@hingehead,
hingehead wrote:
Actually Finn, that did make it much clearer what you were trying to say. But you are wrong, in international diplomacy circles this is very much a moral black eye for the State Dept. Instructing civil servants to violate international law smacks of crime (and idiocy) to me - but I'm no lawyer.
My point was that gathering that sort of information is violation of civil rights or are those 'self-evident truths' about inalienable rights not pertaining to residents, only US citizens? Or did they die with the patriot act?
Finn wrote:Presumably you can cite the US law that makes the actions reported by WikiLeaks illegal,
I'm sorry, I misinterpreted what you were asking - I though you were asking me to find the US law that makes WikiLeak's actions illegal - which is seemingly impossible for the US A-G so I didn't think I had much of a chance. Mea culpa.
On your third point; I never said you had relied on international law, I was surmising that if the situation arose where International Law allowed the US you to meet its goals (as you see them) I can't imagine you would run out and protest. You dismissed international law - yet Geneva is part of that framework, do you not hold much stock in that either? Are you happy to forego the protections it has given US nationals? You are a moral dilettante, blinkered by nationalism.
I'm glad to see that you took my last post to heart and have ceased your ad hominem attacks.
"
Moral dilettante"
Is this a dabbler with a fine sense of what is right and wrong, or someone who dabbles in morality?
You are correct that if international law supported a US action of which I approved, I would not withdraw my approval nor would I take to the street protesting the particular law or the action it supported.
However,
not putting much stock in international law is a far cry from being a crusader against it.
More to the point, I would not cite the international law as support of my approval.
Except to the extent that it involves obligations agreed to within a treaty ratified by the US Senate, so-called
international law doesn't factor into my opinions of US actions legitimacy, or morality. Adherence to something like a UN Resolution either before or during the action may make that action more politically effective, but not, in my opinion, more legitimate or moral.
I don't hold much stock in the Geneva Conventions. Since both the Executive and Legislative branches of the government agreed (as the Constitution requires) to these treaties I think our government is bound to comply with them, but I don't think they are worth very much at all.
I have previously explained my aversion to Rules of War but, in any case, we have not gone nor is it likely we will be going to war with countries that will abide by the Geneva Conventions. Japan, Germany, North Korea, China, North Vietnam, Taliban ruled Afghanistan and Iraq did not afford Geneva protections to US nationals, and it is highly unlikely that Iran will either. A nation that abides by the Conventions may take some solace in the belief that they engage in only
civilized wars, but if their opponents do not, then solace is the only benefit the Conventions will provide.
I accept your apology, but still do not have a citation for the U.S. law you believe Hillary Clinton has broken.
If there are laws in virtually every nation on earth (Not to mention
international laws!) prohibiting espionage, yet virtually every nation on earth engages in espionage, how can the revelation that one particular nation is indeed doing what everyone believes they and every other nation have been doing all along, leave that one particular nation with a moral or legal black eye?
The one nation revealed may have a reputational black eye and considered inept for not being able to keep hidden a secret that no one (with the exception of WikiLeaks and its media dupes) is seeking to unearth, but that would have to do with competence, not morality.
)not to read the documents: