Should the world be subject to US law?

[Mathnomalous]

Your question actually makes my point - a cavalier attitude of "hey, they're in a war zone - what do they expect" with no consideration for their safety is at best irresponsible.

As for "who?" - it's easy to sit at a keyboard and assume that someone/anyone an unknown life has no value or little value.

It's ok to be a smarty pants - but in the real world, people can be killed for very little reason.

You know the fastest way to remove the danger our servicepeople face? Bring them all home. The last thing anyone should comment about is the danger troops face in an active warzone. They expect it, they train for it, and they probably do not appreciate a random internet commando telling them how much more dangerous it can be.

 

[JaredJames]

Accepting the danger you are faced with in an active war zone is part of signing up to the military.

However, when you sign up you don't agree to be put into a situation which is compromised because key details have been passed on for the enemies advantage.

Why can you not see the difference between accepting the risk of a war zone by being in the military and the additional and unnecessary risk posed by leaked information?

 

[rethunk]

Has anyone stopped to ask whether the 'leaks' really constitute an increased risk to troops, undercover personnel, etc?

From BBC news website,

"Daniel Ellsberg, the former military analyst who in 1971 released the Pentagon Papers which detailed government lies and cover-ups in the Vietnam War, is sceptical of whether the government really believes that lives are at stake.

He told the BBC's World Today programme that US officials made that same argument every time there was a potentially embarrassing leak.

The best justification they can find for secrecy is that lives are at stake. Actually, lives are at stake as a result of the silences and lies which a lot of these leaks reveal," he said.

The same charges were made against the Pentagon Papers and turned out to be quite invalid."

 

[JaredJames]

I was under the impression they detailed names and locations of informants.

 

[rethunk]

That does sound a step too far, if true.

But you've also got to ask who the personnel, local security or whoever are who would pass this stuff on in the first place. If wikileaks weren't doing this would these people still get exposed on the internet or however? (I'm not saying that makes it right BTW!)...

 

[WhoWee]

You know the fastest way to remove the danger our servicepeople face? Bring them all home. The last thing anyone should comment about is the danger troops face in an active warzone. They expect it, they train for it, and they probably do not appreciate a random internet commando telling them how much more dangerous it can be.

Let's be clear - am I the "random internet commando "?

Any action, by any person, that puts any single life in MORE danger - is inexcuseable.

 

[WhoWee]

Has anyone stopped to ask whether the 'leaks' really constitute an increased risk to troops, undercover personnel, etc?

From BBC news website,

"Daniel Ellsberg, the former military analyst who in 1971 released the Pentagon Papers which detailed government lies and cover-ups in the Vietnam War, is sceptical of whether the government really believes that lives are at stake.

He told the BBC's World Today programme that US officials made that same argument every time there was a potentially embarrassing leak.

The best justification they can find for secrecy is that lives are at stake. Actually, lives are at stake as a result of the silences and lies which a lot of these leaks reveal," he said.

The same charges were made against the Pentagon Papers and turned out to be quite invalid."

How many pieces of information were released? Do you honestly believe that anyone could possibly know at this point if anyone has been injured?

 

[Mathnomalous]

Let's be clear - am I the "random internet commando "?

Rechecking my post, I only see your name above the quotation box. I do not know why you consider yourself a victim or the target of a random phrase.

Any action, by any person, that puts any single life in MORE danger - is inexcuseable.

Seriously? That is the conditional? It is OK if lives are placed in danger but unacceptable if lives are placed in more danger? I thought the objective was to not place them in any kind of danger, especially the unnecessary kind. I cannot debate against this type of absurdity.

Question: If a US citizen obtained and released without authorization classified Russian files, would you support the extradition (from any country) of said US citizen to Russia, given that releasing classified Russian files without authorization is probably against Russian law?

 

[Mathnomalous]

How many pieces of information were released? Do you honestly believe that anyone could possibly know at this point if anyone has been injured?

To date, Wikileaks has released approximately 1500 US DoS documents. I would imagine the people claiming about probable loss of life would have a good idea of who has perished as a consequence of the Wikileaks release. Vague comments about probable loss of life are nothing more than emotional appeals.

 

[WhoWee]

Rechecking my post I again, I only see your name above the quotation box. I do not know why you consider yourself a victim or the target of a random phrase.



Seriously? That is the conditional? It is OK if lives are placed in danger but unacceptable if lives are placed in more danger? I thought the objective was to not place them in any kind of danger, especially the unnecessary kind. I cannot debate against this type of absurdity.

Question: If a US citizen obtained and released without authorization classified Russian files, would you support the extradition (from any country) of said US citizen to Russia, given that releasing classified Russian files without authorization is probably against Russian law?

In response to your comment that "Because apparently they were not already in danger in an active warzone. ", I'm conceding that yes, a war zone is a dangerous place. I'll even concede that if you remove OUR people from the war zone they would be safer - although I don't think you can also remove locals that provided assistance to our personnel

Given this, I use the term MORE danger - satisfied?

As I said, it's one thing to make smart comments, but the consequences of leaked information can be death to soldiers and/or innocents.

 

[Mathnomalous]

In response to your comment that "Because apparently they were not already in danger in an active warzone. ", I'm conceding that yes, a war zone is a dangerous place. I'll even concede that if you remove OUR people from the war zone they would be safer - although I don't think you can also remove locals that provided assistance to our personnel

Given this, I use the term MORE danger - satisfied?

As I said, it's one thing to make smart comments, but the consequences of leaked information can be death to soldiers and/or innocents.

Very satisfied, thank you. Although I would like to point out, that if the US Government solicited and received the assistance of innocent civilians, then the US Government is ultimately responsible for their lives. The US Government should know better than to involve innocent civilians in a war effort.

Also, I am in favor of executing people who release classified information that may cause the deaths of US Government personnel, as long as the operation(s) these USG personnel were involved in were lawful. In the event USG personnel is involved in unlawful operations, such as Iraq, the death of any USG personnel is directly the fault of the elected US leaders that placed them there.

 

[Mathnomalous]

And here is a clear example of the US Government disrespecting the laws of a foreign country:

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/afp/20101215/twl-italy-us-cia-egypt-crime-appeal-7e07afd.html

ROME (AFP) - – An Italian court upped the sentences for 23 CIA agents convicted in absentia of abducting an Egyptian imam in one of the biggest cases against the US "extraordinary rendition" programme.

The 23 CIA agents, originally sentenced in November 2009 to five to eight years in prison, had their sentences increased to seven to nine years on appeal in what one of the defence lawyers described as a "shocking blow" for the US.

They were also ordered to pay 1.5 million euros (two million dollars) in damages to the imam and his wife for the 2003 abduction.

Washington has refused to extradite the agents, who all remain at liberty but now risk arrest if they travel to Europe.

Hypocrisy at its finest!

 

[Fra]

Hypocrisy at its finest!

LOL. I'd like to buy a box of chocolate with that text.

/Fredrik

 

[WhoWee]

Very satisfied, thank you. Although I would like to point out, that if the US Government solicited and received the assistance of innocent civilians, then the US Government is ultimately responsible for their lives. The US Government should know better than to involve innocent civilians in a war effort.

Also, I am in favor of executing people who release classified information that may cause the deaths of US Government personnel, as long as the operation(s) these USG personnel were involved in were lawful. In the event USG personnel is involved in unlawful operations, such as Iraq, the death of any USG personnel is directly the fault of the elected US leaders that placed them there.

Can you please provide a list of places on the planet where it will be legal (under local law) for the US (or any country) to use military force to remove the leader - was it legal in Germany to attempt to capture Hitler?

Ideology is fine, and it's great in a classroom, but in the real world - people die when secrecy is compromised.

 

[brainstorm]

You know the fastest way to remove the danger our servicepeople face? Bring them all home. The last thing anyone should comment about is the danger troops face in an active warzone. They expect it, they train for it, and they probably do not appreciate a random internet commando telling them how much more dangerous it can be.

I've always had a warm fuzzy soft-spot for the idea of simply not having wars as a way of protecting soldiers from being "in harm's way." The ideal is that the world can be divided into regions and as long as no one intrudes in anyone else's territory, there won't be any fighting.

But what would happen if this actually occurred? Let's say the US govt. decides to withdraw all military from anywhere outside the regional boundaries of one of the official states. What happens then? Let's assume perfectly disciplined heads of state prevent all forms of inter-regional invasion. Do all the other national-state governments police their autonomous regions in such a way that prevents anyone within their region from organizing in a way that results in covert inter-regional power-games?

Now, let's be a little cynical and imagine that there are people who would pretend to behave themselves when the police (or media) is watching but would try to get away with nasty inter-regional crimes when they thought they could get away with it. Then, what if not only did the governments not police such international smuggling or whatever was going on, they even supported it because it was profitable for them?

In that case, wouldn't you expect a great number of cross-border covert economic and political collusion to be going on. After all, there is an awful lot of economic advantage to be gained by sneaking around under the radar, no?

Now, if the US government and its citizenry is behaving themselves according to the official rules of inter-regional non-intervention but other governments are looking the other way while their citizens perpetrate all sorts of exploitative illicit activities, will there never be any consequences for US citizens? Can the US government somehow provide total security within the state borders without engaging anyone in any way extra-nationally?

What about global trade? People travel to and from every city globally all the time engaging in various forms of trade, business, tourism, etc. Even if the US government set tariffs and taxes and exit visas high enough to prevent any citizen from going anywhere and doing anything internationally, non-citizens would still recognize markets for US-identified media such as hollywood movies, music, etc. and there would be a global market of US-identity goods being either smuggled or replicated and sold as "authentic American." As a result, anti-Americanism would still occur as people would blame US citizens for the popularity of these items and the cultural identity they are taken to represent.

Then the question is what will happen when non-US businesses and governments implement global trade networks of economic interdependence? Do you think they would look at US isolationism and just accept it and move on? No, they would grumble about how the US isn't contributing to global GDP and/or look at the valuable land-resources in the US region and try to come up with ways to get access to those.

The only way this wouldn't happen is if a totally sustainable global culture of industry and consumption emerged that made it possible for populations to grow limitlessly without seeking to expand their resource-base to sustain their populations. I'm all for developing such a culture, but if it were achieved and implemented, there would be no reason to have wars anyway, so what would be the point of nationalist isolationism?

 

[mugaliens]

If that were true, then Bush, Cheney, and other high officials in the US would be subject to arrest and trial for war crimes if they traveled outside the US. International law is a fiction.

The leaders of nations are largely considered as representatives of the entire nation. As such, they are very rarely put on trial, except in cases where their human rights violations are both large and repetitive, such as as waves of genocide.

Too many people have died (including our own troops) based on falsehoods...

Most of our leaders do the best with what they have. Even with the resources of an entire nation at their disposal, they're still not omniscient, and as humans, they do make mistakes.

We should never permit our political leaders to claim grievances and war-powers that cannot be substantiated. Not just in the US - everywhere.

Agreed.

 

[brainstorm]

The leaders of nations are largely considered as representatives of the entire nation. As such, they are very rarely put on trial, except in cases where their human rights violations are both large and repetitive, such as as waves of genocide.

And what about when such violations are not the product of the "leaders'" actions but their "followers?" What about when the leaders are given the blame for what is done in their name? Isn't punishing them then more about blaming them for not controlling "their people" than it is about punishing the actual violations?

 

[nismaratwork]

And what about when such violations are not the product of the "leaders'" actions but their "followers?" What about when the leaders are given the blame for what is done in their name? Isn't punishing them then more about blaming them for not controlling "their people" than it is about punishing the actual violations?

There is a price to leadership, depending on the form of government. If you're a god-king, and you really make a balls of things, you should expect to be tortured to death. In the end, there is the concept of where 'the buck stops', and in the case of a national leader, it stops with them. If you don't want acts done in your name, don't seek fame.

 

[brainstorm]

There is a price to leadership, depending on the form of government. If you're a god-king, and you really make a balls of things, you should expect to be tortured to death. In the end, there is the concept of where 'the buck stops', and in the case of a national leader, it stops with them. If you don't want acts done in your name, don't seek fame.

You're assuming/implying that fame equates with power. What makes a "god-king" a god-king?

 

[nismaratwork]

You're assuming/implying that fame equates with power. What makes a "god-king" a god-king?

Well, I was thinking of Pharaonic Egypt and Mesopotamian forebears. Are you asking instead how a god-king gains that kind of mandate?... I assume not since you strike me as someone who's fairly well versed in philosophy and history.

Oh, and fame is a kind of power, like money, or looks, or brute strength or intelligence. Fame, money... these are stand-ins for power, but just as you can be rich as ruled by another, you can be famous and NOT powerful.

 

[WhoWee]

You're assuming/implying that fame equates with power. What makes a "god-king" a god-king?

Why don't we start with any leader that erects statues of themselves?

 

[nismaratwork]

Why don't we start with any leader that erects statues of themselves?

I just want to be clear that I meant "god-king" as the term of art relating to particular forms of government in the past (maybe Kim Jong-Il comes close), like the concept of the philosopher-king and the like. After all, in western monarchies the king or queen ruled by divine mandate but that didn't make THEM divine. The Egyptians believed that their pharaoh was mortal, but would BECOME a god after death, and further back in time you lose the distinction entirely with figures such as Marduk, Enki, and maybe even someone such as Hammurabi.

In general I agree with your sentiment however, that anyone who starts erecting their own monuments has some monomaniacal issues.

 

[WhoWee]

I just want to be clear that I meant "god-king" as the term of art relating to particular forms of government in the past (maybe Kim Jong-Il comes close), like the concept of the philosopher-king and the like. After all, in western monarchies the king or queen ruled by divine mandate but that didn't make THEM divine. The Egyptians believed that their pharaoh was mortal, but would BECOME a god after death, and further back in time you lose the distinction entirely with figures such as Marduk, Enki, and maybe even someone such as Hammurabi.

In general I agree with your sentiment however, that anyone who starts erecting their own monuments has some monomaniacal issues.

I understand and agree with you. To your earlier point -I've always accepted "the bigger they are, the harder they fall" as reasonable.

 

[nismaratwork]

I understand and agree with you. To your earlier point -I've always accepted "the bigger they are, the harder they fall" as reasonable.

I think Saddam made that literally clear to everyone, first when his statue fell, and at last when he took that last long fall. It's a bunko war, but that image of his statue being toppled was a good one.

 

[brainstorm]

Why don't we start with any leader that erects statues of themselves?

A statue does not power make.

In general I agree with your sentiment however, that anyone who starts erecting their own monuments has some monomaniacal issues.

Megalomania does not power make.

 

[WhoWee]

A statue does not power make.




Megalomania does not power make.

I'm not certain of your Yoda-style point.

Erecting a statue of oneself may not mean the power is real in the global sense - but locally/nationally - it would indicate supreme power over the populace.

 

[nismaratwork]

I'm not certain of your Yoda-style point.

Erecting a statue of oneself may not mean the power is real in the global sense - but locally/nationally - it would indicate supreme power over the populace.

Literally and figuratively... I'm not saying that I accept them in the manner projected, but it has an effect on the psyche of a populace. If you can have monuments made to yourself... you have POWER.

 

[brainstorm]

I'm not certain of your Yoda-style point.

I was trying to get you to think about what power really is, i.e. what it means to have power. It is different than having a statue or megalomania. Are you familiar with Foucault's famous quip that the king's head was cut off a long time ago in politics but it had yet to be cut off in political science? His point was that political scientists assumed sovereign, centralized power instead of identifying the microphysics of how power actually works in practice.

Erecting a statue of oneself may not mean the power is real in the global sense - but locally/nationally - it would indicate supreme power over the populace.

The power to have a statue built is only one kind of power. You may be able to get a statue of yourself built but that doesn't mean you'll be able to get people to kill others for you. Also, Saddam Hussein might have been able to order killing of Kurds or Hitler of Jews but did they have the power to order genocide against Shiite, Sunni, or non-Jewish Germans? The point I'm making is that the leader only has power to kill because they express something that the people are willing to hear. If they would have told everyone to kill their mother, they would have been ousted from power before the order was executed. So their power was limited by the will of their "followers." As such, who has the real power? The commander or the followers?

Literally and figuratively... I'm not saying that I accept them in the manner projected, but it has an effect on the psyche of a populace. If you can have monuments made to yourself... you have POWER.

I think this is the really interesting question about power, i.e. what are the mechanics of hegemony that make people more suggestible and prone to do things against their will out of fear. I still don't think such brainwashing and fear are generated (solely) by a leader or other individual, but they are what makes the leader popular and powerful in what they say. It would be like if you went around beating and intimidating your kids because their uncle is coming to visit telling them that they better be nice and do what their uncle says "or else." Then when their uncle shows up, they do whatever he says but it's not because he is a megalomaniac (even if he is). It's because you have intimidated them to the point of cowering in obedience. This is just an example, not an insult directed at you personally (in case you are prone to take it that way).

 

[mugaliens]

One of the things I like most about the US, brainstorm, is that we've always been a country of doubting Thomases. We're not likely to blindly accept a leaders' edicts without saying, "Hey, wait a minute, that's not..."

Think about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States#Federal_officials_impeached"., including two U.S. Presidents, and 21 state officials, including 12 governors!

That's quite a record for any country, but it says one thing: We elected you. The rules are in place; play by the rules, or you're gone.

Not many countries enjoy this degree of bottom-up ability to censure or remove their leaders.

 

[brainstorm]

One of the things I like most about the US, brainstorm, is that we've always been a country of doubting Thomases. We're not likely to blindly accept a leaders' edicts without saying, "Hey, wait a minute, that's not..."

Think about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States#Federal_officials_impeached"., including two U.S. Presidents, and 21 state officials, including 12 governors!

That's quite a record for any country, but it says one thing: We elected you. The rules are in place; play by the rules, or you're gone.

Not many countries enjoy this degree of bottom-up ability to censure or remove their leaders.

I wouldn't start waiving your flag just yet. Removing people from office can be used as a tactic to intimidate public officials to submit to anti-democratic power as well. Consider an official who becomes unpopular with a local mafia or other powerful economic interest. That interest could spread the idea that this person is bad for business and that they should be impeached for that reason, regardless of the public good they are contributing to. Sometimes people prefer to listen to their wallets instead of reason and they're not necessarily doing the right thing by ousting someone who refuses to cooperate in their uncritical submission to moneyed interests.

 

[WhoWee]

I wouldn't start waiving your flag just yet. Removing people from office can be used as a tactic to intimidate public officials to submit to anti-democratic power as well. Consider an official who becomes unpopular with a local mafia or other powerful economic interest. That interest could spread the idea that this person is bad for business and that they should be impeached for that reason, regardless of the public good they are contributing to. Sometimes people prefer to listen to their wallets instead of reason and they're not necessarily doing the right thing by ousting someone who refuses to cooperate in their uncritical submission to moneyed interests.

That's a lot of considering - what do you suggest as an alternative?

 

[NeoDevin]

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/142289-bush-cancels-swiss-visit-under-threat-of-protests-efforts-to-arrest-him"

 

[WhoWee]

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/142289-bush-cancels-swiss-visit-under-threat-of-protests-efforts-to-arrest-him"

 

[NeoDevin]

Don't act too confused. By allowing torture, Bush broke several international laws.

For those in favor of the US being able to get people extradited for actions outside their borders, if another country applied for extradition of Bush (not what happened in this case), would you favor the US sending him to stand trial?

 

[brainstorm]

That's a lot of considering - what do you suggest as an alternative?

More responsible citizens with interests that go beyond self-enrichment at any cost.

DIFFERENT ISSUE: Has anyone noticed how the very theme of this thread promotes global pluralism of authoritarian regimes just by framing global politics in terms of assuming that different people must have different governments? I don't want to get into a discussion about whether one-world government would be good or bad, because the anti's would overwhelm the discussion. However, I would like to point out that you could replace "US" with any other national adjective and it would have the same effect.

Go ahead, do the thought experiment: try "should the world be subject to Swedish law" or "should the world be subject to Brazilian law." Whatever adjective you choose, it will result in a sense that people should be governed by "their own national laws." This is the paradigmatic assumption of nationalism from its inception. But why should people be subject to authoritarian rule by others just because they supposedly share the same national identity? Why should a national citizen (or other global citizen) accept governance by others just because they are not "foreign?" Why shouldn't every individual have the right to self-govern by independent reason and, if so, don't governments have to protect this right?