever has provided a higher level of access to ongoing military operations than the US has.

Perhaps you define "selfish" as not wanting to risk the lives of our soldiers as well as those who are working with us by giving our enemy detailed insight into our day to day operations.

Yeah that must be it. After all how else could you even try to justify the half assed editing job we both know the media did?

The Third Man 07-30-10 10:35 PM
My feeling is that if Mr. Obama had wanted to stop Herr Assange from divulging this information he could have done so easily.


In fact he wouldn't be walking freely at this moment, Herr Assange, that is.

Kazuaki Shimazaki II 07-30-10 11:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by August (Post 1456738)
Yeah ok. Like any government ever has provided a higher level of access to ongoing military operations than the US has.
And that's because the people always pressed for it. It would not continue if every person simply blindfaiths into the military propaganda.

Quote:
Perhaps you define "selfish" as not wanting to risk the lives of our soldiers as well as those who are working with us by giving our enemy detailed insight into our day to day operations.
No that's altruistic. What's strange is how you can only think about such motives when it comes to the US military, while for its critics you can only come up with selfish ones.

As for half-assed editing, again, they are having a much higher hit rate on these 92000 documents than the US military.

If you want to say that given that it is impossible to guarantee perfection, and given the high consequences of an error, it would be better to withold the information, that's at least a defensible, if tactical position. To say that they are incompetent for failing to meet an impossible standard isn't.

August 07-31-10 01:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II (Post 1456763)
As for half-assed editing, again, they are having a much higher hit rate on these 92000 documents than the US military.
What do you mean "higher hit rate"? The US Military is not deliberately releasing this information, the media is. These documents were stolen by a traitor who i hope they hang for his betrayal and your darlings in the international media are publishing it where our enemies can read it for no other reason than to make a profit.

So you can defend the media all you want but doesn't change the fact that they are amateurs playing with peoples lives for money and they are aiding the very people we're trying to defeat.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:45 AM.
Page 6 of 7 « First 2345 6 7
Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.