Shutting down internet is far from 'killing at will' tbf. They could already do that, it's just an embassy in a country with a decent military. Of course, the political backlash would be rather severe, not nearly as much as 'just' some hacking which doesn't cause direct loss of life and which is often conveniently untraceable.
“You see these dictators on their pedestals, surrounded by the bayonets of their soldiers and the truncheons of their police ... yet in their hearts there is unspoken fear. They are afraid of words and thoughts: words spoken abroad, thoughts stirring at home -- all the more powerful because forbidden -- terrify them. A little mouse of thought appears in the room, and even the mightiest potentates are thrown into panic.”
― Winston S. Churchill, Blood, Sweat and Tears
"Do you want terrorist groups? Because this is how you get terrorist groups."
Or, another way, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. What option are citizens left with when state collusion to deny people their basic rights occurs in broad daylight?
Which is exactly why I deplore the term "terrorist". The U.S. throws the term terrorist around with reckless abandon while proudly parading its strategy of "Shock and Awe"[1] and weapons like the "Daisy Cutter"[2] around on CNN. How are those two examples anything other than naked attempts to instill terror in it's enemies???
In 1985, when I was the Deputy Director of the Reagan White House Task Force on Terrorism, [my working group was asked] to come up with a definition of terrorism that could be used throughout the government. We produced about six, and each and every case, they were rejected, because careful reading would indicate that our own country had been involved in some of those activities.
If we applied the laws we used to prosecute the Nazis at Nuremberg, every single post WWII US President/government would be considered to have committed war crimes.
I find it interesting that the Nuremberg Trials are continually held up, often by people who ought to know better, as a shining example of "International Law" and not a fairly straightforward example of the victors of a war taking the opportunity to polish off a few key enemies they missed. Which is a time-honored and not especially surprising practice, but hardly laudable, particularly when it involved some ex post facto invention of capital offenses.
Had it occurred in the context of anything but World War II, and was it aimed at anyone other than the Nazis, I think the consensus on it would be much more... nuanced. But because there is a very significant interest (across the US, Germany, Russia, Japan, etc.) in maintaining the Nazis as a singular sort of villain, so abjectly evil as to defy all comparison past or present, special rules apply.
(Plus, I suppose, there's some grading-on-a-curve that happens when the inevitable comparison is made between the Allied handling of the postwar environment and that of the Soviets; the Nuremberg Trials may have had certain jurisprudential imperfections, one could easily argue, but at least they didn't require heavy equipment just to dig the mass graves. Though that seems like damning with faint praise.)
If anything, the Nuremburg trials were overly light.
Both the USA and Germany had the death penalty at the end of WW2.
If you actually applied the law as you would in peacetime (as is reasonable because the gas chambers had no military necessity in the way a PoW camp would) then anyone involved in the process, including bringing supplies to the camp, would have been guilty until proven innocent. Evidence of participation is evidence of guilt, and by civilian standards of the time 90% of Germans in uniform and probably 20% of civilians should have been hung.
The Nuremburg trials were like Rwanda's Peace and Reconciliation process. Something that was knowingly far from completist, but just enough to stop the bloodshed and retribution.
> but at least they didn't require heavy equipment just to dig the mass graves
If you support the right of the state to kill (in War, etc) then what's the problem? Pretty much every Nazi was a criminal and had committed and supported war crimes. Pretty much everyone else was a collaborator.
(fwiw, that's the risk of going to war as a democracy. When you have choice, you have culpability.)
Certainly, there's a number of issues with the Nuremberg Trials. They certainly were guided by many motives, not all of which were pure.
But my point is this: the same allies that came up with these reasons for prosecution, created such offenses, have been (not the only) ones to then go on and breach them, steadily, ever since.
i.e. my intent is not necessarily to hold up Nuremberg as a victory for humanity (though certainly _some_ of the things that came about from it are good), but to also implicate many of the allies and governments to follow as very much "do as I say, not as I do".
Because the laws of war is different when you have civilians as your main targets?
Here is my standard reference about the subject. Note that it is critical of the US -- and that ROE is still followed quite closely. Compare that to [terrorists and non democracies].
(Are you really surprised by the content of this answer..?)
----
Edit: My answer to throwaway98237's deleted follow up comment:
>> a small band of tribes from Afghanistan
>> Also, the "laws of war" have evolved over time.
You went from: Setting an equal sign between terrorists and real armies (which use legal weapons psychological warfare against enemy soldiers, not against civilians).
To: Excusing terrorists because (a) some of them also do guerrilla warfare and (b) because the laws of war were a bit different 50+ years ago?
I deleted my comment because I didn't see a reply from you and wasn't certain my comment was correctly speaking to your points because I just don't get your comment. Since I wasn't certain my response was speaking to the points, I removed it so as not to muddy the conversation.
You started by arguing that following the laws of war is terrorism. That subject of law have been really discussed, there are lots of academic papers. I'd be happy to see references?
And your follow up was just not possible to parse. Please read Byer's article, it taught me a lot on the subject.
Is internet access really a basic right? I would argue no, but then again I grew up in a world without internet access for the most part so I consider it a nice-to-have rather than a necessity.
I would argue that it is on par with a human being's right to be informed (read the news, buy books, etc.) Whether you call those basic human rights it's all up to you. The UN seems to think that it is a basic human right though.
I don't know where you live, but where I live they still print physical books and newspapers. Maybe someday it will only be possible to be informed if you have Internet access, but that day isn't today.
Incidentally, this is exactly what hollywood and other big publishers want. Supporting surveillance is a really cool way for them to take control of the web, undermine it even more and then reap profits without worrying about all those bills like SOPA or PIPA that never seem to pass. Hell, they don't even have to face a backlash anymore!
IMO, pushing bills for changes in laws or copyrighting is probably their second best bet. Their best bet is to push people away from the web -- like they succeeded with physical books by dumbing down ebooks as much as they could.
You've just justified first world countries creating an artificial prison for political reasons. I am not surprised, as so many Americans justify and support Guantanamo Bay (and the holding of prisoners without charges or trial indefinitely).
America has become the Black Mirror reflection of itself and its foundational ideals, and is a terrible world role model.
Funnily, I am not American, though I do live in the US. British, and Australian by birth and heritage.
And I have never once claimed that the US is a role model for the world. In fact, a quick glance at my comment history would show that in many areas, I believe quite the opposite.
The artificial prison was of his own making, not that of any country. He chose to seek asylum, blaming a lurking boogeyman ready to extradite and or execute him, and continued to use this, rebuffing multiple attempts to resolve the issue (and arguably in many ways no other person would be allowed to do, dictating how, when or indeed if he would be allowed to be interviewed).
Certainly, many governments act in appalling ways. But Assange put himself in a predicament where he is now in legal hot water for his _actual_ avoidance of due process for _alleged_ activities.
Not like Guatanamo.
And not like your ad hominem attacks upon me to suit your cause.
As did I. I would argue the advance of tech, code as law (effect of code for most of us), and that imbalance warrant elevating the importance of Internet access.
> Demonstrate their power to kill at will and their willingness to do so.
As history has shown, you cut off the head of one state problem and then you have six problems. Be it Osama, Ulbricht or Assange. Two of those three problems could have been solved permanently by other means (decriminilization and thorough transparency, respectively). Dogma seems to rule our rulers.
Silencing Assange, by whatever means they choose, will most likely backfire.
Are you honestly suggesting that UBL, Ulbricht, and Assange deserve to be treated the same way?
Cause killing THOUSANDS of innocent citizens around the world is the same as leaking state secrets.
I'll refrain from commenting ill about Ulbricht on this site...
> Are you honestly suggesting that UBL, Ulbricht, and Assange deserve to be treated the same way?
I specifically used language that steered clear of that incinuation. "State problem", not "problem in general." "As history has shown." I was referring only to the similarities regarding the outcome of offing the leaders of those respective communities, as well as how state leadership simply refuses to reflect on their past actions.
I really struggle to find how you drew that conclusion out of what I wrote. There was nothing concerning that subject, never mind a suggestion - in fact it was quite the opposite:
* Ulbricht would have had no market, if drug abuse was treated as a health problem and not a criminal problem.
* Assange would have had nothing to leak, if the state wasn't make shady deals.
* I can't think of any effective solution to terrorism. Making a demonstration is all we have.
Assange has a lot more enemies than the ones you choose to believe. Considering the Panama Papers were pretty much a long expose of Russian and Middle-East corruption, much moreso than the West, I suspect a lot of angry autocrats and dictators would like a piece of him too and they're not shy about war crimes or assassinating journalists.
The leaks he's released target dozens of nations. He has a lot of enemies:
edit: apparantly he didn't do the panama papers, but the above link shows a lot of players who are going to be angry at him, especially his host nation considering he leaked UK Trident nuclear secrets last year.
Oh the irony of Assange being unable to tolerate leaks that make Russia look bad. Its clear what side he's playing for and it ain't for Western democracy and human rights.
I find it amusing that facts about how Russian citizens are being ripped off by their autocratic elites is a "hitjob." What does that word even mean? These documents are verified to be real. Putin's regime is that corrupt. Apparently, Assange and his Russian handlers have a desperate case of being able to dish it out, but not being able to take it.
>Yeah, because killing Assange would re-hide the documents.
Did this stop Putin from murdering x amount of journalists? I suspect chilling speech is the ultimate goal and some petty revenge as well. Also maintaining the perception of being a "strong man" ruler who does whatever he wants.
>There's really only one group large enough to do what they want
I think you're vastly underestimate the intelligence agencies of many countries here. The CIA bogeyman gets you instant upvotes on reddit/HN but the reality is that the top 30 or so nations have impressive intelligence organizations with far reaching abilities. Cutting an internet line at an embassy in London isn't exactly the moon landing here.
Until we hear some technical details of some vast and highly technical attack that only the US can perform, I'll remain skeptical of such claims. The reality is that cutting or DDOS'ing lines is a trivial attack. This isn't Stuxnet and you guys know it.
