Hacker News Reader

Comment by rendall | Hacker News Reader

It's difficult for me to read this objectively, because I "know in my heart" that the persecution of Assange is unjust. Nevertheless, it is important to put that aside and absorb the information without bias. Let the prosecution make its best case without attachment to outcome.

Still, there are some rather shocking revelations about the conduct of the government of my homeland. Torture, of course; but also murder of a detainee to terrify other detainees; "puerile attitude to killing, with juvenile nicknames given to assassination targets"; the attempted murder without trial of a US citizen, also a journalist; the attempts to block and cover these actions, which suggests that the perpetrators and enablers themselves knew they were crimes.

View on HN

While I do think he and others are guilty of leaking government secrets, it was done with the public interest in mind - exposing war crimes, for which I still hope the US will be held responsible for. Therefore any punishment should be mitigated.

Second, I do not trust he would be given a fair treatment or due process in the US - I mean he helped leak documents that prove that the US committed war crimes, a country that commits war crimes does not have any kind of moral credit left when it comes to legal cases like this.

The law must serve justice, not the other way around. If the law allows for political prosecution, it needs to be reformed. Many laws are completely inadequate for digital "crimes". Although these "crimes" did put focus on an illegal war of aggression instigated by neocons and parts of the press. There is just so much the law can serve.

"Equal justice under the law" unfortunately cannot coexist with "The law must serve justice".

What do you mean? They exactly coexist.

I disagree completely. Perhaps you wanted to refer to weighting culpability of people being accused, but that isn't a contradiction.

I'm generally an "ends justifies the means" kinda guy, but I think anyone with that position needs to be aware of what the "means" actually are.

Maybe that's why I'm a bit shocked that you're shocked. These things have been going on for a long time and they're well documented. I'll just give three examples: the My Lai massacre, the imprisonment/trial of Omar Khadr (a child soldier) and the extrajudicial execution of Anwar Nasser al-Awlaki (an American citizen).

(To be clear, I don't think any of the above are justifiable. As a Canadian, I was particularly ashamed of Canada's position towards Khadr. But I don't go around a) thinking these things don't happen and b) that they're alway black and white)

Might makes right, èh?

The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

Just curious what ends you think justify these means? and do you think the US (and other 5 eyes) is achieving those ends?

If you allow me to ignore the slippery slope argument, the typical justification given for extrajudicial killing (clear and immediate threat) at the very least, makes this a not-so black and white issue.

Are you saying that the targets referenced in this article/hearing were clear and immediate threat to Americans on the other side of the world? or maybe they were minutes from launching a nuke?

Also do you think its correct to investigate very carefully anyone involved in such activities openly after the fact (once the perceived threat is no longer present) to ensure that these powers are not abused?

There was an Iain (M?) Banks book (maybe transitions?) that sort of represents my basic thoughts on this.. A policemen goes extra-judicial and tortures a suspect to find the location of a kidnapped child (or something like that).. the kid or whatever it was was saved but the policeman felt he should be criminally charged and tried after the fact and the torture should certainly not be legalised or glorified as it worked that one time in exceptional circumstances. - I think that there are times when humans do carry out a wrong to stop a greater wrong - but that should be part of the burden this actor must accept when taking action. otherwise the creative among us will not be able to stop our subconscious manipulating the laws that allow us to circumnavigate protocol.

I spend all day implementing controls in ERP systems etc. and I have to admit that when I have to raise a PO or Req you are damn right i use every fast track and workaround i know of to expedite it (I basically can't help it). So I try hard to create processes even I cannot manipulate. to be clear I think my ability to "work a process" is what makes me good at creating more robust processes - which is why I think politicians and law makers have a hard job and why we need to hold them to account.

I'm saying that I can imagine a realistic scenarios where an extra extrajudicial execution could be seen as the lesser of two evil by reasonable people.

Yes, there should be oversight before the act and scrutiny after. Yes, it should be formalized.

And I am asking.. does this look like one of those situations and do you think there is appropriate oversight in this situation?

our shock I guess is that we don't think that there is scrutiny and that these ends do not justify these means.

I can imagine these too, but some imaginary scenarios come too close to "24" TV series scenarios, i.e. completely unrealistic.

But I will give you that, even if you subscribe to the idea it came sometimes make some sense with extrajudicial killing, what we currently have is drone killings on a factory scale. It's disgusting.

I think that's a reasonable opinion, but I would also like to point out that in the US it's neither formalized, nor scrutinized.

Nothing is black and white, sure. Foreign intervention was probably good for the Kurds and some other minorities being suppressed by Saddam. He really wasn't the nicest guy.

But there is also an unfortunate history of selling weapons to him in the hope he would point them towards Iran. But the useful idiot didn't do what he was told and lied to his handlers. They probably didn't mind because the ends justified the means from his perspective. The war killed hundreds of thousands of people and we are in process of torturing the person responsible for transparency on the consequences of war.

Difficult to really say what that achieved. What was it for the US? Saving face after 9/11? If the US casually kills thousands of people not involved in the attack as impotent retaliation, you might find other terrorists that think crashing a plane into a skyscraper of innocent people is justified. The US would sabotage its reputation itself in that case. The ends justify the means, right?

It was a very local optimum for the Kurds, probably many more have been displaced and killed because of interventions. The ISIS was very harsh on kurds, and ISIS could not have existed without the US invasion.

Saddam was a horror, but in terms of people killed (after the Iran / Iraq war) much worse came after 9/11.

If you go back, it's an infinite fractal of short sightedness and incompetent tampering.

Yeah, they just have no voice on an international level and always seem to be handed the short end of the stick in every conflict. Even if things in Syria turned out differently...

Just wanting to point out that the regime of Saddam wasn't too nice for a lot of people, but yes, I think the intervention was worse for basically everybody.

I don't think My Lai can be blamed on the US government. The cover up can be blamed as trying to cover up a shameful act, but the act itself was done by men who were in a shitty situation and snapped.

Unless you have evidence that they were asked to do those things specifically by higher ups, to me those were the actions of shitty men in a shitty situation.

There had been wilful ignorance before and after that incident.

The problem as I see it is that we have stated principles: e.g. no torture, no punishment without trial, no extrajudicial punishment. There are good reasons for those principles. If we don't follow those principles, then what principles are we following? There are no limits.

If it's okay to murder detainees in this situation, then why wouldn't it be okay to murder detainees in that other, only slightly less justifiable situation?

If the President can order the assassination of American citizens, then what prevents the next President to order the assassination of political opponents?

Why couldn't I murder my neighbor for their TV? If you say "that way lies chaos" that's exactly, exactly my point.

I cannot imagine what ends justifies some of these actions. Is it really keeping us "safe" to have a government that abandons our principles whenever expedient?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com