My remarks regarding international laws were not intended to reflect existing laws, but rather to point out a matter of consistent application of legal principle (a philosophical point, not a legal one).
If you're capable of elucidation, please do!
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
WikiLeaks.
- Thread starter Deluge Of Sound
- Start date
My remarks regarding international laws were not intended to reflect existing laws, but rather to point out a matter of consistent application of legal principle (a philosophical point, not a legal one).
If you're capable of elucidation, please do!
Wow... and that is a HUGE mess of a loophole there.
Say a country like Iran decides that US embargoes demonstrably harm them.
Guess what? Anyone who does any research will easily see that US embargoes do in fact harm Iran.
Iran passes a law making it illegal to embargo Iran.
Now the US needs to hands over all legislators who voted for the law - because you agree that if...
Then...
Somehow, I don't think you really believe that.
In fact, I'm willing to bet that most of the time you think these things should only work one way.
Me? No, I posed the question because a lot of people appear to think that unilaterally imposing laws upon the rest of the world is acceptable (but only if their nation is the unilateral power).
On principle, I think that such notions ought to be applied consistently or not at all. Thus, based upon a principle of fairness and equality, either all nations are allowed to legally prosecute outside their borders, or none are.
- Apr 1, 2000
- 17,405
- 9,845
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: Roscoe Guitars, DR Strings, Aguilar Amplification
You really should look into the way these things work. Your understanding of it is seriously limited.
The Valerie Plame comparison is weak. The real precedent was set by the release of the Pentagon Papers in 1971. That was more comparable, and the NYT won a SCOTUS decision overturning a lower court's injunction against publishing the documents. According to Justice Black:
"Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell."
Now, the question becomes whether or not the government can rightfully keep anything secret from the people. 18 USC Sec. 793 has taken a beating in the courts, notably in Brandenburg v. Ohio which drastically limited the scope of the law. In fact, if you look at early applications of the law, it was used to stop people from disseminating literature which opposed the government, such as anti-draft literature. That would certainly never fly today.
"Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell."
Now, the question becomes whether or not the government can rightfully keep anything secret from the people. 18 USC Sec. 793 has taken a beating in the courts, notably in Brandenburg v. Ohio which drastically limited the scope of the law. In fact, if you look at early applications of the law, it was used to stop people from disseminating literature which opposed the government, such as anti-draft literature. That would certainly never fly today.
Explain why it is weak. Ok, i'm not sure which is really worse: uncovering secret agents or putting 'classified' material on the internet or newspaper. My guess would be that secret agents are more than just 'classified'. The argument against the journalist was that he/she was in breach of 'national security', but the court upheld that 'national security' is too vage a concept to withstand 'freedom of expression'. To me, this seems quite similar to the Wikileaks case.
I understand how these things work.
I'm just disagreeing with your statement about how they should work.
You specifically said that US citizens if
then
You said specifically:
If an American breaks another nations laws, and the breaking of that law "harms" the other nation then that US citizens should be extradited, tried, and convicted, for breaking laws from other nations.
...but you don't really believe that.
You likely believe in what we really have... where it doesn't matter if you break another countries laws - unless your country has extradition treaties, agrees with the law in question, and is willing to actually extradite.
So, lets answer the question...
Do you actually believe what you wrote above? Do you actually believe that if an American breaks another nations laws, and the breaking of that law "harms" the other nation then that US citizens should be extradited, tried, and convicted, for breaking laws from other nations?
You took a generic comment and extended it to the point of being out of context.
Embargoes are essentially a type of boycott. They are perfectly legal.
Iran cannot require the US to do business with it.
Furthermore, embargoes are typically put in place due to the actions
of a particular country. In your example, the embargo is the direct
result of Iran's own actions. If Iran is being harmed, they are
essentially doing it to themselves. If Iran wants the embargo lifted,
they need to modify their behavior.
So, undercover agents have a business card that says 'undercover agent'? If she didn't even work for the CIA, what was the fuss, let alone two court cases about?
That's a rather biased perspective. Iran would certainly not see it that way. The principle under discussion would not be something determined unilaterally, as you've just done above. The notion is that any nation should be able to force their laws on citizens of other nations, as they see fit. Thus, equivocation about who is ultimately responsible is irrelevant.
No - I took an absolute statement with no context and pointed out the absurdity of the absolutism.
I also pointed out that he almost certainly doesn't believe what he said.
Not if Iran passes a law outlawing it.
Remember - as long as it harms the other country, we're going to adhere to their laws.
Of course they can. You may question whether such a law is enforceable, but they certainly can pass such a law.
So, undercover agents have a business card that says 'undercover agent'? If she didn't even work for the CIA, what was the fuss, let alone two court cases about?
I didn't say she didn't work for the CIA. This isn't about whether or not
she worked for the CIA.
What I am saying is that the law prohibits revealing the identity of
"covert agents." The legal definition of a covert agent requires that
they be working or had been recently working outside the United States.
Plame had not been working outside the U.S. for years. Also, she was
the mother of young twins (roughly four years old). It is not likely that
she had any upcoming assignments outside the U.S. Consequently,
she was likely not considered a covert agent
You mention all the "fuss" and "two court cases." Did you notice that
NOBODY was even charged with revealing the identity of a covert
agent in any of the brouhaha?
It is no such thing.
I don't see how they couldn't see it that way.
It's very straightforward.
They chose to thumb their noses at the international community.
They get an embargo.
Pretty simple. No bias whatsoever.
International communities rarely embargo countries. Its almost always a unilateral situation.
I don't like what you're doing. I place an embargo on you. You effectively have to curtail the behavior that I don't like if we're going to continue to do business.
So if you're, say, worshipping Boognish instead of Hephestus, that's a reason for an embargo right there.
I hope you can see the bias and, subsequently, the problem with your statement.
- Apr 1, 2000
- 17,405
- 9,845
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: Roscoe Guitars, DR Strings, Aguilar Amplification
You are totally misrepresenting what I said. I'm not saying I agree or disagree, or stating how things should work. I simply stated that if you steal information (or technology) from a country, you can be prosecuted by that country.
Now stop putting words in my mouth.
in response to
is what you said. That leaves a broad range for inference, to be fair.
No, I'm pointing out the actual meaning of what you said.
It may not be what you meant, or intended - but it agrees exactly with what you said.
If you steal from a country, and your country agrees with that country, and your country has extradition treaties... You might be able to be prosecuted by that country.
