Freedom in Israel

[Hayabusa Rider]

States aren't people, and your example of someone murdering his family certainly implies a level of psychological instability that is not evident from Iran in any way, shape, or form. I don't feel exactly the same about Israel and Iran but it goes from about a 1 in a hundred billion chance of Israel going crazy and nuking the world to about a 1 in ten billion chance for Iran to do the same. Both threats are negligible.

As I've said many times, people who think Iran is crazy are doing both the US and Iran a disservice. If we want to defeat our enemies we need to understand them, and to say 'ahh fuck it they're just nuts' weakens our ability to do so. As I've challenged people before, can anyone show me a single solitary foreign policy action that Iran has taken that isn't completely rational?

Ok, so they execute their own for perfectly rational reasons. That wouldn't make them crazy, but just evil. The Holocaust never happened, and that's completely rational right?

Let's take another government. When the Nazis came to power they didn't go to war. They weren't kind to their own people, especially the Jews, but hey that was in Germany.

Years later that changed. Why? Because there was a fundamental shift in philosophy? No, because when they came to control Germany they hadn't the means to do squat. After they had the ability to do harm they went for it.

If Iran didn't want to start trouble that's great. If they did, they wouldn't. Why? Because they'd get their asses kicked. Sucks for them. Put nukes in their hands and everything changes. Does that automatically mean they'll use them? Not at all, but you haven't show that the leaders now in control are particularly trustworthy.

You mention that people aren't states. Neither are government leaders. They are now maintaining power at the cost of a constant letting of their own citizens blood.

While that may not mean anything to you in this context it does for me. A government that shows that it will use it's full power for evil needs less not more of it.

 

[woolfe9999]

If he revealed these nuclear secrets out of conscience, because the Israeli government was lying about its nuclear arsenal, then this act is one of civil disobedience. The theory of civil disobediance is that you intentionally violate the law, and do it publicly, then you *openly accept punishment for it*, and you do this without complaining. The notion that one should complain about being punished for an act of willful lawbreaking done out of conscience turns the idea of civil disobedience on its head to one which would undermine the rule of law. Advocates of civil disobedience respect the rule of law - they simply disagree with a particular law, or an act of government, and they want to register their disagreement by violating the law, then accepting the penalty for doing so.

The argument here over whether this act caused a "harm" to Israel is asking the wrong question. The right question is, what harm would *not* punishing this man have caused the State of Israel? Criminal penalties are a deterrent for law breaking behavior which, by definition, has at least the potential to cause harm. If you allow people to reveal state military secrets, then fail to prosecute them, or let them off with a slap on the wrist, because they did so out of "conscience," opens the door for anyone else possessing such secrets to reveal them whenever they subjectively believe they are doing the right thing. Can you imagine any system of laws which condones the revealing of classified military secrets any time the perpetrator does so out of conscience? You may as well not even bother to try protecting any information from public consumption, and simply hand over all of your military secrets to your enemies.

Incidentally, for those wondering why no execution here, Israel has only ever executed one man: Nazi war criminal Adolph Eichmann. "Treason during wartime" is technically an offense punishable by death, but Israel has never executed anyone for this offense. In general, Jewish religious law prohibits capital punishment.

- wolf

 

[JS80]

Craig, now do freedom in Syria, Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia.

 

[Craig234]

If he revealed these nuclear secrets out of conscience, because the Israeli government was lying about its nuclear arsenal, then this act is one of civil disobedience. The theory of civil disobediance is that you intentionally violate the law, and do it publicly, then you *openly accept punishment for it*, and you do this without complaining. The notion that one should complain about being punished for an act of willful lawbreaking done out of conscience turns the idea of civil disobedience on its head to one which would undermine the rule of law. Advocates of civil disobedience respect the rule of law - they simply disagree with a particular law, or an act of government, and they want to register their disagreement by violating the law, then accepting the penalty for doing so.

The argument here over whether this act caused a "harm" to Israel is asking the wrong question. The right question is, what harm would *not* punishing this man have caused the State of Israel? Criminal penalties are a deterrent for law breaking behavior which, by definition, has at least the potential to cause harm. If you allow people to reveal state military secrets, then fail to prosecute them, or let them off with a slap on the wrist, because they did so out of "conscience," opens the door for anyone else possessing such secrets to reveal them whenever they subjectively believe they are doing the right thing. Can you imagine any system of laws which condones the revealing of classified military secrets any time the perpetrator does so out of conscience? You may as well not even bother to try protecting any information from public consumption, and simply hand over all of your military secrets to your enemies.

Incidentally, for those wondering why no execution here, Israel has only ever executed one man: Nazi war criminal Adolph Eichmann. "Treason during wartime" is technically an offense punishable by death, but Israel has never executed anyone for this offense. In general, Jewish religious law prohibits capital punishment.

- wolf

You have that very wrong. An act of civil disobedience does NOT mean the person doesn't complain about the punishment. And there are different types.

One type is when you choose to get arrested for tresspassing, to show how much you care about an issue. In that case, you probably don't complain about the punishment - it was a voluntary act specifically to get that punishment because it shows you care, in a way that just saying something doesn't. That's the kind you are talking about.

But take another case - like Ellsberg. You are the only civilian who has seen the government's secret history of a war involving millions of people that shows the war is being sold to the public on a history of lies.

You fell morally obligated to release this information, which is illegal. Is that an act of 'civil disobedience'? Not in the same sense. You aren't choosing to violate the law for the sake of vilating the law. You would rather be able to expose the lies to the public without breaking the law. But you are faced with exposing the lies on a war to try to save thousands of lives, and facing severe punishment (life in prison if not execution), or not exposing the lies and letting all those people get killed while the government lies to do it.

Ellsberg felt the moral need to expose the lies. You think he had no right to complain about facing life in prison for exposing the government's lying to the people - a good deed? Wrong. He had every right.

Your position is that any illegal act that's for 'civil disobedience' has any right to say any complaint about the punishment.

So, you do the right thing when the law is immoral - and you can't complain if they execute you, if they torure you, if they rape you, if they imprison or kill your family and friends - no matter what the punishment?

If you admit that ANY punishment leaves you room to complain - and if you have any sense you will - then you have to say there's a question whether this Israeli can complain about excessive, illegal measures.

You say the question is 'what harm would be done to Israel by not punishing this man'. You then follow it with anidiotic slippery slope claim about it being the same as handing over all military secrets to the enemy.

To repeat what I said before: that's where judgement comes in.

Would you put Ellsberg in jail for life for exposing that the government had lied to the American people on war in Vietnam? The rules say you can. Nixon tried. But would you say that's right?

That's the concept of 'whistleblowers' - insiders who break rules of secrecy, when secrecy is abused to hide wrongdoing by the government. Anyone who has a sense of justice and good government understands that you don't follow the letter of the law on violating secrecy that's designed to protect legitimate secrets the same way for whistleblowers, that exposing secrets for trreason or bribes is the aim of the laws, not people who see the government lying and expose it for the good of the public.

I listed many examples for you and you conveniently ignored them. Nixon invaded Cambodia and lied about it. He got caught. If you knew he invaded Cambodia and was lying to the American people, would your moral and patriotic obligation be to say so and expose it? Should the people who expose that lie be given long prison sentences, the ones designed for people who harmed the nation by giving information to an enemy?

None of your slippery slope is true. Someone leaks the truth on Nixon's secret invasion, and they are not punished and it doesn't mean AMerican secrets are all handed over to enemies.

This Israeli says "the world has a right to know Israel is hiding that it has a large nuclear arsenal" - not how to make nukes to enemies, not tactical info to help destroy the arsenal, not as people here claimed 'the location' of the arsenal or info that was killing Israelis, false claims they had to make up and lie about for lack of any harm they could show. If he's let off with no punishment or a 'slap on the wrist', it DOES NOT open the door to handing out Israel's legitimate secrets to their enemies. The first time someone is caught exposing legitimate secrets, they don't get the light sentence.

The point here to debate is how much the world had a right to know Israel had nukes. And while that can be debated, I don't think it can be argued that that information begins to compare ot the sort of 'selling secrets to enemies' treason that the laws are designed to prevent. As anothe rposter mentioned, it can be argued that this information being public HELPED Israel as a deterrent, not that I'm arguing that that was this guy's call to make. But the world tends to think it has a right to know who has nuclear weapons, that they are a danger, and that the world knowing about them makes the world safer.

Ellsberg's title on this story referred to making the world safer by the arsenal being known to exist.

And I did point out another issue aboiut the double standard, how we say how legitimate it is to know about other nations' arsenals - but Israel is an exception?

Then the bottom line, evem if you think he deserved some punishment for exposing the truth on this simple issue that cannot be compared with y our slippery slope, is the excessive measures.

In the US, we executed someone for giving the Soviet Union infomration HOW TO MAKE NUKES. We have not executed someone for exposing wrongdoing and lies.

It's come up, when leaders want to punish the people who expose their wrongs, and sometimes they get to try, but the public tends to understand it's a mistake to punish those people, even if the laws allows it.

Which takes us back to whether you would imprison Ellsberg to along term, if not execute him, for serving his country by unforming the public of the truth, that the government was lying to it about Vietnam.

I'm pretty appalled by the reactions of many posters to the linked article. Was Israel's 'right' to be the only nation in the world to hide its nuclear arsenal so right to justify the persecution for decades of this man?

 

[Craig234]

Ok, so they execute their own for perfectly rational reasons. That wouldn't make them crazy, but just evil. The Holocaust never happened, and that's completely rational right?

Let's take another government. When the Nazis came to power they didn't go to war. They weren't kind to their own people, especially the Jews, but hey that was in Germany.

Years later that changed. Why? Because there was a fundamental shift in philosophy? No, because when they came to control Germany they hadn't the means to do squat. After they had the ability to do harm they went for it.

If Iran didn't want to start trouble that's great. If they did, they wouldn't. Why? Because they'd get their asses kicked. Sucks for them. Put nukes in their hands and everything changes. Does that automatically mean they'll use them? Not at all, but you haven't show that the leaders now in control are particularly trustworthy.

You mention that people aren't states. Neither are government leaders. They are now maintaining power at the cost of a constant letting of their own citizens blood.

While that may not mean anything to you in this context it does for me. A government that shows that it will use it's full power for evil needs less not more of it.

Do you make an exception for the United States as the type of nation you describe?

Oh, but we're not like that!

Go back to the article I linked, and click the link in the text to the dangers of nuclear war, to Ellsberg's series on US nuclear strategy. Read it.

You will find that, facing a very good chance of war in Europe in the 50's and 60's between the USSR and the west, over Berlin especially, that the US made a choice.

Rather than have any plan for fighting that war conventionally, for any limited options, the US chose not only to authorize the use of an all-out nuclear response against the Soviet Union if they invaded West Berlin or another part of Europe, killig hundreds of millions; they not only delegated that authority to use the weapons down from the president to theatre commanders, who further delegated the authority toi lauch to lower level officers; they not only included an all-out nuking of all big cities in China too, even if China had nothing to do with the situation.

On top of all that, they made it the ONLY response to the situation available for budget reasons. It was a "hair trigger" for global nuclear war - creating an incredible risk to the planet to kill billions.

Not exactly a very responsible policy for a nation to choose.

Or, we could mention that Nixon wanted to use nukes in Vietnam - a country we went to war with for our own domestic political needs and for which two million people were killed.

But having ignored the Vietnamese request for our help on independance from being occupied for decades, Nixon decided the right plan was to use nukes.

Go read the transcripts of his declassified private meetings as he talks about wanting to bomb the dikes, asking how man people would be killed - he's told 200,000, and he likes that.

That nation sounds a lot like the one you say shouldn't have nukes - I'd put one president of the US leading an aggressive war wanting to use nukes ahread of one Iranian president questioning the Holocaust. The difference being our President being in charge of these policies, while the Iranian President is not - he's an exception, not setting the policies.

I'm not disagreeing that any nation, including Iran, getting nukes inceases the risk to the world. But I am noting the way you no doubt will say 'um. er, but I make excuses for us and our allies to get them'.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You have that very wrong

~snip~

Ok, now what does that have to do with Iran?

 

[Craig234]

Craig, now do freedom in Syria, Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia.

I'd like to. First we start with the regimes we have our hands in the most.

Do you understand, for example, that when we overthrew the last 'good' government in Iran in 1953, the way we did it was by reaching out to the radical Islamicists and obtaining their support for a coup against that government? Do you understand that Khomeini and his mentor were involved in that US-sponsored coup, that the roots of the current regime are directly linked to our policy, that without us the ayatollahs would not have been able to get power?

As I've said, we can spread a lot of freedom in the region IMO over time, by shifting from policies of exploitation and backing tyrannical regimes, to policies that are fair and respectful and friendly.

The trigger for our act in Iran in 1953 was the British askng for our help, when the Iranian government was taking steps to end the exploitave oil arrangements.

In exchange for our role in the coup, the US was given by Iran 40% of the oil rights. We put tyranny in place for cheap oil.

When we have better policies, and we use our influence to get other powers to do the same, I think we can see better governments take hold in the region.

Remember how we turned Libya around? Ya, as far as I know, the bombing attack on Kadafi that tragicllay killed his infant made him back off of his terrorism - but it didn't leave them 'friendly'.

No, that was his son working with us to say there were good business arrangements to be had - and they were pursued for mutual benefit. It can happen.

But one paret is for people to take off the rose colored glasses about our role and thinking we have never done anything in the middle east but try to help women get more rights.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Do you make an exception for the United States as the type of nation you describe?

Oh, but we're not like that!

Go back to the article I linked, and click the link in the text to the dangers of nuclear war, to Ellsberg's series on US nuclear strategy. Read it.

You will find that, facing a very good chance of war in Europe in the 50's and 60's between the USSR and the west, over Berlin especially, that the US made a choice.

Rather than have any plan for fighting that war conventionally, for any limited options, the US chose not only to authorize the use of an all-out nuclear response against the Soviet Union if they invaded West Berlin or another part of Europe, killig hundreds of millions; they not only delegated that authority to use the weapons down from the president to theatre commanders, who further delegated the authority toi lauch to lower level officers; they not only included an all-out nuking of all big cities in China too, even if China had nothing to do with the situation.

On top of all that, they made it the ONLY response to the situation available for budget reasons. It was a "hair trigger" for global nuclear war - creating an incredible risk to the planet to kill billions.

Not exactly a very responsible policy for a nation to choose.

Or, we could mention that Nixon wanted to use nukes in Vietnam - a country we went to war with for our own domestic political needs and for which two million people were killed.

But having ignored the Vietnamese request for our help on independance from being occupied for decades, Nixon decided the right plan was to use nukes.

Go read the transcripts of his declassified private meetings as he talks about wanting to bomb the dikes, asking how man people would be killed - he's told 200,000, and he likes that.

That nation sounds a lot like the one you say shouldn't have nukes - I'd put one president of the US leading an aggressive war wanting to use nukes ahread of one Iranian president questioning the Holocaust. The difference being our President being in charge of these policies, while the Iranian President is not - he's an exception, not setting the policies.

I'm not disagreeing that any nation, including Iran, getting nukes inceases the risk to the world. But I am noting the way you no doubt will say 'um. er, but I make excuses for us and our allies to get them'.

We HAVE them. Iran does not. Now in the real world what does that have to do with Israel locking up this guy?

That's my issue. You can make a rational argument for an injustice done in Israel, but when you bring in Iran is specious. Iran shouldn't have them and does not- yet. That last word is a big one.

 

[Craig234]

IF they committed treason, then sure.. I'd support shooting them. I don't think there is any evidence as such though.. but Craig should obviously have no problem with them 'telling the truth' about Plame if thats what happened.

Now that the Plame incident is raised, yes, the Bush administration - a handful of people from Cheney down - did more harm to their nation, for more corrupt reasons, than the guy in Israel.

And it is fair to say to those who want to 'shoot' that guy, that there's a stronger case for shooting the people who exposed Plame (I don't support shooting either).

Exposing Plame caused *actual* harm to the nation, albeit not massive; there's a strong indication that it not only put her former contacts in danger, but that it damaged the trust of people to tal to the CIA.

Their motives were arguably WORSE than for things like bribery - THEY were guilty of lyinng to the American people about war, and the man who exposed them as liars, they wanted to punish - and got his wife.

It's good for showing the people who attack the Israelie and not the Bush people more strongly as hypocrites, but not all that useful to the real topic of what happened to the Israeli.

 

[Craig234]

We HAVE them. Iran does not. Now in the real world what does that have to do with Israel locking up this guy?

That's my issue. You can make a rational argument for an injustice done in Israel, but when you bring in Iran is specious. Iran shouldn't have them and does not- yet. That last word is a big one.

Well, you were helpful to so exactly do what I said you woudl do. You raised a standard for 'who should have nukes', and you meant it for Iran, and I said you would make excuses not to apply it to us.

But if you will agree that an injustice was done in Israel, that's the point of this thread to understand, and we can leave it there - I'm not advocating nukes for Iran, I was commenting on the standard you stated.

The topic of Iran has been discussed elsewhere. I'm glad to see the apparent agreement about this guy's treatment for simply trying to make the world safer by pointing out that there are nukes.

 

[kylebisme]

So what's happening in Israel today? It's citizens are going around generally not worried that they are going to be shot by their security forces.

And just out side of Israel's legitimate borders, they are holding millions of Palestinians under overwhelming military force while colonizing their homeland out from under them. and those who protest against that conquest of the West Bank do run the risk being shot by their "security" forces. Granted, at least Goldstein is getting nearly a million dollars in compensation, while those who aren't Jewish are generally denied anything resembling justice at all, particularly so in the case of Palestinians who were born and raised there from generations of the same.

And in Iran, it's the same... no wait. The government there is committing wholesale slaughter of it's own citizens.

Wait, Iran is inarguably run by a rather brutal dictatorship, but what in the world are you referring to as "wholesale slaughter"?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I think no one should have nukes. I don't think the Holocaust should have happened. I don't think Operation Ajax should ever have been considered.

None of that changes the reality of things. You can dance naked on a teacup and history isn't going away.

That leaves us with now. Iran is NOW killing it's people. It's leaders are NOW leaving their streets red with blood. My contention is that those who use the most extreme measures on their own people are more worrisome than those who do not, this incident you refer to notwithstanding. You aren't going to get nukes from Israel, but then again Israel hasn't shown the propensity to use them. The only way to know if Iran is the same is to let them have them, and I don't think that's a good idea at all.

Effectively it's all the same, because I'm not for attacking Iran. There are seriously adverse consequences to that as well. It's not like we can do much to help the Iranians, and cutting off their food supplies and the like won't help them at all. It didn't work in NK or Iraq, and it won't there.

All choices are bad.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

And just out side of Israel's legitimate borders, they are holding millions of Palestinians under overwhelming military force while colonizing their homeland out from under them. and those who protest against that conquest of the West Bank do run the risk being shot by their "security" forces. Granted, at least Goldstein is getting nearly a million dollars in compensation, while those who aren't Jewish are generally denied anything resembling justice at all, particularly so in the case of the Palestinians who were born and raised there from generations of the same.


Wait, Iran is inarguably run by a rather brutal dictatorship, but what in the world are you referring to as "wholesale slaughter?

Not been keeping up with current events? The shooting of protesters in Iran? How many now, hundreds, thousands?

They aren't firing rubber bullets.

Now I don't like what's happening in Palestine. I think both sides are screwing up everything. Is it right? No.

Let's take Iraq. Should we have gone in? Nope. Should they have effectively suspended the Constitution in the case of Padilla? No. Did we send out the National Guard and start shooting people in the street who disagreed? No.

Now, just why do you think Iran should have nukes? What moral character do you see in them shooting those who would have their freedom which appeals to you?

Bitch about Israel all you want. Israel HAS nukes, and there's no recall. Iran doesn't have them. Tell me why the conflict between Palestine and Israel negates anything about Iran?

 

[kylebisme]

The shooting of protesters in Iran? How many now, hundreds, thousands?

Hundreds from what I've seen, around Kent State times a hundred rather than any semblance of "wholesale slaughter" you claimed. Can you reference any report to back your termanology here, or are you just playing make-believe?

Now, just why do you think Iran should have nukes?

I prefer they never will, but figure that breathing down their necks about it is only encouraging them to do just that, so as to force us to back off.

What moral character do you see in them shooting those who would have their freedom which appeals to you?

What makes you resort to such ridiculous strawmen? It's obviously the lack of any reasonable argument.

Tell me why the conflict between Palestine and Israel negates anything about Iran?

It doesn't, but but Israel's recent "Cast Lead" massacre and our own during "Shock & Awe" are a lot closer to wholesale slaughter than anything I've seen out of Iran.

 

[woolfe9999]

You have that very wrong. An act of civil disobedience does NOT mean the person doesn't complain about the punishment. And there are different types.

One type is when you choose to get arrested for tresspassing, to show how much you care about an issue. In that case, you probably don't complain about the punishment - it was a voluntary act specifically to get that punishment because it shows you care, in a way that just saying something doesn't. That's the kind you are talking about.

But take another case - like Ellsberg. You are the only civilian who has seen the government's secret history of a war involving millions of people that shows the war is being sold to the public on a history of lies.

You fell morally obligated to release this information, which is illegal. Is that an act of 'civil disobedience'? Not in the same sense. You aren't choosing to violate the law for the sake of vilating the law. You would rather be able to expose the lies to the public without breaking the law. But you are faced with exposing the lies on a war to try to save thousands of lives, and facing severe punishment (life in prison if not execution), or not exposing the lies and letting all those people get killed while the government lies to do it.

Ellsberg felt the moral need to expose the lies. You think he had no right to complain about facing life in prison for exposing the government's lying to the people - a good deed? Wrong. He had every right.

Your position is that any illegal act that's for 'civil disobedience' has any right to say any complaint about the punishment.

So, you do the right thing when the law is immoral - and you can't complain if they execute you, if they torure you, if they rape you, if they imprison or kill your family and friends - no matter what the punishment?

If you admit that ANY punishment leaves you room to complain - and if you have any sense you will - then you have to say there's a question whether this Israeli can complain about excessive, illegal measures.

You say the question is 'what harm would be done to Israel by not punishing this man'. You then follow it with anidiotic slippery slope claim about it being the same as handing over all military secrets to the enemy.

To repeat what I said before: that's where judgement comes in.

Would you put Ellsberg in jail for life for exposing that the government had lied to the American people on war in Vietnam? The rules say you can. Nixon tried. But would you say that's right?

That's the concept of 'whistleblowers' - insiders who break rules of secrecy, when secrecy is abused to hide wrongdoing by the government. Anyone who has a sense of justice and good government understands that you don't follow the letter of the law on violating secrecy that's designed to protect legitimate secrets the same way for whistleblowers, that exposing secrets for trreason or bribes is the aim of the laws, not people who see the government lying and expose it for the good of the public.

I listed many examples for you and you conveniently ignored them. Nixon invaded Cambodia and lied about it. He got caught. If you knew he invaded Cambodia and was lying to the American people, would your moral and patriotic obligation be to say so and expose it? Should the people who expose that lie be given long prison sentences, the ones designed for people who harmed the nation by giving information to an enemy?

None of your slippery slope is true. Someone leaks the truth on Nixon's secret invasion, and they are not punished and it doesn't mean AMerican secrets are all handed over to enemies.

This Israeli says "the world has a right to know Israel is hiding that it has a large nuclear arsenal" - not how to make nukes to enemies, not tactical info to help destroy the arsenal, not as people here claimed 'the location' of the arsenal or info that was killing Israelis, false claims they had to make up and lie about for lack of any harm they could show. If he's let off with no punishment or a 'slap on the wrist', it DOES NOT open the door to handing out Israel's legitimate secrets to their enemies. The first time someone is caught exposing legitimate secrets, they don't get the light sentence.

The point here to debate is how much the world had a right to know Israel had nukes. And while that can be debated, I don't think it can be argued that that information begins to compare ot the sort of 'selling secrets to enemies' treason that the laws are designed to prevent. As anothe rposter mentioned, it can be argued that this information being public HELPED Israel as a deterrent, not that I'm arguing that that was this guy's call to make. But the world tends to think it has a right to know who has nuclear weapons, that they are a danger, and that the world knowing about them makes the world safer.

Ellsberg's title on this story referred to making the world safer by the arsenal being known to exist.

And I did point out another issue aboiut the double standard, how we say how legitimate it is to know about other nations' arsenals - but Israel is an exception?

Then the bottom line, evem if you think he deserved some punishment for exposing the truth on this simple issue that cannot be compared with y our slippery slope, is the excessive measures.

In the US, we executed someone for giving the Soviet Union infomration HOW TO MAKE NUKES. We have not executed someone for exposing wrongdoing and lies.

It's come up, when leaders want to punish the people who expose their wrongs, and sometimes they get to try, but the public tends to understand it's a mistake to punish those people, even if the laws allows it.

Which takes us back to whether you would imprison Ellsberg to along term, if not execute him, for serving his country by unforming the public of the truth, that the government was lying to it about Vietnam.

I'm pretty appalled by the reactions of many posters to the linked article. Was Israel's 'right' to be the only nation in the world to hide its nuclear arsenal so right to justify the persecution for decades of this man?

You are, once again, conflating the issue of whether he was morally right in releasing the information with that of the rule and law, crime and punishment. It IS a slippery slope when you allow people to get off with a light sentence because they acted out of conscience. Laws that preclude releasing information about the number of weapons a country has do have an obvious purpose, but even if the law is not rational or should be changed, you have to punish violators of the law until it is changed.

There is no basis for complaining about being punished per se when you have violated the law, unless your real objective is to undermine the rule of law in that society. You may have the "right" to complain about it, but that doesn't make it the right thing to do. You can't really complain that the punishment is disproportionate to the harm either, so long as the punishment is what is prescribed by law, and consistent with the punishment that others similarly situated would receive under that law.

If the person is singled out and punished far beyond what anyone else committing a similar offense would receive, then and only then is there a legtimate basis for complaint, as this in and of itself undermines the rule of law. Arbitrary and capricious sentencing undermines the rule of law. But if your complaint is merely that the punishment is out of proportion to the harm caused, then your complaint is that the law should be changed, not that the person in question should have a lighter sentence.

I disagree that the slippery slope is "idiotic" as you claim. A precedent for letting someone off with a slap on the wrist, when that person was hired to work in a secret military facility, and took an oath not to reveal what was in that facility, then took photos and released them to the press is a very dangerous precedent. You can say that the next person who does this will get a heavy sentence if what that person did caused harm, but that person may be acting on the assumption that the system is soft on people who reveal secrets when they believe that doing so is for the public good, and in that case the fact that he receives a stiffer penalty will not undo the harm he caused. Punishing someone who has caused grievous harm to national security, after the fact, is small consolation.

Whether or not an act will cause harm cannot strictly be foreseen by the individual committing the act because the variables are too complex, and hence it is not up to the person in question to make that call. It is up to the legal system to set a boundary that cannot be crossed. It wasn't his decision to make whether it would likely harm or help Israel.

And yes, releasing information to the press is functionally the same thing as releasing it to your country's enemies - presumably they are as capable of reading the newspaper as anyone else.

- wolf

 

[cubby1223]

Or, we could mention that Nixon wanted to use nukes in Vietnam - a country we went to war with for our own domestic political needs and for which two million people were killed.

(1) I could mention that we did not use nukes in Vietnam, but you don't care about that

(2) do you know how many millions more people were slaughtered when the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam?

Seriously, I have to wonder if you truly do feel that the U.S. government is the greatest evil in the world!

You repeatedly state that you believe all Republicans are evil. You praise Chavez. You're sticking up for Iran. And all these other never-ending attacks on this country.

We're not perfect, but we're still the best damn country in the world. So shut the fuck up once in a while and appreciate what freedom this country gives you. It's a new year, try to make it into something good, instead of whining all the time.

 

[Ozoned]

(1) I could mention that we did not use nukes in Vietnam, but you don't care about that

(2) do you know how many millions more people were slaughtered when the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam?

Seriously, I have to wonder if you truly do feel that the U.S. government is the greatest evil in the world!

You repeatedly state that you believe all Republicans are evil. You praise Chavez. You're sticking up for Iran. And all these other never-ending attacks on this country.

We're not perfect, but we're still the best damn country in the world. So shut the fuck up once in a while and appreciate what freedom this country gives you. It's a new year, try to make it into something good, instead of whining all the time.

The true cost of our freedom is much more than some people can emotionally handle.

 

[fallout man]

Probably should have been shot for treason.

Cool story, bro.

 

[fallout man]

Look look, the champions of human rights are coming, LOL

Don't worry about it, dude.

I see that the AT P&N Hasbara brigade is already balls deep in this thread, and there's only so much you can accomplish when faced with scorched earth and limited resources.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Don't worry about it, dude.

I see that the AT P&N Hasbara brigade is already balls deep in this thread, and there's only so much you can accomplish when faced with scorched earth and limited resources.

So as the Jihadist choir boy, why don't you step in and tell us how the Arabs, Iranians or any other Muslims would treat someone exposing their state secrets in public. Maybe Israel has something to learn here.

 

[SandEagle]

So the guy blows the cover on a secret nuclear plant? sounds like a hero to me.

little known fact: The Symington Amendment was a legislation passed in 1976 that bans US assistance to any country found to be trafficking in nuclear enrichment or reprocessing technology that is not governed by international safeguards."

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

ruh oh. i wonder who that could be?

 

[palehorse]

So let me get this straight... citizens of any country who expose highly classified information should be considered heroes who simply exposed "the truth"?

Interesting national security strategy ya have there Craig... I'm actually not surprised given your apparent desire to see the U.S. and all of its allies weakened more and more each day.

 

[palehorse]

You are, once again, conflating the issue of whether he was morally right in releasing the information with that of the rule and law, crime and punishment. It IS a slippery slope when you allow people to get off with a light sentence because they acted out of conscience. Laws that preclude releasing information about the number of weapons a country has do have an obvious purpose, but even if the law is not rational or should be changed, you have to punish violators of the law until it is changed.

There is no basis for complaining about being punished per se when you have violated the law, unless your real objective is to undermine the rule of law in that society. You may have the "right" to complain about it, but that doesn't make it the right thing to do. You can't really complain that the punishment is disproportionate to the harm either, so long as the punishment is what is prescribed by law, and consistent with the punishment that others similarly situated would receive under that law.

If the person is singled out and punished far beyond what anyone else committing a similar offense would receive, then and only then is there a legtimate basis for complaint, as this in and of itself undermines the rule of law. Arbitrary and capricious sentencing undermines the rule of law. But if your complaint is merely that the punishment is out of proportion to the harm caused, then your complaint is that the law should be changed, not that the person in question should have a lighter sentence.

I disagree that the slippery slope is "idiotic" as you claim. A precedent for letting someone off with a slap on the wrist, when that person was hired to work in a secret military facility, and took an oath not to reveal what was in that facility, then took photos and released them to the press is a very dangerous precedent. You can say that the next person who does this will get a heavy sentence if what that person did caused harm, but that person may be acting on the assumption that the system is soft on people who reveal secrets when they believe that doing so is for the public good, and in that case the fact that he receives a stiffer penalty will not undo the harm he caused. Punishing someone who has caused grievous harm to national security, after the fact, is small consolation.

Whether or not an act will cause harm cannot strictly be foreseen by the individual committing the act because the variables are too complex, and hence it is not up to the person in question to make that call. It is up to the legal system to set a boundary that cannot be crossed. It wasn't his decision to make whether it would likely harm or help Israel.

And yes, releasing information to the press is functionally the same thing as releasing it to your country's enemies - presumably they are as capable of reading the newspaper as anyone else.

- wolf

This. Brilliant!

Now, if only we could do the same, or worse, to ALL of those within our own (U.S.) government -- regardless of political affiliation -- who enjoy leaking classified information to the NYT & Co...

All f'n traitors should hang. No exceptions.

 

[fallout man]

So as the Jihadist choir boy, why don't you step in and tell us how the Arabs, Iranians or any other Muslims would treat someone exposing their state secrets in public. Maybe Israel has something to learn here.

I've never considered myself to be a Jihadist, nor a choir boy. Also, an old man didn't suck my dick immediately after I was circumcised. I just don't know which cool crowd to ally myself with!

Why don't you step in and tell me why you feel the need to juxtapose how "Arabs, Iranians, or any other Muslims would treat someone exposing their state secrets in public?" Is it that difficult to participate in a thread without that staple Hasbara-brigade moral relativism (all questionable acts committed by Israel relative to those "cafe bombin' rocket launchin' savages") crutch?

Get over yourself.

 

[fskimospy]

This. Brilliant!

Now, if only we could do the same, or worse, to ALL of those within our own (U.S.) government -- regardless of political affiliation -- who enjoy leaking classified information to the NYT & Co...

All f'n traitors should hang. No exceptions.

The simple act of leaking classified information is not an act of treason and there have been many cases throughout history where the leaking of classified information was the only moral choice to make. Simply put, governments frequently abuse the classification system to cover up information that they find inconvenient. So no, we shouldn't be executing all people who leak classified information, many of those who do so are patriots. (those who leaked Bush's illegal warrantless wiretapping program were patriots for example)

That being said, to expect governments not to take action against those who divulge classified information is silly, as soon as you do that your system has no value.