Wikileaks, Iraq edition

[PrinceofWands]

Drunk drivers should not be arrested until someone die
An armed man standing outside a kindergarten should be left to his own devices
Someone broadcasting his intents to murder his fellow classmates on YouTube should not be questioned
etc etc

This was actually about international actions, not domestic crime laws, but since you brought it up:

The drunk driver is an ACTIVE threat against everyone else on the road. That's not what we were talking about. We were talking about people sitting around at a party discussing the possibility of driving in the future suddenly being arrested IN CASE they drove drunk.

There's NOTHING bad or dangerous about 'an armed man'. There's only something dangerous if they act in a threatening manner. I carry a gun outside kindergartens on a daily basis (when I walk around the town).

The broadcasting of an INTENT TO DO HARM is the same as trying to do it. Again, not what we were talking about. We were talking about people training to have the ABILITY to do harm, and publicly stating that it would be good for harm to be done. ENTIRELY different situation (and protected by both law and morality).

And, lacking intelligence that originated in unlawful activities - i.e. most of the meaningful intelligence - who do you respond against? Even if another nation attacked you, how are you supposed to hit it back when you have no information about it? Google Earth?

You're telling me that you believe we knew Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor because of the CIA/OSS????????????????? You're telling me that the NSA is required to find a country on a map??? Moreover, you're forgetting that I'm all for doing whatever is necessary SUBSEQUENT to a declaration of war...so if anyone attacks us we'd be free to take necessary actions against them in response. It's just the pre-emption that makes it both illegal and immoral.

Really, even if this force is nuclear? You should actually wait until attacked before you do anything? Is that how a country protects its citizen, by a blind retaliatory force and zero prevention capacity?

Lets try imagining a sequence of events here:

The reasonable way:

1. Terrorists get a nuclear device from, lets say, Paksitan
2. American intelligence - unlawfully - intercepts their plans
3. The said terrorists are either kidnapped and brought to trial (or better yet, Gitmo) or assassinated by a Predator

Terrorists die.

Your peculiar way:

1. Terrorists get a nuclear device from, lets say, Paksitan
2. Americans don't know shit about it because their intelligence officers have been executed
3. Terrorists get to the US and sneak in
4. The bomb goes off, millions die
5. US scratches head on where to retaliate. Without intelligence, it's very difficult to pinpoint the source of the bomb
6. In the good case, nothing happens. In the not so good case, US retaliates against the wrong target with a nuclear device of its own.

Millions die. Earth is, possibly, destroyed. All because you wanted to be a smartass.

By all means, let's get rid of nukes, or make it very difficult to obtain them. Same with any weapon of mass destruction. However, the fact remains that people are always going to be capable of making their own, or newer/better ones, and UNTIL THEY ACTUALLY USE THEM they have EVERY right to do so. We are NOT special. We don't get to build an arsenal and then object to others doing the same. If it's scary then we should dedicate our resources to alleviating the factors which lead to their use.

 

[Atreus21]

The moment a war turns into a prolonged, humane, supervised exercise you're just wasting money and lives.

Truer words are rarely spoken.

 

[Lemon law]

Let us look at it the other way. Where does the Wikileaks information come from?

Is the information invented out of whole cloth and there is nothing but Wikileaks imaginings behinnd it?

Or is it a matter that various US and foreign soldiers of good conscience privy to such data, feel they are morally obligated to expose the lies our own government tell to justify their leaks.