Kanluwen wrote:

agroszkiewicz wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
Except they didn't just start firing wildly into a crowd, fool.
The Apache was flying top cover for a convoy within the vicinity which was taking fire. They were given the all-clear to engage a group of armed individuals who were heading towards the convoy. They lit them up, believing them to be a threat because hey let's face facts here.
There's no uniformed combatants in this war, other than us and our allies. Insurgent organizations do not wear uniforms or any real distinguishing marks.
Then an unmarked, white van(interestingly enough...you know, like what alot of reports of insurgents using for kidnappings and the like) pulls up to the individuals that were just taken down.
Tell me, what conclusion would you draw? Because I can tell you in that situation I wouldn't think "Oh, it's just Makmood from Allah Street coming to administer first aid".

Fool? Me....[see forum posting rules] please. I watched the fething video...they opened up on a group that was clearly NOT engaging them. "No uniform" isn't an excuse. I can tell by your "Makmood and Allah Street" that you've got a pretty well entrenched opinion. <shrug>

What part of "flying top cover for a convoy" is difficult for you to understand?

The Apache was not engaging to protect itself. They were protecting troops on the ground, who they(and the people who gave them clearance to engage) believed would come to harm if those individuals were left alone.
"No uniform" is a perfectly acceptable excuse, by the by.
If you're in a combat zone, engaging uniformed soldiers displaying proper identification(or do you think that soldiers have US/UK/German flags on their uniforms to look pretty?) while not wearing a uniform...guess what?
You're an illegal combatant, and are not subject to the "rules of war" outlined by the Geneva Convention. However, the US and UK and other non-backward third world countries will give you those rights outlined in the GC.

Oh, and as an aside?
"Makmood and Allah Street" was an anecdote. I don't expect you to understand what that means, but it felt 'wrong' to say Dave from Main Street driving up to administer first aid to the people who just got smacked down by an Apache in Baghdad.

Shooting a bunch of people that are gathering on a corner and CLEARLY NOT RAISING ANY WEAPON isn't what I call proper rules of engagement...plus the bit where the guy is literally laughing about gunning down other human beings? I'd like to know if you honestly think that the actions in that video are proper and legal.

It doesn't matter one damn bit if they're "raising a weapon" or not in this context. This isn't a cop shooting a hunter in the woods.
This is a case of soldiers in a warzone engaging armed and non-uniformed individuals within a combat zone, where shots from AKs and RPGs had been reported not even minutes prior.

As for the gunner laughing about gunning down other human beings...so bloody what?
Really, what do you expect him to do? Have a moment of silence like some samurai to "respect his fallen foe"?
They have to desensitize soldiers to the point where they can pull the trigger on another human being. They're in combat, they have to be able to get the feth over it and keep doing their job. They can't break down crying because they shot someone.
The legality of it, by the way, is yes. Proper and legal. The gunner and pilot were exonerated of wrong-doing because they and their higher ups genuinely believed there was a threat to the troops on the ground.
Does the fact that it's proper and legal mean it was a good thing that it happened?
No.

Ahtman wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:Do you have any source which shows it was a combat zone? or that they were givin permission to engage?

About everything written about it after the video was leaked has that information. The military released official documents and all sorts of other exciting things showing what really happened, including the full video and not just a clip.

Ahtman wrote:I'm anti-Castro, does that mean I am also a CIA stooge?

Monster Rain wrote:

IceRaptor wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I'm not saying that the poor in the US have it easy, but I think Phryxis was right for the most part.

With which part? That the 'first world' countries have it easy, or that that's somehow a bad thing?

If that's what you're taking from that, you're missing the point.

People in "first world nations" live in a sterile, insular bubble of privilege that skews their view of reality. I doubt if someone personally knew someone from Afghanistan that may have been killed as a direct result of their name being released by wikileaks they would be so cavalier about the subject.

IceRaptor wrote: If you want to talk about humans inability to emphasize with anyone outside of their known circle of associates, feel free. But that's not a phenomenon limited to 'first world' countries either. If someone's outside of your tribe, you tend not to give one fig about them.

IceRaptor wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:
You compared the destitute of the first world (often overweight, with access to clean water and healthcare in an emergency) with those in developing nations which to me shows a lack of perspective. That's pretty much the bottom line.

I didn't realize the suffering of the first world destitute that die of starvation was somehow different than that of the third world destitute that die of starvation - I was operating under the assumption dying from starvation was dying from starvation no matter where you were. And I already conceded that in aggregate third world nations have a greater level of suffering than first world, by a significant factor.

I'm disputing the premise that you need to suffer in order to reach some conclusion that suffering is 'bad'. I'm not disputing that Americans are generally self-involved, or that we could do with some perspective about our place in the greater scheme of the world.

Gibbsey wrote:
Air strike kills 40 people in Afganistan vs air strike kills 40 people in Ohio

which affects you more?

Ohio, obviously. Isn't that exactly the point I made above? Every person is more impacted by losses that are socially close to them?

Kanluwen wrote:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
He's a terrorist using information as a weapon. He needs to stop breathing.

I see that the word 'terrorist' has no lost the last shred of meaning it once had.

Unless you're really trying to argue that Assange is in some way attempting to incite fear?

Sure he is. The whole "If I'm arrested, I'll disseminate documents that will bring about the downfall of Bank of America" and "If I'm arrested, I'll publish raw intelligence documents with no redaction" is a threat attempting to incite fear in governments.

Remember, terrorism doesn't just have to be aimed at the general populace.

Ouze wrote:
Who? Can you name a single person who was harmed by this information being leaked?

You've spotted the main issue with that line of argument. Namely that its generally represented as "people have died" instead of "people may have died".

You're also right about the espionage charge. It isn't an easy case, and may well be impossible.

Nah. Espionage is easy. He's a foreign national who's received classified documents that were obtained illegally.

And the "people may have died" v. "people have died" thing is getting old. NATO, the UK, and various intelligence services have said there's no real way to link the death of their informants in Iraq and Afghanistan directly to the WikiLeaks...but at the same time, they weren't killed before the WikiLeaks naming them came out.
So it's either a great big coincidence, or a cause.

mattyrm wrote:I really cant make my mind up on this one.. i dunno who i agree with?

Can i hate the government AND Julian?

Oh and everyone in between.

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

mattyrm wrote:I really cant make my mind up on this one.. i dunno who i agree with?

Can i hate the government AND Julian?

Oh and everyone in between.

Yes.

Welcome. You've just taken your first step into a larger universe.

ChrisWWII wrote:
It's true, but I never said Assange should be tried for treason. You're right, there's no way in hell he could be prosecuted for treason since he's not an American citizen. However, arguably he has comitted crimes against the United States with his publishization of these documents. In the past, the US had indeed extradited drug lords from South America and Latin America to the US to face trial, and the US has succesfully prosecuted terrorist masterminds for their plots against the United States.

Now, while this may seem like it leaves the door open to the kind of shenanigans you mentioned about the British government prosecuting drug dealers in the Netherlands, it doesn't really. Assange is committing crimes against the United States by publishing these documents. THink about it this way, if a Russian spy was caught in London carrying a briefcase full of American secret documents, woudl it be out of the questino to extradite the spy back to the United States to face charges of espionage? This, I think, is a fair analogy to Assage. He has acquired American classified information, and decided to make it public, as bad a crime as the spy attemtpting to send that information back to Moscow. If the spy can be extradited and tried for espionage, then whhy can't Assage?

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

Ketara wrote:Chris, in order for me to commit treason against the US, or for me to be prosecuted under US law, I need to either be a US citizen, or in the US. Otherwise, what you are ultimately left saying, is that US law applies globally. To everyone, everywhere. It is the case that I could be extradited, but to be frank, when I'm not a US citizen, I've committed no crime on US soil, and what crime I have committed under US law is not illegal in the given country, it wouldn't happen. Otherwise the British government would be able to extradite and prosecute drug dealers in the Netherlands, and many other silly things.

In order to be prosecuted under any country's law, you have to have broken that country's law. That's really all there is to it, there isn't a magic law fairy that puts location restrictions on laws. Most laws only apply within the country, but there is no general requirement that laws do, and there is plenty of precedent against your idea. Extradition is a separate issue from prosecution, they're two completely different concepts. Extradition requires the country that you're in to work with the country that you've allegedly broken a law in, and a country refusing to extradite you does not require them to say that you didn't break any law. For example, a number of european countries won't extradite a murderer to the US unless the US agrees to not seek the death penalty.

Treason is a specific crime that has citizenship as one of its requirements, bringing it up is really a red herring.

The 'on US soil' requirement is also pretty shaky in this case, since the information both came from and is being distributed to people on US soil.

Monster Rain wrote:I'm detecting a double standard.

If US laws don't apply to Asange, why should they apply to Guantanamo Bay detainees?

Monster Rain wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:Do you really want to go down that route? They don't and shouldn't of. Just because you had intel that someone in Pakistan was planning a strick against the US doesn't mean you can go kidnap them and bring them to US territory to torture them. The UK was never, ever allowed to do this with regard to the IRA, so why should the US be allowed to get away with it. How many times did British forces have to sit and watch known IRA terrorists move back and forward across the border without being able to slot them?

So was it right or wrong that the UK couldn't go after them?

To cry about the US doing it just because you couldn't doesn't really seem all that reasonable.

ChrisWWII wrote:So now it's illegal to defend our country when we suspect an attack is coming?

Like Monster Rain said, it's not the US's fault that the British government didn't allow preemptive strikes on the IRA....they should have done so. No need to cry foul that we're doing something you didn't.

Monster Rain wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:So your suggesting we should have just carpet bombed Irish towns? Just because the UK is unwilling to violate laws like that, where the US is does not make the US right.

The US has a civilian carpet-bombing policy?

I thought we were talking about detaining suspect terrorists.

Monster Rain wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wolfstan wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:Do you really want to go down that route? They don't and shouldn't of. Just because you had intel that someone in Pakistan was planning a strick against the US doesn't mean you can go kidnap them and bring them to US territory to torture them. The UK was never, ever allowed to do this with regard to the IRA, so why should the US be allowed to get away with it. How many times did British forces have to sit and watch known IRA terrorists move back and forward across the border without being able to slot them?

So was it right or wrong that the UK couldn't go after them?

To cry about the US doing it just because you couldn't doesn't really seem all that reasonable.

As I remember it, the international community as a whole frowned upon this type of behaviour. Pretty sure it broke some international laws.

Who cares? They can frown all they want; the US needs to take steps to defend itself. I'd say the same thing for any country that has problems with terrorists.

Monster Rain wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:"To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position"

It also relates to making a caricature of someone's argument to make it easy to strike down, like when you made arresting terrorists akin to carpet bombing Ireland which everyone would agree is crazy talk.

But since we're now arguing semantics I see that there's not much point in continuing talking to you.

Monster Rain wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:[Well i was making carpet bombing akin to america pursuing terrorism on foreign soil, plus where do you draw the line between carpet bombing an area where terrorists live and invading a country (even with a small squad) to capture terrorists?

I'm kind of at a loss as to why you brought carpet bombing up in the first place, TBH.

Monster Rain wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:[Persuing some of these people would have meant crossing into Ireland and in some cases the US, so your entire point of "we managed to get our terrorists" is kind of "crazy talk" aswell yadda yadda yadda

You're misrepresenting again.

Monster Rain wrote:
To cry about the US doing it just because you couldn't doesn't really seem all that reasonable

ChrisWWII wrote:I'm not saying that...and the US doesn't carpet bomb targets, and hasn't since Vietname. That's a strawman fallacy.

What I'm suggesting is that you should have been free to go in and take in/out a target when he or she was suspected of plotting a terrorist attack against your country.

Monster Rain wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:[Well i was making carpet bombing akin to america pursuing terrorism on foreign soil, plus where do you draw the line between carpet bombing an area where terrorists live and invading a country (even with a small squad) to capture terrorists?

I'm kind of at a loss as to why you brought carpet bombing up in the first place, TBH.

Im at a loss why you brought up Guantanamo Bay detainees.

You really shouldn't be if you read what I said.

Monster Rain wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:[Persuing some of these people would have meant crossing into Ireland and in some cases the US, so your entire point of "we managed to get our terrorists" is kind of "crazy talk" aswell yadda yadda yadda

You're misrepresenting again.

Monster Rain wrote:
To cry about the US doing it just because you couldn't doesn't really seem all that reasonable

Considering that I wasn't the only person who drew that conclusion from your statements, I don't see how I misrepresented anything. I do see that you're gearing up for some more semantic discussion in this vein but I'm profoundly uninterested in that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gibbsey wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:I'm not saying that...and the US doesn't carpet bomb targets, and hasn't since Vietname. That's a strawman fallacy.

What I'm suggesting is that you should have been free to go in and take in/out a target when he or she was suspected of plotting a terrorist attack against your country.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/cable-reveals-airstrike-killed-21-children-yemen/

killing 41 local residents, including 14 women, 21 children, and 14 alleged al-Qaeda members.

I think that was a cluster bomb though but same point

You have a very different definition of "Carpet Bombing" than most people. It isn't remotely the same point.

Monster Rain wrote:
To cry about the US doing it just because you couldn't doesn't really seem all that reasonable

ChrisWWII wrote:It wasn't even bombing, it was a cruise missile strike. A cruise missile is a precision weapon...carpet bombing is something different entirerly.

If we sent a B-52 over loaded with 500 lbs bombs, and blew a whole city block to hell THAT is carpet bombing. A single cruise missile is nowhwere close to that.

Monster Rain wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:It wasn't even bombing, it was a cruise missile strike. A cruise missile is a precision weapon...carpet bombing is something different entirerly.

If we sent a B-52 over loaded with 500 lbs bombs, and blew a whole city block to hell THAT is carpet bombing. A single cruise missile is nowhwere close to that.

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

"While all weapons are dangerous, cluster bombs pose a particular threat to civilians for two reasons: they have a wide area of effect, and they have consistently left behind a large number of unexploded bomblets. The unexploded bomblets can remain dangerous for decades after the end of a conflict."

My point is with a cluster bomb (that was used in the cruise missile) has a wide area which is affected, seeing as one was dropped on a village wouldent you say that was indescriminate?

Wait you don't know the ing difference between a precision strike and carpet bombing?

Blowing up a building-precision strike.
Firebombing of Tokyo-carpet bombing.

Summed it up pretty well.

I thought I was taking crazy pills for a minute, I thought I'd step back and watch for a spell.

Ketara wrote:
That's right. It is a crime to publish classified American information.......in America. It would be treasonous if one was....an American. By all American laws, he broke them.

However, Assange does not fall under the jurisdiction of American law. They can apply to extradite him if they liked, but they haven't so far, and won't. Because any foreign court would throw an extradition plea out, and they know this. I, in England, cannot be arrested for breaking American law. If I found a briefcase tomorrow containing hidden classified details on Guantanamo Bay, and published them on the internet, I would not be guilty of breaking British law. American? Sure. But I'm under British jurisdiction, and unless you can find a way to incriminate me under British law, I cannot be arrested or extradited.

ChrisWWII wrote:

Ketara wrote:

That's right. It is a crime to publish classified American information.......in America. It would be treasonous if one was....an American. By all American laws, he broke them.

However, Assange does not fall under the jurisdiction of American law. They can apply to extradite him if they liked, but they haven't so far, and won't. Because any foreign court would throw an extradition plea out, and they know this. I, in England, cannot be arrested for breaking American law. If I found a briefcase tomorrow containing hidden classified details on Guantanamo Bay, and published them on the internet, I would not be guilty of breaking British law. American? Sure. But I'm under British jurisdiction, and unless you can find a way to incriminate me under British law, I cannot be arrested or extradited.

I agree that this is the legal grey area we find ourselves in....there is no clear cut way. Arguably, you're right and there's now way he can be tried under US law. On the other hand, his publicication of American diplomatic classified information can arguably justify his extradition to the United States for a trial. Hell, I'd welcome it less because I want to see Assange tossed in prison (which I do, mind you) but also to help resolve this legal grey area, as well as for questioning to see if we can track down the source of this leak and shut it down.

Once again, I presnt my Russian spy analogy. If a Russian spy in say...Switzerland hacked the DoD and stole information from there, and was caught in Germany on his way back to present the information to his superiors, wouldn't an extradition to the United States for questioning and trial be considered justifiable? I would say yes, and I fail to see why Assange deserves any different treatment.

ChrisWWII wrote:Gibbsley: It's more that carpet bombing is a defined tactic that hasn't been used en masse since Vietnam. Even with cluster warheads, cruise missiles are a precision strike weapon. We blew up the BUILDING we suspected the target was in instead of the BLOCK.

You have to look at things in perspective.

ChrisWWII wrote:You've got me there. Fine.

The Russian spy gets an email from a source within the US who has hacked the DoD, and is caught on his way back to Russia. I still say the spy should be extradited to the United States for both questioning and trial.

Ahtman wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:My apologies apparently blowing up a village is neither widespread damage or indiscriminate, of course 'merica never use none of them there carpet bombing tactics.

No one is saying that carpet bombing has never happened or never will happen. Don't make things up. Carpet bombing wasn't used in this instance.

Gibbsey wrote:To suggest that America has not used carpet bombing tactics at or near front lines is kind of silly

Again, no one has claimed we never have or never will. To your chagrin, our military aren't a bunch of psychotics and don't just bomb and blow up stuff for fun. They use carpet bombing when it is an appropriate tactic, which honestly isn't that often. We spent a huge amount of money on cruise missile and other smart weapon technology for a reason.

ChrisWWII wrote:I'm not saying that...and the US doesn't carpet bomb targets, and hasn't since Vietname. That's a strawman fallacy.

What I'm suggesting is that you should have been free to go in and take in/out a target when he or she was suspected of plotting a terrorist attack against your country.

Ahtman wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:And since when did i say the military were a bunch of psychotics?

I didn't say you said that; I just said they weren't. Your attitude and the language you use strongly implies you think it though.

Ahtman wrote:To your chagrin, our military aren't a bunch of psychotics and don't just bomb and blow up stuff for fun.

Kilkrazy wrote:It isn't Assange's job to help the security service with their problems.

He might do so if kindly disposed towards the US government. For three obvious reasons, that isn't the case.

What would happen is that he would be brought into court, refuse to give evidence, and then what?

Maybe an unwilling witness can be sent down for contempt.

Alternatively, interrogate him "with extreme prejudice"?

Either of those possibilities just brings us back to the idea that the US government is persecuting him because they are pissed off.

The best thing for the US to do is tighten up security and track down the Wikileaks servers using cyber warfare.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:Saudi Arabia would like to extradite all our women then for not covering up properly? I dont think so.

As far as I know Saudi Arabia has no law about what clothes women wear outside of their country. If they did, they could certainly prosecute someone for it if they so chose. The US wouldn't extradite someone to Saudi Arabia for that crime, and since the US props so much of Saudi Arabia up I doubt they would want to try something that would tick the Us off like that, though talking about 'would like' with a country can get kind of convoluted.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

You murder someone in africa you get charged in africa not the US.

And if that murder is done in a way that is against American law, the US can also charge you with whatever US law you broke if it so chooses.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

And beleive it or not that "magic law fairy" is the US government, laws they create are only valid for crimes comitted within the US

You're not in charge of the Us governement, the fact that you declare a limit on the US government does not mean that the government recognizes that limit. Can you cite a court case or constitutional provision that limits the US in this way? No, you've just made the limitation up.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:To the 'it didn't happen on US soil' crowd in general, let me ask a simple question: If the President of the US was visiting another country, and a person in that country assassinated him and was subsequently captured by police in the US, that the US government would say 'welp, it didn't happen on US soil, we've got no charges to press, lets extradite him to the country where it happened and hope they prosecute him', or do you think they would try to prosecute him under the federal statutes that criminalize killing government officials?

Kilkrazy wrote:Constitution of the USA, Section 8, Powers of Congress.

"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;"

Thanks for pointing out a section of the constitution that explicitly gives congress the power to act outside of US soil, that seems to settle the question rather squarely.

Gibbsey wrote:*sigh* Congratulations!! no really!! not like you missed the entire point anyway

I answered what you wrote. The fact that it was a fairly incoherent mess that didn't really get to a point and confused extradition with prosecution is your fault, not mine.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:Aslong as a crime was commited within Americas Juristiction (say if they planned the murder within the US, but good luck trying to get them until after they have served time for murder in Africa)

"Good luck trying to get them" is completely irrelevant to whether or not they have comitted something that the US considers a prosecutable crime.

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

Extraterritorial jurisdiction. This is asserted by most nations over their military and diplomatic personnel while abroad, and by some nations over subjects like piracy and offenses against the law of nations, such as "crimes against humanity" or genocide, or taxation of income of citizens obtained from foreign sources.

Internet cases raise several troublesome territorial jurisdiction problems. For example, a website may be viewed anywhere in the world, though it is hosted in Anguilla and operated by a California citizen. Courts must decide in which locations, under what circumstances, the exercise of territorial jurisdiction over the citizen for claims arising from the website comports with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. For more, see Personal jurisdiction in internet cases.

Thanks for quoting a page clearly showing that the US does not believe that a crime must be committed on US soil for the US to prosecute it.

This is not some made up limitation, if i say in my country its illegal to wear a bucket on your head on tuesday there is no possible way i could extradite you and charge you with that crime if you were in another country

It is some made up limitation, your own source shows that the US does not follow the 'only on US soil' concept you're arguing. You also seem adamantly opposed to understanding the difference between prosecution and extradition, they're very seperate things. Extradition is about whether the country the person is currently in wishes to turn you over to the country that says you committed a crime, it's not relevant to the question of whether someone has committed a crime.