Re: Should America/NATO support Syrian resistance the way it did in Libya?

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Jun 11, 2013 5:43 pm

I may have got something wrong but doesnt it contradict the constituition with regards to warrants and probable cause?
If they get the suspicion from trawling emails and phones, then apply for the warrant to target them specifically, surely the first part is illegal?

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Jun 11, 2013 5:45 pm

Besides Americans got off light with Obama's reassurance- our government gave us "if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear' as the 'reassurance'.
The cry of despots and dictators throughout history. pale

by Mrs Figg Tue Jun 11, 2013 6:06 pm

David H wrote:That argument is perilously close to "He's on our team, so we have to defend him, right or wrong."

This man was trained for very specific rules of engagement. He was NOT trained to murder little children in front of their unarmed families, and then desecrate their bodies.

I'm not trying to vilify Sgt. Bales, but if we are talking about justice the points of view of the victims need to be a major part of the discussion. Otherwise we make a mockery of the term.

If justice was the goal, once his guilt was determined Sgt Bales should have been turned over to the local community for punishment. Isn't that what we all expect of justice?

I agree Dave, even in war there are rules of combat, Geneva Convention and all that stuff, I think soldiers have codes of conduct towards civilians, even though they are sent to a country to do a messy job for governments, they are not unthinking vicious killers but highly trained people, there to also enforce peace, its a complex situation.

by David H Tue Jun 11, 2013 6:09 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I may have got something wrong but doesnt it contradict the constituition with regards to warrants and probable cause?
If they get the suspicion from trawling emails and phones, then apply for the warrant to target them specifically, surely the first part is illegal?

Nobody really knows where the law stands. All the 4th amendment says is:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It's not clear if or how "persons, houses, papers and effects" covers electronic communications. There's an argument that once you have gone through a 3rd party like a phone company or internet provider your communication has left your house or person as if you had spoken in public. Then it doesn't require a warrant and "probable cause" never comes into play. Of course there many who argue that it does apply.

The truth is that the world has fundamentally changed since the laws were written. Slander, fraud, embezzlement, blackmail, burglary and pretty much any nonviolent crime you can name is now being committed in cyberspace more than in real life, and wars are starting to be fought there. But there are still now laws. That's going to change eventually. It's got to. But till then it's going to be the wild west, and our governments are all trying to make sure they have the fastest gunmen.

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Jun 11, 2013 6:33 pm

I dont know- the general spirit of the 4th Amendment seems pretty clear. Emails between people are modern letters, private correspondence between two people.

by Eldorion Tue Jun 11, 2013 6:39 pm

Ally wrote:Well the United States being the United States, it ignores the authority of most International organisations.

It's not like the International Criminal Court is interested in prosecuting white people anyway.

by Ally Tue Jun 11, 2013 11:03 pm

That's the UN's International Criminal Tribunal's job. Nod

#keeponrockinginafreeworld

by Ally Tue Jun 11, 2013 11:08 pm

Wait, is that Keep on Rocking in a Free World or Keep on Rocking in the Free World?

Ugh lemme check.

by Ally Tue Jun 11, 2013 11:10 pm

UGH, drat, it is Keep on Rocking in the Free World,

by Ally Tue Jun 11, 2013 11:10 pm

#keeponrockinginthefreeworld

by Ally Tue Jun 11, 2013 11:13 pm

I really should be moderating myself here.

by Eldorion Wed Jun 12, 2013 1:09 am

ADMINISTRATORS!

by Mrs Figg Mon Jun 17, 2013 12:22 pm

this situation in Turkey is really making me angry. the bastards are spraying people with acid.

by Lancebloke Wed Aug 28, 2013 7:49 am

So... looks like we are going to get dragged in to this one then.

While the 'irrefutable' proof is a somewhat hard to believe claim after Iraq... what do people think if these chemical weapon attacks are actually true? Should we go in with the objective of putting off further attacks of that sort? Does that mean we are giving the ok for mass slaughter using machetes instead? Should we go all in and invade or should we just let the innocents (which most are) die without ever having a chance?

by Eldorion Wed Aug 28, 2013 7:59 am

I have two questions when it comes to the idea of intervention in Syria:

1. Has any independent observer weighed in on whether the government or the rebels used chemical weapons?

2. What makes this situation different from, y'know, every other attempt by the US (or other Western countries) to military intervene in another country's civil war? We have an incredibly miserable track record when it comes to this sort of thing working out in the long run.

by Pettytyrant101 Wed Aug 28, 2013 8:50 am

The use of chemical weapons is a line we want to keep a lid on to prevent their use becoming common in conflicts- that I understand - regardless of which side uses them.
We dont have this view when people are raped to death, tortured to death, beheaded ect possibly because they already are norms of war and we dont want to add chemical attacks to that list.

As to the West's miserable track record in intervention n other peoples civil wars- thats very true- but then the alternative is to sit back and watch innocents slaughtered by someone who when the dust settles is not going to do us any favours.

And we have a better track record at this sort of thing than at trying to force change from without- I dont see a huge difference in type of problem between Syria and what was Yugoslavia- and I think a similar UN approach needs to be taken.

by Eldorion Wed Aug 28, 2013 9:20 am

Kosovo was an unusual situation for a lot of reasons. The Syria situation is more reminiscent of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and countless other examples where Western intervention made things worse. Even if the recent chemical attacks were carried out by the Assad government, the Syrian rebels have already demonstrated that there are plenty among their ranks who are similarly despicable.

If there's one reason that the US really should have learned from its Middle East misadventures so far, it's that the enemy of my enemy is very rarely my friend.

by Pettytyrant101 Wed Aug 28, 2013 9:27 am

But as a human being is there not a basic obligation to hep those you can see are suffering innocently?
An obligation to our fellow humans not to turn our back and pretend we cant hear them crying out for help?

As always with wars the active participants are small in number compared to those it effects.
Its not either side we should be reaching out for, its the ordinary folks who just want normal life, to live in peace, to raise their family in safety.
Not those drenched in blood on both sides and heads full of ideology.

by Eldorion Wed Aug 28, 2013 9:57 am

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Its not either side we should be reaching out for, its the ordinary folks who just want normal life, to live in peace, to raise their family in safety.
Not those drenched in blood on both sides and heads full of ideology.

That's not really possible, though. We've moved on from the days of permanently occupying and colonizing countries (thankfully, since that came with horrifying human costs), but that means that formerly colonial countries have to establish political systems that can function and be stable on their own. That means that any intervening foreign power has to work with some faction within the country, and there aren't any clean factions in Syria (or many other cases). Military intervention stands the chance of ending the war early*, but it results in an even less stable situation 5-10 years down the line. It breeds resentment from many who live in the country and consider themselves to have been invaded. Even those who are not partisans will often resent the violation of their country's sovereignty (look at Iraq and Afghanistan for two stand-out recent examples). The defeated factions also stick around and eventually come back to resume the fight with added support because they can paint themselves as fighting against aggressors (again, Afghanistan is a prime example; we swept through the nation in a matter of months in 2001 but the Taliban today is as strong as it ever was and the ongoing war brings with it plenty of human loss).

* Although in Syria's case, it would probably end sooner if the rest of the world stays out and Assad continues as he is beating the rebels even though they enjoy international assistance.

The best case scenario for Syria (and, generally speaking, other countries suffering from civil wars) is for the war to end on their own terms and for a Syrian-run government to take control -- without being dependent on foreign militaries to prop it up. Given the factions currently fighting, the government after the civil war is probably not going to be a nice one, whether it has support from the West or not. The only alternative, though, is a full-scale foreign invasion to set up an occupation government to last until the country is "ready for democracy". I really hope that I don't have to point out why that's a bad idea.

by Pettytyrant101 Wed Aug 28, 2013 10:11 am

thankfully, since that came with horrifying human costs- Eldo

Actually not always, some colonised countries moved to their own stable governments following the departure of Empire.
India is a good example of a mixed bag outcome- the cost in lives during certain part of Empire was appaling, as too the treatment of many, many people.
However modern India today is built on a raft of British institutions which they kept as the basis of their own stable government- whether that was the transport infrastructure, or the police force, or the post office.

I think the lesson to be learned there is if you do go into someone else's country the first thing you have to do once you've got it is to maintain and provide stable institutions.
Arguably the single bigggest catastrophic tactical failure of the war in Iraq was disbanding the civil service, the police ,the army ect so that the country no longer functioned- this puts hardship on the very people you need to be backing you up as liberators and turns them against you.

by Eldorion Wed Aug 28, 2013 10:13 am

Yes, some colonies made out better than others after independence (and British colonies seem to have done better overall, largely due to the British bothering to build institutions while they were there), but I'd rather stay out of the colonialism game from the beginning and get to skip all the oppression and hundreds of thousands if not millions of deaths that go with it.

by **Orwell** Wed Aug 28, 2013 10:15 am

The first casualty of war is the truth. Were their chemicals attack? If so, was it the Syrian Government, or the Opposition (whichever Party of the Opposition that might) making it look like the Government? And who were the victims btw? Muslims, Christians, Jews, Secularists... who?

by **Orwell** Wed Aug 28, 2013 10:17 am

Ummmmm.... who are te Opposition? There appear to many btw, Oppositions that is. Who are they and how many Oppositions are there?

by Eldorion Wed Aug 28, 2013 10:26 am

Orwell wrote:The first casualty of war is the truth. Were their chemicals attack? If so, was it the Syrian Government, or the Opposition (whichever Party of the Opposition that might) making it look like the Government? And who were the victims btw? Muslims, Christians, Jews, Secularists... who?

Not much is known, although the US government is insistent that it was a chemical weapons attack by the Assad government. Huffington Post UK has an interesting write-up of the situation. Reuters also reports that UN investigators believe a previous chemical attack was carried out by rebels (while the US claim the opposite).

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/charles-shoebridge/syria-chemical-weapons-us_b_3443185.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/05/us-syria-crisis-un-idUSBRE94409Z20130505

Orwell wrote:Ummmmm.... who are te Opposition? There appear to many btw, Oppositions that is. Who are they and how many Oppositions are there?

There are a lot of factions, but most of them are Islamist, meaning they want to institute a religious state. Some of them more moderate than others, and then some of them are loosely affiliated with al-Qaeda.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/05/daily-chart-12

by Mrs Figg Wed Aug 28, 2013 10:54 am

I think the West should only get involved to give a strong message to whoever used the chemical weapons to never do it again or face reprisal.