Freedom in Israel

[Craig234]

Link: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/01

It's a story of a man who told the truth about Israel's nuclear arsenal.

For telling the truth, he spent over 11 years in solitary confinement.

The article is by his friend, Daniel Ellsberg, who exposed the truth to America about the Vietnam War.

Compare Israel's behavior on their nuclear arsenal to the restrictions on Iran. Quite a different standard.

 

[TruePaige]

Leaking nuclear secrets. A no duh crime.

 

[Craig234]

Leaking nuclear secrets. A no duh crime.

Uh, ya, what was the real harm? You missed or ignored the point, too. Compare their behavior with Iran.

He exposed a lie, he told a truth. He didn't put them at risk.

Your post is ridiculously simplistic. You really can't tell the difference between exposing a secret that causes risk, such as how to DISABLE the weapons, with his truth telling?

You sound like the sort who thinks exposing the US's lies to citizens on Vetnam is a crime.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Probably should have been shot for treason.

 

[TruePaige]

Uh, ya, what was the real harm? You missed or ignored the point, too. Compare their behavior with Iran.

He exposed a lie, he told a truth. He didn't put them at risk.

Your post is ridiculously simplistic. You really can't tell the difference between exposing a secret that causes risk, such as how to DISABLE the weapons, with his truth telling?

You sound like the sort who thinks exposing the US's lies to citizens on Vetnam is a crime.

What's the real harm in revealing secrets about a nations nuclear arsenal?

Really?

 

[Craig234]

Probably should have been shot for treason.

Too bad you post in any of my threads. Yes, in your immoral view, telling the truth is a crime. You are the criminal, and add nothing to the discussion.

 

[Craig234]

What's the real harm in revealing secrets about a nations nuclear arsenal?

Really?

Yes, really. What is the harm of the truth he told? And compare the policy you answer with for Israel and see if you will support the same for Iran.

How about exposing the secrets of the US government on Vietnam - when those secrets were the lies the government had told the citizens? How sick is it when you blindly attack the truthtellers as the criminals?

Are you that much of a blind non-citizen that you simply say anything the goverfnment does is always thr right thing and any exposure of wrongdoing is always the wrong thing to do? Jefferson would be so proud.

 

[TruePaige]

Yes, really. What is the harm of the truth he told? And compare the policy you answer with for Israel and see if you will support the same for Iran.

How about exposing the secrets of the US government on Vietnam - when those secrets were the lies the government had told the citizens? How sick is it when you blindly attack the truthtellers as the criminals?

Are you that much of a blind non-citizen that you simply say anything the goverfnment does is always thr right thing and any exposure of wrongdoing is always the wrong thing to do? Jefferson would be so proud.

Wow, Craig. You simply keep trying to throw personal insults around and muddy the waters.

He revealed the size of Israel's strategic nuclear weapons stockpile to the world.

He could cause people to die for no good reason.

The citizens weren't being betrayed, and no Israeli was being harmed by not knowing this information, so all your other arguments are bogus.

But yeah, promote the chance that this person could cause death to his fellow citizens, then tell us how righteous you are.

 

[MotF Bane]

This message is hidden because Craig234 is on your ignore list.

The best way to view Craig threads.

 

[Craig234]

Wow, Craig. You simply keep trying to throw personal insults around and muddy the waters.

Uh, criticizing your position is not a 'personal insult'. Deal with the issue.

He revealed the size of Israel's strategic nuclear weapons stockpile to the world.

Yes, he told the truth, exposing the lies and hiding of information. The question is, what HARM was done?

He could cause people to die for no good reason.

How does saying Israel has more nuclear warheads that had been admitted (which is actually zero) cause peopel to get killed for no good reason?

The citizens weren't being betrayed, and no Israeli was being harmed by not knowing this information, so all your other arguments are bogus.

The citizens aren't being harmed by the truth being told.

Now, compare your support of Israel hiding and lying, with your position if Iran hides and lies. Same?

But yeah, promote the chance that this person could cause death to his fellow citizens, then tell us how righteous you are.

It's the weapons that pose the threat, not exposing them. Exposing them makes the truth the basis for disucssions on how to deal with the situation and avoid harm, not lies.

You did not answer my question on exposing the lies the US government told citizens on Vietnam.

Why? Hard time spinning why that's a bad thing and it might undermine your defending lies for Israel?

Technically, Ellsberg faced 115 years in prison for his actions, which he was courageously choosing to do for the greater good of the truth and reducing the war's violence.

But some were able to understand why his telling the TRUTH, while technically a violation of the secrets - in this case, because the government was the liar - was not a case of 'treason', not a 'crime'.

As it happens, he got off on a technicality purely by luck, and avoided the terrible act of the person exposing the governemnt's lies paying for his good deed with imprisonment.

You are not able to tell the difference between telling the truth, and exposing legitimate secrets.

Neither of these two men gave 'the enemy' actionable information that got their fellow citizens killed - quite the opposite, they told the citizens the truth the government did not, for its own agenda to lie.

 

[Craig234]

This message is hidden because Craig234 is on your ignore list.

The best way to view Craig threads.

I appreciate some people doing this, including the poster here, who has never added anything to a thread that I've seen.

 

[MotF Bane]

Leaking nuclear secrets. A no duh crime.

Probably should have been shot for treason.

Between these two quotes, I think the topic is well-summarized. In fact, I'm a bit surprised that Israel didn't execute someone for treason in leaking nuclear secrets.

 

[Craig234]

Between these two quotes, I think the topic is well-summarized. In fact, I'm a bit surprised that Israel didn't execute someone for treason in leaking nuclear secrets.

Yes, Israel should be able to lie about its having nukes. Just like we let Iran do its own thing. And someone telling the truth, 'Israel has a bunch of nukes', for the lie to be exposed, shoulld be murdered for that.

What idiocy.

Exexuting the spies who GAVE ENEMIES THE INSTRUCTIONS for nukes was one thing. Exexuting someone for telling the truth about a government like liek this is another.

What a bunch of mindless government boot lickers are posting.

 

[Sclamoz]

Uh, ya, what was the real harm? You missed or ignored the point, too. Compare their behavior with Iran.

He exposed a lie, he told a truth. He didn't put them at risk.

He revealed a classified state secret, which is against the law.

Your post is ridiculously simplistic. You really can't tell the difference between exposing a secret that causes risk, such as how to DISABLE the weapons, with his truth telling?

Almost as simplistic someone who puts forth the idea that telling the truth = good and lying = bad.

You can't tell that revealing this information that the enemies of his country wanted to know (such as whether Israel actually had nukes and if so where) damaged Israel?

Yes, Israel should be able to lie about its having nukes. Just like we let Iran do its own thing. And someone telling the truth, 'Israel has a bunch of nukes', for the lie to be exposed, shoulld be murdered for that.

Israel is an ally of the US hence why we not concerned about them having nukes. Iran is not, and is also an unstable country.

 

[Craig234]

He revealed a classified state secret, which is against the law.



Almost as simplistic someone who puts forth the idea that telling the truth = good and lying = bad.

You can't tell that revealing this information that the enemies of his country wanted to know (such as whether Israel actually had nukes and if so where) damaged Israel?

1. How did it hurt Israel's legitimate security? Did the arabs react by rushing in and taking the nukes?

2. Are yoiu consistent in approving Iran the same 'right' to lie and secrets about its nukes?

 

[fskimospy]

The idea that anyone was going to be hurt by that guy letting the world know the incredibly obvious fact that the entire world already knew by 1986 anyway is pretty silly. Every last country that even thought about going to war with Israel already knew they had nukes. His telling this secret endangered exactly no one.

That being said, you can't expect countries to be okay with people leaking classified information to foreign powers no matter what it is. As soon as you do that, your classification system becomes worthless... and so off to jail you go.

 

[Sclamoz]

1. How did it hurt Israel's legitimate security? Did the arabs react by rushing in and taking the nukes?

2. Are yoiu consistent in approving Iran the same 'right' to lie and secrets about its nukes?

1. What you consider legitimate security and what a government considers security are wildly different things. The fact that "arabs" didn't invade to take them doesn't prove anything (in large part because they wouldn't be able to).

2. Of course not. Iran having Nukes would weaken the position of the US in the world, and possibly put or our allies in danger.

What you never seem to grasp is there is nothing fair about how countries deal with each other. They play nice only if there is something to gain.

Countries don't have friends they have interests. Iran having nukes would be against the interests of the US and her allies.

 

[Fear No Evil]

So I'm assuming Craig had no issues with the Valerie Plame 'outing' then? After all, Cheney/Scooter/Bush/whomever was just telling the truth right?

 

[cubby1223]

So wait, was this thread created for Craig to say he supports Iran developing nuclear weapons?

Or is this just the stereo-typical "progressive" view that everything Israel does is evil?

 

[Craig234]

The idea that anyone was going to be hurt by that guy letting the world know the incredibly obvious fact that the entire world already knew by 1986 anyway is pretty silly. Every last country that even thought about going to war with Israel already knew they had nukes. His telling this secret endangered exactly no one.

That being said, you can't expect countries to be okay with people leaking classified information to foreign powers no matter what it is. As soon as you do that, your classification system becomes worthless... and so off to jail you go.

The questions raised here include:

The method of getting ahold of this person (kidnapping in Italy) being wrong

The excessive harshness of sentence/treatment especially in light of the harmless information

The double standard on nuclear policy between different nations

See my examples, and there are many more, of how US secrets exposed did not result in such prison.

Do you really think Daniel Ellsberg belongs in prison for exposing the US government lies to its own citizens on Vietnam, to try to end a wrong war?

Sorry, but we have way too many citizens who just blidnly support the governemnt on these things however wrong it is. I disagree.

That's where some judgement comes in to treat people who expose wrongs differently than those who expose legitimatye secrets that cause harm.

CIA analysts privately were thrilled with Ellsberg's exposing the lies because they thought it could fix a bad policy and save lives. Are you really happy to put him in jail for decades on the simplistic 'secrets' issue?

No, that's wherre you say the secrecy was abused by the government and use some common sense about the right and wrong, and don't just say 'follow the law blindly'.

Morally, the guy who exposed the truth on Israel's Nukes might deserve high praise. Practically, let's say some punishment by the state is going to be justified for not approving an overly broad precedent.

But that's where a very light sentence, consdering what wa sexposed, comes into play, not a vicious, life-destroying punishment for telling the truth.

 

[Craig234]

1. What you consider legitimate security and what a government considers security are wildly different things. The fact that "arabs" didn't invade to take them doesn't prove anything (in large part because they wouldn't be able to).

You did not answer the question: what harm did his telling the truth cause? Responding to my facetious comment only is a dodge.

2. Of course not. Iran having Nukes would weaken the position of the US in the world, and possibly put or our allies in danger.

OK, so let's be clear - you pick yhour positions not based whatsoever on 'right and wrong', but only on 'what's good for your side', and hypocrisy is fine.

Are there any limits to this for you? Can we not just lie, but steal, improson, torture, murder, burin people in ovens and condemn others for all we want that we do, or only some things? How do you pick?

What you never seem to grasp is there is nothing fair about how countries deal with each other. They play nice only if there is something to gain.

So you have ZERO moral basis for any of your positions on how your country behaves, you say again.

If it's not zero, you certainly don't say a word about how you pick and choose where to ignore morality.

Countries don't have friends they have interests. Iran having nukes would be against the interests of the US and her allies.

Some people use morality as a basis for their positions - and their country's. They take not only pride in that but see it as a responsibility. Others have no morality, only the blind purssuit of power and weaqlth.

You are in a fine club with the other evil people in history who are in the latter group.

 

[Craig234]

So wait, was this thread created for Craig to say he supports Iran developing nuclear weapons?

Or is this just the stereo-typical "progressive" view that everything Israel does is evil?

Yes, saying Israel does one thing wrong is saying that they do only wrong. Idiot.

 

[cubby1223]

Yes, saying Israel does one thing wrong is saying that they do only wrong. Idiot.

Name-calling is always the last resort of the weakling who has lost the online argument

You obviously do not like Israel, when you suggest we should treat them the same as we would Vietnam or Iran. So where do we go from here? I reject the basis of your argument. We should treat Israel better than we treat Iran. You need to come up with a better reason than this story of yours, to convince me otherwise. And I'm willing to assume the same goes for most others here too.

 

[cubby1223]

You're also trying to make some additional point that doesn't make any logical sense.

Of course we as the United States, want citizens of Iran to expose their nuclear secrets. But we also do not want anyone exposing the secrets of the U.S. And if you want to compare Israel to Iran, my guess is that while the Israeli was imprisoned for 11 years, the Iranian would have been executed.

What exactly are we supposed to be comparing again?

 

[Craig234]

Name-calling is always the last resort of the weakling who has lost the online argument

Not always, sometimes it's the correct response to idiocy. Or perhaps you want to claim nothing posted is ever idiocy?

You obviously do not like Israel

Using the word obvious doesn't make your wrong statement correct. It just takes you from being wrong if you make the wrong claim to being more wrong by saying what's wrong is obvious.

Want to try for 'unquestionably' and be even more wrong?

, when you suggest we should treat them the same as we would Vietnam or Iran.

You really are having a difficulty in reaqding comprehension when you take an analogy about exposing US like about Vietnam, to an Israeli exposing lies about the nuclear arsenal, and say it's treati Israel like Vietnam.

You also need to have your rhetoric reigned in - since when is saying 'there shouldn't be a double standard, policy should have some morality and principle, not merely ruthless onesidedness' not liking a country?

Here's another analogy to illustrate who wrong your statement is:

Issue: Iran is torturing its political prisoners.

Craig: Iran is wrong.

Issue: Israel is torturing its political prisoners.

Craig: Israel is wrong.

Cubby: Craig you obviously do not like Israel because you treated them like Iran.

So where do we go from here? I reject the basis of your argument. We should treat Israel better than we treat Iran.

So, they should not be equal under the law, not have the same principles or rules applied - Israel should simply be completely be above any law or accountability whatsoever, and anything done to harm Iran is ok.

Is that right? You don't say a word about where you draw the line on this unequal treatment, if you draw a line.

It's one thing for us to 'treat Israel better' as an ally in legitimate ways - trade preferences, for example.

It's quite another to treat them better in INAPPROPRIATE ways - "Israel, it's ok for you to torture and kill babies, but we'll condemn Iran for the same thing."

When it comes to nuclear policy, one of the points I'm maqking is how problematic it is to have a double standard. WE sure wouldn't accept being told that others can have nukes and we can't - but we do that.

Now, maybe you want to argue that Iran having nukes is dangerous and a bad idea. OK, let's say we agree.

But that leaves a couple choices - how about not letting Israel have them either, instead of saying 'our side' can and 'you can't'? Why is Israel's right to have nukes so much higher than other nations'?

Is that a bias that gives Iran every justification for wanting revenge for being treated unfairly, in a way we would never acdcept being treated? THat's the point, to try to break through a bit of your blindness to injustice and understand that just maybe a different approach is needed. That blindness has so long existed in human history - looking at the US, whites and Native Americans, whites and blacks, men and women (you don't need the right to vote, for example) - on and on - and it's easy to fall into, but justice says not to dehumanize other groups, to consider their rights equally as people.

Even after all ths maybe you want to make a case why Israel can have nukes and Iran can't, but the point is to get you to do so with SOME fairness to Iran. not just blindly dehumanizing them, or any group.

You need to come up with a better reason than this story of yours, to convince me otherwise. And I'm willing to assume the same goes for most others here too.

No, I don't - it's not up to me to do more than give you a good reason, if you can't get it from that. And speak for yourself, not others.

The point here was simply to inform about the situation and culture with Israel on this issue, in contrast to how other nations are treated on nukes, to show our inconsistent policies are flawed.

The 'who cares, we can do it because of our might' argument is inherently immoral - and used by some as a shortcut to say "well that's not what I'm saying, our position really is moral but I won't explain it."

Ultimately, perhaps we need to recognize that our tolerance of 'our side' having nukes in Israel is an injustice and a danger and we need to use all our influence to get rid of Israel's nukes, and guarantee their security with other means - and thereby have a consistent 'no nukes in the Middle East' policy (India and Pakistan are another can of worms) that is better for peace and justice in the long term, not the lazy 'our side has more nukes, great that's all I care about' position.