Live data from Hacker News

The Drone Papers

theintercept.com

161–170 of 226 posts

Re: The Drone Papers

#161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obama talks about military issues all the time. He talked about them today, explaining why he's decided not to withdraw troops from Afghanistan for the time being (meaning during his tenure). To expect him to talk about the issues you care most about to the exclusion of all others is simply childish. It's the rule of law. Get rid of due process, and evil is everywhere, or nowhere at all. The US is, by law, engaged in…

> there are other actors with geopolitical interests of their own who would cheerfully move in to fill the resulting vacuum So the argument for perpetual and unwinnable warfare is - if we don't someone else will? You think that's worth the live's of US service members and the inevitable collateral damage inflicted in war zones? I feel like I'm missing part of the picture. Personally, a better way of combating radical…

There are degrees of warfare, and the sort we are conducting at the moment is pretty mild compared to things like carpet-bombing Viet Nam ~50 years ago. I do favor a soft power strategy involving education and opportunity but civic societies are not things that come into being overnight, they can require decades or even centuries to take root. It would help, of course, if we didn't maintain alliances with semi-totalitarian states like Saudi Arabia.

On the other hand, I don't think that peace and enlightened democracy are necessarily the natural state of mankind - I favor Hobbes over Rousseau, and think the latter's glorification of primitive society rather facile, notwithstanding the fact that he meant well.

Re: The Drone Papers

#162
post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They attacked the hospital purposely, but (it is claimed) because their Afghan allies were taking fire from there, not because it was a hospital . Now if they (or anyone) bombed a hospital in order to lower morale and inconvenience enemies by preventing any medical activities from taking place, that would indicate a very different purpose.

If we are to believe the US government, they should release the recorded video from the AC-130 gunship so we can all make up our own minds.

I have no objection to their doing so, but it won't shed any light on the motivations of the people who ordered it into action.

Re: The Drone Papers

#163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is insane. By your logic: "I'm inclined to at least consider the possibility that the Russians are polluting American's precious bodily fluids because it suits their own interests..."

Leaking supposedly confidential information to the press is hardly a novel technique in espionage, or in any social context for that matter, eg feeding a juicy tale to the village gossip to embarrass a rival. Machiavelli made a systematic study of such techniques centuries ago. What do you find so insane about it?

What is insane to me, is the reasoning behind suggesting "X is beneficial to Russia. Therefore Russia is doing X" without producing a shred of evidence.

I am inclined to at least consider the possibility that you are a NSA/GCHQ agent[1] attempting to discredit and diminish the reputation of Snowden and Greenwald.

See what I did there?

1. https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

Re: The Drone Papers

#164
Some history and some facts about the U.S.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_interventions_of_the_...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_r...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_mili...

http://qz.com/374138/these-are-all-the-countries-where-the-u...

http://www.statista.com/statistics/262962/countries-with-the...

Re: The Drone Papers

#165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it obvious that the attack on the hospital wasn't purposeful? This article by associated press indicates that they attacked the hospital on purpose. http://bigstory.ap.org/urn:publicid:ap.org:5e20fcd92aee49e69... > Obama is trying to kill people to make the world better... I have no words for this. How a person can even entertain such thoughts is beyond me.

>Why is it obvious that the attack on the hospital wasn't purposeful? Because there is no motive. From the story you quote "It's unclear whether commanders who unleashed the AC-130 gunship on the hospital — killing at least 22 patients and hospital staff — were aware that the site was a hospital or knew about the allegations of possible enemy activity." What is more likely. The US suddenly decided to murder a bunch o…

[deleted]

Re: The Drone Papers

#166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Due process has no process in combat The problem with that attitude is how quickly the term "enemy combatant" will be (or was) redefined to mean 'any person we don't like'

That's just a slippery slope fallacy.

It's a description of what is already happening. But even the first step on that allegedly fallacious slope is an unacceptable one, so that's kind of moot.

Re: The Drone Papers

#167
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Nuremberg trials established that 'just obeying orders' is no excuse, that acting as the tool of another does not absolve a person. That doesn't mean the person giving the orders isn't at least as guilty as the person who carries them out.

That's right, but it does mean there is a totally valid distinction between "authorizing" killings, and carrying them out yourself. The top level comment is blurring lines that shouldn't need to be blurred.

A leader ordering murder is both a murderer and someone ordering murderer. Someone fulfilling that order is a murderer.

Usually, the general use of language tries to hide this. Presidents "order killings", and people "pull the trigger, but the orders come from elsewhere". Nobody involved feels like a murderer, opposed to all of them.

Re: The Drone Papers

#168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Due process has no process in combat The problem with that attitude is how quickly the term "enemy combatant" will be (or was) redefined to mean 'any person we don't like'

That's just a slippery slope fallacy.

Fallacy, eh? Remember when the DOJ had a secret interpretation[1] of Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act: A federal court and even the author of the Patriot Act itself have revealed that the meaning of “tangible things” was not quite as the NSA had interpreted it, and the massive data collection was not the purposed of the provision[2]

1. https://www.eff.org/foia/section-215-usa-patriot-act

2. http://www.purplepolitics.com/articles/LTKEbLaSxJrMo9cRj

Re: The Drone Papers

#169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First result on search https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.vivek.imei... Imei changing is trivial. But you are still on the same number. Now - to change numbers on the fly requires telco assistance. And some very very interesting toys.

This only changes the apparent IMEI at the OS level to mask oneself from apps that pry. The hardware is still using the same old IMEI as far as the phone company and SIGINT is concerned. This is not readily, or trivially, changeable.

I believe it was easier and possible in older phones. For example if you get an SL45 somewhere, I remember you had to flash your IMEI (or any IMEI) after the firmware change - otherwise it failed to register on the network. That would suggest it wasn't only as software level.

Re: The Drone Papers

#170
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shame? How about anger, or rage, or wrath? How about an inflexible demand to stop war crimes. No one wants to conduct a meaningful opposition because the American system will destroy them. We are ruled by fear.

What would you do to stop the war crimes committed by these very targets?

could you explain what your question means? Who do you mean by targets?
Post reply on HN