Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SalmonGod]

unless they joined a group that the government had already declared war on.

You mean terrorists like Julian Assange, as identified by many government officials?

[Heron TSG]

I don't believe that their war on information is the same as an actual, internationally recognized war. I could be wrong.

[Bauglir]

It does have to be a conflict subject to the laws of war. So, is the US actually at war with anybody at all? I could see the argument being made that, say, Wikileaks has knowingly and purposefully supported terrorists by revealing classified information (that's the sort of absurd claim I could see substantiated on the basis that the US has claimed that such activities do support terrorists, and Wikileaks has not ceased to be), and that therefore anybody that makes, say, a donation to Wikileaks is subject to the law.

It's a bit on the obnoxious side for abuses of the law, but it's the sort of thing I'd expect to be tried in the current atmosphere.

[Heron TSG]

Afghanistan is an internationally recognized war. We don't officially call it one because Congress didn't vote, but it is a war nonetheless. (One with UN coalition forces, I might add. Very much a war.)

Not sure if what we're doing in Colombia counts as a war or not.

[Bauglir]

Well, I mean, the important thing is that it be subject to the rules of war, not that it be internationally recognized. Unless that's deeper in the bill. At any rate, the point is that you can establish degrees of separation that make the scope of the law absurd. I know what it's intended to address (or what it's said to be intended to address), but you have to stress test these things. Does it count as "knowingly and purposefully supporting" to provide such support to an intermediary who is supporting hostilities? If so, you can probably establish a chain of "knowingly and purposefully supporting" that encompasses every person on earth. If not, the law isn't nearly so bad, and will probably only come up in clear-cut cases like it seems it's supposed to.

[SalmonGod]

I don't believe that their war on information is the same as an actual, internationally recognized war. I could be wrong.

Isn't the war on terrorism an officially recognized war, at least within the U.S.?  Many U.S. officials have publicly proclaimed Assange to be a terrorist.  A couple have even said they consider him more dangerous than Al Qaeda.

Not that he's a U.S. citizen in the first place, but the situation still demonstrates potential scenarios.

[palsch]

Isn't the war on terrorism an officially recognized war, at least within the U.S.?  Many U.S. officials have publicly proclaimed Assange to be a terrorist.  A couple have even said they consider him more dangerous than Al Qaeda.

Not that he's a U.S. citizen in the first place, but the situation still demonstrates potential scenarios.

The AUMF authorises action "against those nations, organizations, or persons [the president] determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." The authorisation is under the War Powers Resolution. Whether it's technically a war or not is more or less semantics.

[Vector]

He isn't lumping them all together, he's saying that religion is easily abused to promote one's ideas. Which is true. Anything can be justified by "god says so." Abuse of that is inevitable.

In the mouth of the layperson (and also very many educated people), so are science and statistics.  And math in general.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

You can't justify anything with science, because it actually has to be....you know, science. You can just make up whatever you want in religion, science and math have rules which are grounded in reality.

[MonkeyHead]

... and most importantly have to be open to free challenge, improvement or abandonment, unlike "faith" based ideas which are held to be sacrosanct and above questioning.

That and those of us that work in the field like to think that the burden of proof lies with those who hold Science in disdain.

[Vector]

You can't justify anything with science, because it actually has to be....you know, science. You can just make up whatever you want in religion, science and math have rules which are grounded in reality.

You've clearly never spoken with anyone who read and loved The Bell Curve, then.

[SalmonGod]

The thing about science, is it is not prescriptive, only informative.  It tells us how the world works, not what to do with that information.  So science can be used to justify anything, really. 

Agenda + Information + Interpretation = Justification

Whether any such justification is legitimate is a matter of your interpretation against theirs.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

...Which says nothing about science itself. Such things are the failings of individuals with agendas who twist their perception of the world to fit it.

[Vector]

Much as one's dislike of religion says nothing properly about a personal relationship with the spiritual life.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I distinctly remember having this exact conversation about science and religion before in this thread. And I still say that science is different because it has a physical presence in our universe.