Take land mines. I've heard that they play a critical role in South Korea's defense, which was a major reason Clinton didn't sign. Military experts talk about how it's an effective tool that, when used responsibly, can benefit civilians more than harm them.
They also kill and maim people.
Intellectually, both sides seem reasonable to me. Of course, emotionally, one is passively helping people (or so we are told), while the other is actively harming them, so, ya, I lean towards being anti land mines. But, I fundamentally can't shake the feeling that I have no clue what's going on, so maybe I shouldn't be too quick to judge.
The former will kill tons of non-soldiers and persist long after the war is over. The latter will kill NK soldiers moving south and can be easily collected in the event they are no longer necessary.
Ah, yes, complexity explains everything from the role of private oil companies in Iraq to the ties of the Bush family with the Bin Laden family.
> But, I fundamentally can't shake the feeling that I have no clue what's going on, so maybe I shouldn't be too quick to judge.
I think a very safe way, given the histoy over the last decaded, to form an opinion, is to consider everything the US defense industry-slash-ministry proclaims an outright lie and only accept very small points as true when they have been verified.
The problem is the other extreme of not expressing an opinion where you have reasonable doubt will lead to leaving the discussion to everyone else. And there will always be a huge crowd of people who will voice their very uniformed opinion no matter what.
Even worse, you become extremely susceptible to malign publicity tactics. For example I would not see it beyond the US government[1] to argue with South Korea's defense even if the land mine treaty explicitly had an exception for these well cataloged mines in narrowed down locations [2]. They would of course word their public statement carefully so they can later refuse to acknowledge a causal connection between the two in case their bluff is called.
[1] And my government on other topics.
[2] I'm assuming the best case here. I don't know how the mines along the border are actually distributed, or even if there are mines at all.
You could do a lot of other things (or rather not do them), but it might cost you your political standing.
So point being - playing the moral high card, as the US do around the world, should not follow the line from a Genesis song:
"Do as I say, don't do as I do..."
At least in my humble opinion (the same goes for my Governement, the German one by the way.)
Does the US gov't say that everyone else should abandon land mines?
Perhaps you think what North Korea does is the proper way to interact with the world, perhaps you think that the US should be the moral lead for countries like the Sudan, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Afganistan, and Croatia instead of the moral follower.
The vast majority of people who are raised in USA public schools.
Sure many countries are horrible places to live compared to the United States, but if we ignore our problems as you would have us do, that might not always be the case.
Our founding fathers knew from the very start that government is but a necessary evil. One that requires constant monitoring and modification in order to keep the power in the hands of the American people, which is where it belongs. Patriotism is about loving one's country, not worshipping the government.
I don't agree with every criticism of the United States that appeared in this thread, but I do agree with some of them.
He fled out of fear of long-term incarceration, for actions that ordinarily would indeed deserve such harsh sentences.
Are we seriously suggesting letting people do this if they think the goal is just ? It seems so. I shudder to think what the consequences of that would be.
Maybe we should create a "politically correct NSA" that spies on everyone who might be involved in unpopular politics ? How about spying on every company and violently extracting their labour practices ? I'm sure quite a few European unions wouldn't mind doing that (and at least in .be and .nl that would be a legal grey area, illegal but not punishable).
>Are we seriously suggesting letting people do this
Do what? Expose evidence of government corruption? It is written in the law that this is exactly the case. There are numerous examples of the failure of the laws meant to protect us from this scenario.
> if they think the goal is just ? It seems so.
There is no justice in following unjust laws.
>I shudder to think what the consequences of that would be.
An informed electorate? Backroom-dealing politicians have to work harder to conceal their works? We should be so lucky.
The law does not permit breaking the law to further expose corruption though. That is the role of an appointed (and trained!) inspector general. Or, if necessary, a special prosecutor.
It would be one thing to reveal evidence of wrongdoing that one happens to fall into as part of their normal duties. Going further beyond that is illegal for good reason, as otherwise those who are impersonating high-ranking officials for purposes of espionage would be literally indistinguishable from those impersonating the same officials for to "dig for dirt".
Put another way, if your logic applied Google would have not merely the right, but the obligation to constantly scour through their GMail archives, G+ private messages, and everything else they have access to, for evidence of wrongdoing. Is it your position that Google should be doing this?
The Inspector General is empowered to break the law? Or is that a bit of a bait-and-switch?
This is a very silly bit of circular reasoning. The State has effectively made it illegal to expose The State's own illegal conduct. You suppose we should all ignore the State's lawbreaking, because it took Snowden's lawbreaking to expose it, as if citizens are to be constrained by judicial rules of evidence?
Or, are you invoking the "not my job" excuse for abdicating one's responsibility as a citizen (to hold the State to account for its actions). We've had this argument before. I remain unmoved by your opinion.
>It would be one thing to reveal evidence of wrongdoing that one happens to fall into as part of their normal duties. Going further beyond that is illegal for good reason, as otherwise those who are impersonating high-ranking officials for purposes of espionage would be literally indistinguishable from those impersonating the same officials for to "dig for dirt".
I would have hoped that the NSA were competent to the degree that a Snowden wouldn't have been able to betray the them so thoroughly and completely. Hawks such as yourself ought to be especially furious at the level of organizational incompetence made evident by Snowden's disclosures. Even after being personally embarrassed by my government's shameful conduct in spying on everyone, I am again embarrassed by its obvious lack of competence. It apparently hopes to ensure the security of The State with thuggish threats, and nothing more. It must change or it is destined to fail.
>Put another way, if your logic applied Google would have not merely the right, but the obligation to constantly scour through their GMail archives, G+ private messages, and everything else they have access to, for evidence of wrongdoing. Is it your position that Google should be doing this?
Except that logic does not apply to Google, nor have I attempted to apply it to Google; because Google is not an agency of the State, especially not a part of the Judicial Branch, and therefore not the arbiter of the law in this country. Even if Google were an agency of the State, they still are not empowered to violate citizens' rights under the Constitution.
This is actually a significant part of why we have trial by jury (according to some; others argue that it's just silly); they can decide that the accused did commit the crime and still return not guilty.
Yes, I'm seriously suggesting that following orders contrary to good conscience is immoral and illegal, but luckily the better part of the world agrees with me in the precedent set at Nuremberg.
It's not what happened, it's the idea of one man standing up to the state that strikes fear into their hearts.
Don't underestimate Chinese political sophistication, especially amongst what we might call the middle class (a <10% minority in China). There is a common feeling, if not outright belief, that a strong government is necessary to hold the country together, especially during its current transition period with its massive inequalities. I am no expert but my impression is that the people who do know - the middle class educated, with internet access (firewalls are trivial to get around) understand or at least play along with the idea that from a stability point of view, some information is best not fully shared.
I see some interesting parallels between Chinese political censorship and the debate about the NSA revelations, by the way. Both are about concealing information of great public interest in the name of some alleged greater good. The only real difference is that the events in Tianenmen Square happened outdoors.
Beijing University from what I understand is where China's elite school (when not schooling overseas)
Mostly true, I suppose, but I remember this : "TSA loudspeakers threaten travelers with arrest for making jokes" : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkWPMeLSk6M
Yes, the US has freedom of expression, and you can claim whatever you want about the government (you can even lie). But if you yell 'fire' in a theatre with 500 people and 1 small exit, or 'allahu akbar' in a TSA line, you deserve to get sued and punished for that. That is not legally considered to be freedom of expression.
Personally I don't find that very controversial. If you lie to get someone else's kid into your car, that's not freedom of expression either. Lying to private security during an emergency is not freedom of expression either. Reporting a bomb threat because you have a math quiz is not freedom of expressoin. If you commit fraud on a contract, that's not freedom of expression either, whether or not "it was a joke".
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_thea...
http://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hac...
Summary - the case involved was not a principled exception to free speech, but the diametric opposite; a judge basically ruled that you can't criticize the government during wartime because it would undermine the state.
> Holmes, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, affirmed Schenck's conviction on the theory that this expression could be punished in wartime even though it merely urged "peaceful measures such as a petition for the repeal" of conscription, on the theory that the government could suppress speech that might interfere with the draft.
Read the case before you quote it. American Supreme Court has done a lot of injustices in its time. And this is one of the more egregious once.
Does your opinion change if it is spoken in English? Or is it just Arabic? Should it be taken more seriously if a person is wearing a turban or not? Or maybe their skin color… does that matter?
Here in the US, we strive to bring partisan politics into every discussion.