Wikileaks release classified documents

[rootX]

Odd, your response here made me think otherwise.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=419272

It was for some other thread ..

 

[Evo]

Odd, your response here made me think otherwise.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=419272

It was for some other thread ..

Correct. It was in the embedded journalists thread. The member doesn't even know what thread he posted in.

And this is dragging this thread off topic.

 

[lisab]

I don't want to get into the individual cases, though I believe a third party reading ZQrn's posts would see he was responding to something lisab said, which she admitted was unclear.

There just seems to be a fundamental problem here to do with impartiality and knowledge-base.

It is not much of an issue perhaps when people want to have knockabout discussions of US internal politics (republicans vs democrats, cracks about Bush's IQ, etc) as who takes them seriously?

But when it comes to real world issues with real human consequences, then a higher level of debate is called for. And describing things as a choice between siding with the self-evidently good and the self-evidently evil is simply inflammatory talk.

If we are moderators, let's imagine how a professor of political science would frame these issues.

If you debate a bunch of Americans, it should be no surprise to find they often have points of view which don't parallel yours (in fact it's a good bet). This isn't because of a lack of impartiality or an insufficient knowledge-base, or that "the level of debate isn't high enough". Consider that it may be because our collective experiences are quite different from yours; we are, after all, a different culture.

I find most well-educated European's world views to be valid, and I respect them; I often find they don't give that same acceptance to Americans on this forum.

 

[apeiron]

If you debate a bunch of Americans, it should be no surprise to find they often have points of view which don't parallel yours.

It is no surprise. My point was about moderators and their greater need to be impartial, objective, scholarly, if they are to have moral justification to enforce forum rules.

It is relevant to this thread as this thread is a prime example of how discussions spiral down into ugliness when members see people taking "might is right" and "if you don't like it, just leave" attitudes.

If Russ thinks good guys vs bad guys is a valid political science construct, then he is free to play by the rules and provide the citations.

 

[Hurkyl]

I think it is setting a very poor example to reduce the level of discussion to good guys vs bad guys. It is not scholarly. It is not intelligent.

Surely you would agree that pretending there are no "bad guys" (or "good guys") is disingenuous?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Surely you would agree that pretending there are no "bad guys" (or "good guys") is disingenuous?

I believe Apeiron only points out that these are crude and biased terms. It would be more appropriate, for intellectual discussion, to point out the issues of balance of power, law, and recognized 'moral authority'. To argue from a biased dichotomy of "good guys" vs "bad guys" would seem intellectually dishonest and possibly even patronizing.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I agree that "good guys" and "bad guys" is too simple. Most dangerous and radicalized jihadists are good people to someone. But the real point is that it doesn't matter. When you fight wars, you have to identify the enemy and kill them. Playing games with words has no value.

Historically, the lingo of war is much more offensive than "bad guys", which is about as benign as it gets.

So I think the point is valid, but irrelevant. Bad guys, enemies, radicalized jihadists, what's in a name?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I agree that "good guys" and "bad guys" is too simple. Most dangerous and radicalized jihadists are good people to someone. But the real point is that it doesn't matter. When you fight wars, you have to identify the enemy and kill them. Playing games with words has no value.

Historically, the lingo of war is much more offensive than "bad guys", which is about as benign as it gets.

So I think the point is valid, but irrelevant. Bad guys, enemies, radicalized jihadists, what's in a name?

If this were a MiniTru committee, perhaps. Since we are not all necessarily on the same page though, and since we are discussing the consistency in logic and law regarding charges against Assange and the like, we might present a more comprehensive view.

It may be proper to note for ZQrn, when he comes back, that as far as the treatment of spies is concerned, if it is decided that Geneva applies, then the Taliban will not be held criminally responsible for killing/executing spies (as they are specifically not covered by the GC). That Assange is apparently being charged with a crime is really only a matter of him being a resident of one of the US' allies; one who chooses to assist the US in prosecuting those who endanger operations in the conflict.

 

[talk2glenn]

It may be proper to note for ZQrn, when he comes back, that as far as the treatment of spies is concerned, if it is decided that Geneva applies, then the Taliban will not be held criminally responsible for killing/executing spies (as they are specifically not covered by the GC).

Why do we persist in this nonsense? The Taliban is not Party to the Geneva Conventions. They never have been alleged to be Party to those treaties. By definition, one can only "spy", in the context intended here, on a "national government".

The Taliban are non-state actors. They are not a government. Geneva does not apply. Can I be more clear?

By your logic, a gang in south central LA could claim that it was "executing spies" when/if it was caught assassinating criminal informants, and, under Geneva, not be prosecuted for murder. It's inane.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If this were a MiniTru committee, perhaps. Since we are not all necessarily on the same page though, and since we are discussing the consistency in logic and law regarding charges against Assange and the like, we might present a more comprehensive view.

Yikes, sorry, I thought particular subdiscussion went back to the combatants.

Yeah, for someone like Assange it gets a lot more complicated. "Good guy" "bad guy" is a pretty naive point of view on that one.

 

[edward]

It is no surprise. My point was about moderators and their greater need to be impartial, objective, scholarly, if they are to have moral justification to enforce forum rules.

It is relevant to this thread as this thread is a prime example of how discussions spiral down into ugliness when members see people taking "might is right" and "if you don't like it, just leave" attitudes.

If Russ thinks good guys vs bad guys is a valid political science construct, then he is free to play by the rules and provide the citations.

This thread isn't about the humanities. It is about a a war and the real world, not someones hypothetical perfect world that exists only in an academic glass bubble.

The Taliban; chop off heads, totally dominate their wives, beat women if they are raped, and refuse to allow education for their daughters. If you feel that they are your equal, lots of luck with that.

 

[apeiron]

Most of the responses above are too juvenile even to deserve a reply. But my point was about the standards of debate that should be expected of moderators.

Again, if anyone can show that "good guys vs bad guys" is a legitimate construct in academic political discussions, please provide the citations.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The Taliban is not Party to the Geneva Conventions. They never have been alleged to be Party to those treaties.

It does not matter (assuming that the Taliban are a recognized ruling body). The Geneva Conventions are a standard of international law regardless of whether or not a particular state or ruling body has signed it. You can not exempt signatories from prosecution on certain grounds and yet prosecute nonsignatories on those same grounds.

The Taliban are non-state actors. They are not a government. Geneva does not apply. Can I be more clear?

Afghanistan was a signatory. The Taliban is the ousted and former ruling body of Afghanistan, though not the ruling body that signed the treaty. The current conflict is largely considered a continuation of hostilities precipitate of the war which ousted the Taliban as Afghanistan's ruling body. It is debatable whether or not it would apply.

By your logic, a gang in south central LA could claim that it was "executing spies" when/if it was caught assassinating criminal informants, and, under Geneva, not be prosecuted for murder. It's inane.

The gangs in South Central are not the ousted and former ruling bodies of sovereign nations.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Yikes, sorry, I thought particular subdiscussion went back to the combatants.

Yeah, for someone like Assange it gets a lot more complicated. "Good guy" "bad guy" is a pretty naive point of view on that one.

It did to some degree go back to 'combatants'. ZQrn was questioning the consistency of treatment of spies on both sides of the conflict, branching off of the question of Assange's culpability. Essentially, 'Why is it that their spies are criminals and ours are not?'. Here, still, the 'We're the good guys and they're the bad guys' explanation does not really seem worthy of the discussion.

 

[Evo]

I think it is setting a very poor example to reduce the level of discussion to good guys vs bad guys. It is not scholarly. It is not intelligent.

And it is pretty clear from the responses to this thread that those of us who are not US citizens have a different perspective on things. If you insists on painting US actions as white, of course we are going to point out the black aspects that also seem obvious. But it is you who is forcing us into binary responses by saying things have to be either black or white - good guys vs bad guys.

The way people are being shouted down here, having posts deleted, being give time outs, etc, just increases resentment.

Moderators more than anyone else need to be studiedly neutral or scholarly in their responses and not attempt to impose their political biases on others. They should be leading by example.

Good and bad are subjective responses that you will not find in political science. We need to be talking objectively about power relationships, asymetrical warfare and other theory-backed constructs.

You have completely taken what Russ said out of context.

There are no issues of murder here: it is pureley an issue of harming the war effort of the US and current Afghan government. I suppose if one supports the Taliban, that would be considered a good thing, but there should be no ambiguity on which side the "good guys" are on: the current US action and Afghan government are UN sanctioned. Wikileaks is doing counterespionage for the "bad guys". One cannot be neutral on that.

P&WA is not even close to being a "scholarly debate". If I were to hold everyone that posted here to something even close to that, I'd have to delete 99.9% of what was posted. This forum is for members to discuss what is on their mind, as long as they adhere to the posted guidelines. Whether or not you like someone's terminology doesn't matter. Russ clearly explained what his reasoning was.

 

[ibnsos]

It does not matter (assuming that the Taliban are a recognized ruling body). The Geneva Conventions are a standard of international law regardless of whether or not a particular state or ruling body has signed it. You can not exempt signatories from prosecution on certain grounds and yet prosecute nonsignatories on those same grounds.
.

Ignoring the assumption, since that is debatable. Why would you not prosecute non-signators differently than signators? The Geneva Convention only applies to signatory nations. If one of the combatants is not a signatory nation and one is, the signatory nation is requried to follow the conventions only if the non-signatory nation also accepts and applies the conventions. (see Common Article 2)

 

[russ_watters]

Again, if anyone can show that "good guys vs bad guys" is a legitimate construct in academic political discussions, please provide the citations.

As I said, 'good guys' and 'bad guys' are defined by international mandate via the UN and in addition have clear grounds in international moral code and law. This is not a matter of opinion and most certainly is relevant in a political discussion about the just-ness of a war.

Failing to take the proper stand or any stand on which side is "good" and which side is "bad", particularly with an internationally recognized mandate and a clear moral difference between the two sides is both immoral and cowardly. There is no true neutrality here: choosing not to take a stand is choosing to allow this sort of evil to continue:

 

[russ_watters]

I agree that "good guys" and "bad guys" is too simple. Most dangerous and radicalized jihadists are good people to someone.

Moral relativism is both logically self-contradictory and completely irrelevant here. As an international standard exists and a judgement about the group in question exists, there is a clear answer to the question of which side a 3rd party should be on.

 

[apeiron]

You have completely taken what Russ said out of context.

In what way?

P&WA is not even close to being a "scholarly debate". If I were to hold everyone that posted here to something even close to that, I'd have to delete 99.9% of what was posted. This forum is for members to discuss what is on their mind, as long as they adhere to the posted guidelines. Whether or not you like someone's terminology doesn't matter. Russ clearly explained what his reasoning was.

Agreed, it is not even close.

Russ was talking in absolute terms - there is no question, etc. ZQrn was making the obvious point there are always two sides to things. And in particular, US supporters would view a traitor doing damage to the Taliban differently. You called this trolling and banned him.

Some are allowed to speak their minds, and other's aren't.

 

[apeiron]

As I said, 'good guys' and 'bad guys' are defined by international mandate via the UN and in addition have clear grounds in international moral code and law. This is not a matter of opinion and most certainly is relevant in a political discussion about the just-ness of a war.

Failing to take the proper stand or any stand on which side is "good" and which side is "bad", particularly with an internationally recognized mandate and a clear moral difference between the two sides is both immoral and cowardly. There is no true neutrality here: choosing not to take a stand is choosing to allow this sort of evil to continue:

First, do you feel I have a right here to argue for moral relativism - that there is no absolute moral code that would make one culture good, another evil?

Second, do you feel I have a right here to argue for realpolitik - that the public face of international relations conceals more diverse motives, a wider negotiation of power?

Third, do you feel I have a right to argue for both these things without being labelled with ad hominens such as immoral and cowardly?

And I would extend these question to the other moderators entering into this discussion.

 

[Proton Soup]

As I said, 'good guys' and 'bad guys' are defined by international mandate via the UN and in addition have clear grounds in international moral code and law. This is not a matter of opinion and most certainly is relevant in a political discussion about the just-ness of a war.

Failing to take the proper stand or any stand on which side is "good" and which side is "bad", particularly with an internationally recognized mandate and a clear moral difference between the two sides is both immoral and cowardly. There is no true neutrality here: choosing not to take a stand is choosing to allow this sort of evil to continue:

that is an interesting picture. and an interesting narrative in the text (yes, i can read it). and believe me, I'm with you on the evil that it represents. it's the sort of thing i could see myself resorting to vigilantism to correct, were it to be happening locally (i will not live in a mexico).

but... are we really at a point where the purpose of our military is to fight evil and stamp out injustice in the world?

 

[russ_watters]

but... are we really at a point where the purpose of our military is to fight evil and stamp out injustice in the world?

Though that is an interesting question and one I have a pretty strong opinion on, I don't see how it is relevant here. We have a mandate to stamp out this injustice and that is enough for this war.

 

[Proton Soup]

Though that is an interesting question and one I have a pretty strong opinion on, I don't see how it is relevant here. We have a mandate to stamp out this injustice and that is enough for this war.

i think that by posting that picture, you are making that argument. that is why it is relevant here. plus, it sets the precedent. and by setting the precedent, that means that it won't be just this injustice for just this war.

 

[russ_watters]

i think that by posting that picture, you are making that argument. that is why it is relevant here. plus, it sets the precedent. and by setting the precedent, that means that it won't be just this injustice for just this war.

Moral absolutism requires it, but practical reality means we have to pick and choose where to apply it based on a variety of criteria. And we've done so in a lot of places and not done so in a lot of others.

 

[Proton Soup]

Moral absolutism requires it, but practical reality means we have to pick and choose where to apply it based on a variety of criteria. And we've done so in a lot of places and not done so in a lot of others.

yes, we are inconsistent. and to be honest, i think a lot of that has to do with financial interest. for instance, we did not get involved in Rwanda. UN peacekeepers were there. they were not allowed to interfere. now, this will probably change, and i expect we will begin to see more involvement in africa, but not because of any sense of moral absolutism. rather, the chinese have taken an interest there, and for good reason. africa is a rich source of natural resources like rare Earth metals. in the end, it's all about the benjamins.

 

[apeiron]

Though that is an interesting question and one I have a pretty strong opinion on, I don't see how it is relevant here. We have a mandate to stamp out this injustice and that is enough for this war.

If Russ says that absolute morality demands the US invades countries with the kind of practices featured on the cover of Time, then there is quite a list of countries to work through still.

Turkey...
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=the-woman-gets-her-nose-cut-off-by-the-husband-2010-04-05

Pakistan...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8425820.stm

India...
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41740.htm

Bangladesh...
http://womenagainstshariah.blogspot.com/2009/08/179-acid-attacks-against-women-in.html

Saudi Arabia
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2005/12/08/saudi-arabia-court-orders-eye-be-gouged-out

Moral absolutism requires it, but practical reality means we have to pick and choose where to apply it based on a variety of criteria. And we've done so in a lot of places and not done so in a lot of others.

So we have to pick and chose who gets invaded because practical reality > moral absolutism? This is at least consistent with the position that US interests > principle of free speech.

I personally don't like barbaric punishments or irresponsible uses of free speech privileges. But I also don't believe that things can be changed in the world by starting from inflexible positions and failing to understand the other point of view.

Moral absolutism is self-defeating and surprising in anyone claiming to have a scientific world view. In science, all is merely hypothesis. The capacity to doubt is the first principle. There are no right answers, just well tested models.

 

[ZQrn]

Please name the country that they would be harming. There has to be a country with laws against espionage that would be harmed.

Afghanistan as per the original government before coup d'êtat assisted by a foreign force was placed there.

Who said he was a traitor?

Russ

What?

That.

Did you read my earlier response to this?

I have no idea of which one you speak.

You're just trolling now. I'm afraid you've earned a time out. Take the time off to think about making better researched and informed posts.

Oh bravo, for the second time you abuse your position to maintain order because you can't stand the opinion of another. Cry me a river, I could post all the misinformed crap I wanted here as long as ever posted ended with 'And that is why America is awesome, just accept it.' What you did here is really below the standard of any politics board and wouldn't only cost you your mod powers but probably get you banned on any board seriously catering towards 'high quality' political debate from a world wide perspective that doesn't a priori assert that the US is always magically the good guys and can just police the world.

On the good guys and bad guys part, just by being neutral you are at odds with the official position of essentially the entire world community. At best, I consider such a thing a cop out. At worst, it seems disingenuous.

Luckily I don't command an army so I doubt they care whether or not I stand with them or not.

Besides, enough countries that did command an army were neutral in various conflicts.

The thread has moved fast, so I'm not sure if anyone actually meant to imply that, but for clarity:

The soldier who leaked the documents = domestic spy and traitor
Assange = foreign spy

No, he would be a spy if he actually entered US soil and broke local laws. He is basically 'neutral', he has obtained information whilst living in his own country, he has never entered the US under the promise that he'd respect local laws. He has been given information whose release could be considered harmful to the US, and has released it publicly, the most you can accuse him of is not being allied to the US and going out of his way and operation of his own non profit foundation to protect US interests.

He has not broken any US laws on US soil to obtain that information. He does provide a platform for US traitors to function on, though.

Then at best you misunderstand. The Geneva convention lays out specific conduct requirements for soldiers to follow in order to be afforded Geneva Convention protection. Violating those specific requirements by individual soldiers results in forfeiting the protection. It would obviously be rediculous if the commission of a war crime by one soldier in an army caused the entire army to forfeit protection.

That's nonsensical, soldiers are often ordered to break those conventions, and you really can't try every individual solider on that to determine which of them has broken them. The conventions are also between governments, that is commanders, and not soldiers.

Yes And in this case, Assange chose to ally himself with the internationally recognized "bad guys".

No, he chose to not ally himself with what you would call the 'good guys', and trust me, outside of the US that view is hardly universal or internationally recognized. A lot of people worldwide think that the US should just leave and stop trying to police the world.

Another thing, being, about that guy from the Pentagon Papers about Assange:Edit:removed link to blog

Moral relativism is both logically self-contradictory and completely irrelevant here. As an international standard exists and a judgement about the group in question exists, there is a clear answer to the question of which side a 3rd party should be on.

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

Okay, so be it, you're the bad guys then if you want to believe that international standards make right and wrong.

Also read this part:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intern...c_opinion_compared_to_American_public_opinion

Stop living in your isolated US Bubble, the 'international standard', doesn't think your country is as much the 'good guy' as your country thinks it is.

Luckily though I don't believe international standards are anything remotely relevant, but hey, your party.

Though that is an interesting question and one I have a pretty strong opinion on, I don't see how it is relevant here. We have a mandate to stamp out this injustice and that is enough for this war.

A photoshopped propaganda picture?

Also, you beg the question here, you take for granted that your vision on right and wrong is the One True Right to judge over that of others.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2994924.stm
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/27/news/27iht-pew.4.6365578.html

Stop living in your bubble and your isolated view that US is some how internationally recognized as the good guys. The world for the most part doesn't like the US. The majority of the citizens of first world countries hold an unfavourable view of the US, US policies, US-style democracy and how the US policies the world. You keep asserting that the US is automatically the good guys due to some 'international standard' but even that standard doesn't agree, the majority of the world does not like the US.

 

[Gokul43201]

Moral relativism is both logically self-contradictory and completely irrelevant here.

If it's irrelevant, then your proclaiming summary judgment upon it is an off-topic, below-the-belt move that doesn't belong in the thread. Save it for the Philosophy forum.

Yes And in this case, Assange chose to ally himself with the internationally recognized "bad guys".

You can not make the case that Assange chose to ally himself with one side without (as a necessary but not sufficient condition) showing that wikileaks has a policy (stated or demonstrated) to not accept leaks from that side, or to treat leaks from that side in a different manner to leaks from the other side. If they have no such policy, or show no such history, they are not allied with any particular side.

And taking the argument further, it would be cowardly (or perhaps overreaching) to assert that someone being critical of one side is automatically allied with the other side.

 

[Evo]

Russ

No. Here is what Russ said

The soldier who leaked the documents = domestic spy and traitor
Assange = foreign spy".

That.

You need to explain what I questioned.

I have no idea of which one you speak.

Then you need to go back and read my post again.

Oh bravo, for the second time you abuse your position to maintain order because you can't stand the opinion of another. Cry me a river, I could post all the misinformed crap I wanted here as long as ever posted ended with 'And that is why America is awesome, just accept it.' What you did here is really below the standard of any politics board and wouldn't only cost you your mod powers but probably get you banned on any board seriously catering towards 'high quality' political debate from a world wide perspective that doesn't a priori assert that the US is always magically the good guys and can just police the world.

We have guidelines for posting here, if you don't like them, you do not have to post here.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Ignoring the assumption, since that is debatable. Why would you not prosecute non-signators differently than signators? The Geneva Convention only applies to signatory nations. If one of the combatants is not a signatory nation and one is, the signatory nation is requried to follow the conventions only if the non-signatory nation also accepts and applies the conventions. (see Common Article 2)

See Article 1: "The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances."
My emphasis added.

edit: Sorry I sort of skipped over the first part of the post. As I noted the GC is a standard of international law. Exempting signatories from certain charges and laying them upon others would be akin to the US prohibiting "cruel and unusual punishment" of citizens but allowing it in the case of noncitizens. Setting a standard means no exceptions in either direction.

Moral absolutism is self-defeating and surprising in anyone claiming to have a scientific world view. In science, all is merely hypothesis. The capacity to doubt is the first principle. There are no right answers, just well tested models.

If I remember correctly from former discussions Russ is a realist/utilitarian. I do not believe he intended in his quote to promote an absolutist doctrine [with exceptions].

Of course that conversation is one we have already had (and should have; as Gokul points out) in Philosophy.

 

[ZQrn]

No. Here is what Russ said

And he also said this

You need to explain what I questioned.

I have no idea what you mean with 'what', be more descriptive.

And please, you have a very nasty history of only quoting the parts that are the easiest and just ignoring the rest.

Then you need to go back and read my post again.

I have no idea which post you speak of, be more descriptive.

Do you honestly think that if you ask 'what?' or 'read my post again' without pointing out what you mean I can just read your mind and gather what you mean?

Oh wait, I forgot, right wing and moral absolutist policy is completely based on ignoring to try to appreciate the situation from another's perspective. Do you honestly think I can gather what you want to hear if you just say 'what'

We have guidelines for posting here, if you don't like them, please feel free to leave.

I'm fine with the guidelines, the point is that you aren't fine with the guidelines and just make decisions as you please. There isn't a single guideline which says you can't make 'uninformed' posts and I never made them. I just don't agree with your moral absolutism on this issue (and I quote and reply to every single point you address at me, you might want to try that)

 

[Evo]

And he also said this

That was in response to the person(s)that leaked the video, not assange.

I have no idea what you mean with 'what', be more descriptive.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2819873&postcount=133

While in reality this only happens if the US or Afghani are sided with the US.

Okay, what does that mean?

And please, you have a very nasty history of only quoting the parts that are the easiest and just ignoring the rest.

I only respond to parts that need clarification, not everything is worthy of a response. Also please stop with the bad attitude.

I have no idea which post you speak of, be more descriptive.

I posted it twice in two separate posts. It's all there if you had read it. https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2819873&postcount=133

Did you read my earlier response to this?

Originally Posted by Evo
Since it didn't break our laws or affect our operations or the safety of our allies, how could we? Are you really thinking about what you are asking before you post?

It appears that you blast off responses without taking time to stop and think. This type of posting is detrimental to carrying on a conversation. It appears that you keep flooding the thread with posts just to get a response in.

 

[Gokul43201]

That was in response to the person(s)that leaked the video, not assange.

How can you possibly say that?

Here's the quote (bolding mine):

Ehh, I would say that if the purpose is whistleblowing, then legitimate whistleblowing is commendable - and wikileaks has done some legitimate whistleblowing. But the helicopter incident and this are at best fishing expeditions* and at worst dangerously damaging treason.

Clearly, russ is aiming the treason charge at wikileaks (i.e., Assange). The quote is NOT about the person that leaked the video.

 

[BobG]

As I said, 'good guys' and 'bad guys' are defined by international mandate via the UN and in addition have clear grounds in international moral code and law. This is not a matter of opinion and most certainly is relevant in a political discussion about the just-ness of a war.

Failing to take the proper stand or any stand on which side is "good" and which side is "bad", particularly with an internationally recognized mandate and a clear moral difference between the two sides is both immoral and cowardly. There is no true neutrality here: choosing not to take a stand is choosing to allow this sort of evil to continue:

Are UN resolutions and sanctions a good criteria for determining "good guys" and "bad guys"?

What happens if our country doesn't like how the UN implements a resolution we agreed to - particularly if the UN sees a particular violation as being more trivial and deserving of a much lesser punishment than the punishment the US thinks would be appropriate?

While I actually agree with your position in this circumstance, I just find it ironic when supporters of the Iraq invasion revert to this particular argument for the Afghanistan war. Although, once again, while the UN denied recognition of the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan and while it imposed sanctions for years before 9/11, the UN never saw fit to impose an invasion of Afghanistan to remove the Taliban.

Nor did the US ask the UN to take any action against Afghanistan after 9/11. This was a situation where the US was reacting to an attack on US soil and asking the UN to resolve the situation would have been inappropriate for that type of situation.

In other words, the US didn't ask the UN to endorse an invasion of Afghanistan and then have to withdraw the resolution because it became obvious that an endorsement wouldn't be forthcoming.

I think the magazine cover is an effective emotional hook to sell the idea of why we need to stay in Afghanistan. A more effective rational argument would compare the overall condition of women in Afghanistan with Karzai in power to the overall condition of women with the Taliban in power.

There is a difference and conditions for women are better under Karzai than the Taliban, but it's a stretch to say that's because Karzai is a champion of women's rights. In reality, he forces Afghanis to bend a little to appease the Western allies keeping Karzai in power. This is a cultural issue more than it is a political issue. American views about women's rights don't just conflict with the Taliban's views or Karzai's views - American views conflict with Afghani views.

I agree that the Taliban is the official "bad guys" in this scenario, but I think the difference between the Afghani "good guys" and "bad guys" may be slightly exaggerated.

 

[BobG]

Why do we persist in this nonsense? The Taliban is not Party to the Geneva Conventions. They never have been alleged to be Party to those treaties. By definition, one can only "spy", in the context intended here, on a "national government".

The Taliban are non-state actors. They are not a government. Geneva does not apply. Can I be more clear?

By your logic, a gang in south central LA could claim that it was "executing spies" when/if it was caught assassinating criminal informants, and, under Geneva, not be prosecuted for murder. It's inane.

It does not matter (assuming that the Taliban are a recognized ruling body). The Geneva Conventions are a standard of international law regardless of whether or not a particular state or ruling body has signed it. You can not exempt signatories from prosecution on certain grounds and yet prosecute nonsignatories on those same grounds.


Afghanistan was a signatory. The Taliban is the ousted and former ruling body of Afghanistan, though not the ruling body that signed the treaty. The current conflict is largely considered a continuation of hostilities precipitate of the war which ousted the Taliban as Afghanistan's ruling body. It is debatable whether or not it would apply.


The gangs in South Central are not the ousted and former ruling bodies of sovereign nations.

I think talk2glenn did a poor job explaining his point, instead choosing the fun, but ineffective style of "only an idiot wouldn't know the history of Afghanistan" style of argument.

As a result, the fact that the Taliban was not recognized by the UN as the legitimate government of Afghanistan even before 9/11 was glossed over. I believe that is the point that talk2glenn was trying to make. The Taliban was the de facto winner of a long civil war in Afghanistan, but that civil war was still ongoing as far as the UN was concerned, since the UN still recognized the government that the Taliban deposed.

But, the fact that he did leave that point out combined with the fact that you failed to address it, means talk2glenn gets to make a scathing attack on you in the near future. See what I mean about that being a fun style? It will certainly be fun for him, anyway.

The issue of whether non-recognized ruling bodies are covered by the Geneva Convention is debatable, although, admittedly, the only reason any debate exists is because civilians in the Bush administration came up with an entirely new interpretation of the GC than anyone had ever came up with before.