News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Hacker Publishes 2TB of Data from Cayman National Bank. Parent comment

Re:Hacker Publishes 2TB of Data from Cayman National Bank by zozbot234 on Monday November 18, 2019 @03:37PM (#21567916)
> Rule of law didn't stop the invasion of Iraq. Rule of law hasn't stopped the countless CIA backed coups in South America. Rule of law didn't stop funding/promoting the Arab spring.

These places were all considered "rogue states" at some point, i.e. places that openly neglected the very same rule of law which protects others. Being a 'rogue' state may leave you open to being bullied, but that's hardly inconsistent with rule of law being very important.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Hacker Publishes 2TB of Data from Cayman National Bank by yourbandsucks on Monday November 18, 2019 @03:47PM (#21567992)
"Rule of law" doesn't mean picking and choosing whom it applies to. Saddam was our best buddy when he was using mustard gas in Khuzestan against the right people.

International politics is rule by power rather than rule of law. The person you're replying to got it right.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Hacker Publishes 2TB of Data from Cayman National Bank by maximente on Monday November 18, 2019 @04:13PM (#21568197)
what criteria were/are used to make that consideration? because it sure as hell seems the US and Israel qualify, at least recently, for largely subjective definitions that i can come up with. alternatively if there are objective definitions, let's see them and decide for ourselves.

it seems, then, the only thing stopping these rogue states are powers or coalitions of powers with the potential to dominate them (or i guess survive) via conflict, either via subterfuge or military means, and the will to do so. put more simply, reigning in Iraq or Nicaragua is a hell of a lot easier than Israel. why is that, if not for power differentials?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Hacker Publishes 2TB of Data from Cayman National Bank by freeflight on Monday November 18, 2019 @07:28PM (#21569651)
> These places were all considered "rogue states" at some point, i.e. places that openly neglected the very same rule of law which protects others.

That still doesn't change the reality that the US broke international laws [0] under the pretext of supposedly enforcing them.

And it did so in a very calculated and premeditated way [1] that justified everything on a domestic legal basis, while completely disregarding international law and institutions like they do not matter at all.

Imagine if China would pass a law declaring how their soldiers and government officials can't be held accountable by any international body, how would that be framed by US media?

Yet in the US, this has been established legal reality for close to two decades and plenty of US Americans defend it like it's the most normal thing in the world due to their internalized "exceptionalism".

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...

[ Parent | on HN ]