Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What is really happening in Ukraine

slideshare.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 324 posts

Re: What is really happening in Ukraine

#281

Post by lhgaghl »

aestra wrote: post #261
lhgaghl wrote: post #121

Can't watch any of the videos linked because youtube asks me to sign in to prove my age. And to sign up, it asks for cell phone number to send an SMS to verify. Perhaps because I use tor. Anyone have a usable source? If you have the viewtube greasemonkey plugin, you can download the video from youtube and upload it somewhere else (e.g mediafire, zippyshare). Would be good if someone does that.

In the video link, where it says www.youtube.com/blahblahblha just replace the youtube.com part with pwnyoutube.com and leave the rest of the link the same. So this new link will be www.pwnyoutube.com/blahblahblha From there there's a few links to watch the video without logging in - clean viewer or loop or full page or to download the video.

Oh, I used to use that site until it needed Java. Now it has alternatives so I can use it again, thanks!

Re: What is really happening in Ukraine

#282

Post by nate_meurer »

tptacek wrote: post #274
nate_meurer wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With all due respect Thomas, you have completely missed the point. The executive branch (Bush and Obama both) have taken unto themselves the roles of judge and jury. This doctrine says that president alone gets to decide the definition of "war", the location of the "war zone", and the guilt of the presumptive defendants. No trial needed. And the penalty is death. That this particular case seems obvious to you, should…

And this was untrue of World War 2 how?

WW2 was a declared war, with uniformed soldiers, citizens of foreign nations. What does WW2 have to do with Al Awlaki?

Am I misunderstanding your question?

Re: What is really happening in Ukraine

#284

Post by tptacek »

nate_meurer wrote: post #282
tptacek wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this was untrue of World War 2 how?

WW2 was a declared war, with uniformed soldiers, citizens of foreign nations. What does WW2 have to do with Al Awlaki? Am I misunderstanding your question?

The war against al Qaeda was a declared war. al Qaeda is specifically called out in the 2001 AUMF. Nobody in al Qaeda wears a uniform; they deliberately avoid them, to maximize the probability that their opponents will kill innocent civilians. And, we killed Americans fighting for the Nazis during WW2.

Re: What is really happening in Ukraine

#285

Post by rayiner »

nate_meurer wrote: post #264
tptacek wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A trial in absentia would have been preferable to a fiat killing, but the end result would have been the same. The US had no means of apprehending al-Awlaki because he had situated himself in a war zone controlled by AQAP. The trial would have concluded, and the US would have faced the same 3 choices. You make a good point, but not one that fundamentally changed the options on the ground.

With all due respect Thomas, you have completely missed the point. The executive branch (Bush and Obama both) have taken unto themselves the roles of judge and jury. This doctrine says that president alone gets to decide the definition of "war", the location of the "war zone", and the guilt of the presumptive defendants. No trial needed. And the penalty is death. That this particular case seems obvious to you, should…

The doctrine does not say that the President alone gets to decide the definition of war and the location of the war zone. What's war and what is crime can be fuzzy at the edges, but it's not something courts have hesitated to tackle, and at the end of the day is subject to a simple rule of thumb: if the attack originates from within, it's a crime, and if it originates from outside, it's an act of war.

Note the case of Nidal Malik Hasan, who was in contact with Al Awlaki before he killed 13 people at Fort Hood. The Department of Defense classified it as "workplace violence" rather than an act of terrorism, and it was absolutely the right call. The evidence showed that Hasan acted alone, and not at the direction of some external organization.

Re: What is really happening in Ukraine

#286

Post by ctdonath »

jhuckestein wrote: post #192
tptacek wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I shouldn't indulge these unproductive subthreads, but I have mild nerd autism and am easily trolled. It's my experience that people who bring up Anwar al-Awlaki and his son --- particularly when using the term "US citizen" in the same breath --- rarely know anything specific about what actually happened. To start with, al-Awlaki and his son Abdulrahman weren't killed together, but at separate times. Abdulrahman was…

I agree with you that citizenship should not protect you from the consequences of your actions. Even so, I don't understand how a targeted drone strike in Yemen is an acceptable choice for the USG, regardless of who is killed. Would it be okay for another country to conduct such drone strikes on US soil? If not, which countries are allowed do do such things, and where, and why? How can you prove that lives were saved…

"OK" and "allowed" in this context practically refers to whether and what the host/target country will do about it. If that's "nothing" or very close thereto, then by Law Of The Jungle (which is the nature of military action) the answer is "yes". If that's "the perpetrators will be hunted down & killed, and the presiding government overthrown, and maybe another country's government will also get overthrown while we're at it", then the answer is "no".

The point of military action is that all other viable diplomatic options have been exhausted, and something must be done to stop an avowed enemy. We're not going to sit around waiting for known terrorists to carry out successful attacks on innocents before doing something to stop them. "Reflective contemplation is not required in the presence of an upraised knife." Once such military action is deemed necessary, the question then is whether a single drone destroying a few rooms and their occupants with zero direct risk to US troops is (or isn't) preferable to destroying several city blocks (at minimum) and their occupants with significant risk to our personnel. You demand proof, but only from a position of prejudiciously rejecting any given.

Re: What is really happening in Ukraine

#287

Post by macspoofing »

stargazer-3 wrote: post #43
mitchelllc wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yanukovich refused to sign EU association in November. I am wondering if the EU association was approved by most of Ukrainian through voting (or other ways), and Yanukovich disobeyed the voting results.

Association pact is a purely economical agreement that is mediated by governments only. So no, he did not violate anything. However, 42% of the population supports European integration, while only 31% wants to join the Customs Union, seen as USSR v2.0

Those numbers show a divided country (on this issue). 42% is nothing to sneeze at but it shows the majority is either ambivalent or against. Given those circumstances, it's reasonable for a government to choose not to sign the pact.

Re: What is really happening in Ukraine

#288

Post by strlen »

Igor_TN wrote: post #19

I also grew up in central Ukraine and have my close relatives there. As much as I despise the current government, I must say that this "beautifully done" presentation is completely one-sided, unbalanced, and manipulates with both real and made-up facts. And, this is always non-constructive and even dangerous. The situation is much more complicated. I am really afraid that this is going closer and closer towards a civ…

It is definitely one sided and propaganda, but it's better than absolute lack of information I am seeing in the West. I think scenario you mention here will happen only if the rest of Europe chooses to ignore and waive their hands.

Re: What is really happening in Ukraine

#289

Post by tptacek »

ctdonath wrote: post #286
jhuckestein wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you that citizenship should not protect you from the consequences of your actions. Even so, I don't understand how a targeted drone strike in Yemen is an acceptable choice for the USG, regardless of who is killed. Would it be okay for another country to conduct such drone strikes on US soil? If not, which countries are allowed do do such things, and where, and why? How can you prove that lives were saved…

"OK" and "allowed" in this context practically refers to whether and what the host/target country will do about it. If that's "nothing" or very close thereto, then by Law Of The Jungle (which is the nature of military action) the answer is "yes". If that's "the perpetrators will be hunted down & killed, and the presiding government overthrown, and maybe another country's government will also get overthrown while we'r…

FWIW: The "upraised knife" quote is Oliver Wendell Holmes, in Brown v US, and goes "Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife." This is Holmes rejecting the idea that a defendant invoking self defense must carefully reason whether he can safely flee, rather than employing deadly force.

Re: What is really happening in Ukraine

#290

Post by tptacek »

rayiner wrote: post #285
nate_meurer wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With all due respect Thomas, you have completely missed the point. The executive branch (Bush and Obama both) have taken unto themselves the roles of judge and jury. This doctrine says that president alone gets to decide the definition of "war", the location of the "war zone", and the guilt of the presumptive defendants. No trial needed. And the penalty is death. That this particular case seems obvious to you, should…

The doctrine does not say that the President alone gets to decide the definition of war and the location of the war zone. What's war and what is crime can be fuzzy at the edges, but it's not something courts have hesitated to tackle, and at the end of the day is subject to a simple rule of thumb: if the attack originates from within, it's a crime, and if it originates from outside, it's an act of war. Note the case o…

Worth noting that al-Awlaki himself took credit for Hassan's rampage.
Post reply on HN