And you sound like his mother. You want him to get away with his crimes because what? He happened to run a company that released something someone else stole? That make sexual assault ok in your book?

Theres been no acting outside the law, except by Assange with the assault, breaking bail, fleeing justice etc. so i really dont see what breaking tradition youre complaining about.

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^thumpa28:
Why should the swedish government do anything more than stick to the extradition process? When has it become a part of the extradition process that the person being extradited sets out the terms of his extradition?
'but Assange is special!'
No, no he isnt, hes just another criminal in hiding. The fact he says he is and that you seriously think that it should affect whether or not he is brought to justice, makes me glad that we have in this country an independent judiciary who rely on more than the latest daily mail opinion for their decision making process.

You're absolutely right. They should stick to the process.
And when Ecuador decides that julian assange's application for asylum is valid and they want to honour it, we should respect that process too. To do anything else would be hypocritical, correct?
If sweden want assange so much, or if america want him so much; let them break diplomatic tradition. Why us? We probably invented half of the traditions for christ sake (i assume diplomacy was established in or before colonial times), if we can't stick to them then who will?
To me it sounds like you simply want assange's blood. Nothing you've said on this topic has made me think you're genuinely after justice. You sound like he's stolen money off you.

>> ^thumpa28:

Why should the swedish government do anything more than stick to the extradition process? When has it become a part of the extradition process that the person being extradited sets out the terms of his extradition?
'but Assange is special!'
No, no he isnt, hes just another criminal in hiding. The fact he says he is and that you seriously think that it should affect whether or not he is brought to justice, makes me glad that we have in this country an independent judiciary who rely on more than the latest daily mail opinion for their decision making process.


You're absolutely right. They should stick to the process.

And when Ecuador decides that julian assange's application for asylum is valid and they want to honour it, we should respect that process too. To do anything else would be hypocritical, correct?

If sweden want assange so much, or if america want him so much; let them break diplomatic tradition. Why us? We probably invented half of the traditions for christ sake (i assume diplomacy was established in or before colonial times), if we can't stick to them then who will?

To me it sounds like you simply want assange's blood. Nothing you've said on this topic has made me think you're genuinely after justice. You sound like he's stolen money off you.

no one ever said taxing the rich would solve the debt problem...nothing individually will solve the debt problem. It's a strawman argument.

taxing the rich is more about making those freeloaders pay their fair share and having a fair and just society. The wealthy have a bigger stake in gov't services far more than the average citizen ever will. That's why a progressive tax is the only fair way to go. The wealthy have far more at stake when it comes to gov't negotiating trade agreements and diplomacy. they rely on the military more to keep the seas safe for commerce. they have more to lose if the gov't doesn't invest in health care, infrastructure and education since that's where they get their labor force from.

toning down military spending would probably make the biggest impact on the budget. but it can't be just one thing.

Most of all, private money needs to be removed from elections..period. money is not free speech.

Bull fucking major shit, dude... what could the kid have been doing, except reacting to growing up in a situation where armed men are waiting to kick you? Maybe he was causing a little trouble, maybe some graffiti... so lets turn him into a suicide bomber and then take his parents land and claim to know nothing about the origin of the threat? Nothing about this scene is acceptable. Do you accept this behavior from a US soldier against any child?? Then why the military that we almost exclusively fund?

This is a systematic problem, and the Israeli's immediate "they'd do it to us" excuse that makes nearly everyone non-arab turn a blind eye, is quite reminiscent of the governmental situation which ultimately led to the creation of "their" state. You can't spell Nazi or Zionism without a "Z". Different means to the same end: Racial purity of the chosen people.

How fucking twisted and no one can say anything about the emperor being naked without being anti-Semitic, which is itself a misappropriated term which does not mean Jewish or Israeli but refers to language origins. Arabs are Semitic, too.

Pretty obvious letting people just make up rules based on no logic leaves no room for diplomacy. None. Why bother when you can shoot and kick your way to the promised land? The whole middle east should be a DMZ, no one there is doing anything with weapons defensively.

I genuinely applaud their effort, but this is such a complex situation that a video with some random nice but clueless people saying "we don't hate you" can't even begin to deal with the problem.

United States needs to step the fuck back and let them sort it out among themselves, preferably with diplomacy.

Shineyblurry, let's imagine for a moment that you're 100% correct and that overpopulation is a myth. It fits nicely with the bible telling us to be fruitful and multiply, so let's throw caution to the wind, avoid the use any contraception and reproduce as vigorously as possible.

You must see that there will be a limit.

If planned, deliberate population control isn't addressed it's very simple math to reason out the end result of exponential growth.

Once you can admit that the problem is inevitable, then it's really just a question of how far you want to push ahead our reaction to do something about it.

How near to the point of no return, how close to catastrophe, for the entire human species, are you willing to get?


Oh, and as far as this video specifically, it seems irresponsible to say that overpopulation isn't really an issue as long as we simply sort out all of the problems of capitalism, diplomacy, and how humans interact with one another on every level.

Shelving what Christian and Jewish nations say about what about what i means to be an islamic nation...

Iran probably wouldn't attack Israel because it's mutually assured destruction.

However until they have nuclear weapons they have everything to fear from Israel for whom there would be no consequence from a unilateral strike.

also Israel's track record for choosing military action over diplomacy, coupled with a level of ultra-nationalism and nonsecular religious motivation...

From a secular / political standpoint, Iran seems like fish in a bucket until they are equally armed.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Deano:
>> ^Yogi:
I don't care.

I think that response is revealing. A pity, I'm just trying to converse rationally with you but clearly that isn't possible.

Because you're lying...you went straight from a threat to trying to be diplomatic? Nope sorry, we're done, I don't care anymore if you live or die.


There need to be boundaries to define what is acceptable and what is not. I've merely explained that strictly speaking you're breaking the rules and basically behaving like a dick.

And clearly diplomacy has never crossed your mind. Thanks for your kind words.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
I should have been clearer. He's not apologising, rather acting as an apologist. Sorry.
>> ^spoco2:
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
Weird to see Louis apologising for this sort of thing. I see no positive angle on Morgan's words, unfortunately.

He's not apologising for it. How did he apologise? He tried to explain it. He is trying to think where Tracy was coming from in saying that. He also said that it should have been a starting point for discussion, which is SO SHOULD have been (I missed this whole thing, but it certainly sounds like it should have)... having a non-accusatory, non-combative discussion about what led to him to make that joke, why he would have a problem with his son talking like that/ being that sort of gay person would have been great.
He never apologised, he just said it could have been handled better.



I agree. Because empathy, honesty, understanding and reason are approaches to conflict that need to be framed in more honest terms...as weakness.

Diplomacy is nothing more than surrendering to the opposition. The opposition that should be correctly labeled in dehumanizing terms, like "gay", "socialist", "terrorist".

Every conflict should be handled by busting down doors, guns blazing; shock and awe; give no ground to the enemy. Resolution only comes when the scapegoat is sacrificed and everyone walks away poliarized and with their pride in tact.

America! FUCK YEAH!!!

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^packo:
>> ^NetRunner:
There are two key questions that I think we should try to keep distinct here.
First, was this legal? Well, yes. This isn't a criminal matter, this is war. You don't put enemy forces on trial before you shoot them, you just shoot them. There are still limits on what you're allowed to do in war, but simply killing people is generally considered legal. Even targeting specific people providing aid and comfort to the enemy is not forbidden under the rules of war.
The other question is...should this be legal?
Well, I think the fact that declaring war on non-state organizations gives government latitude so wide that it becomes legal to engage in targeted killing of one of its own citizens is a pretty powerful reason to believe that it shouldn't be legal. An easy way to change the law to make it illegal would be to pass a resolution delcaring that AUMF against Al Qaeda null and void. Then this whole thing would revert to a matter of law enforcement, and not "national security".
The thing is, to prevent future Congresses from being able to declare war on non-state entities would require an amendment to the Constitution -- right now it just says Congress has the power to declare war, full stop. It doesn't say that they can't declare war on whatever entity they choose.
But I think people out there wanting to claim that it already is illegal simply haven't been paying attention.
politics

technically it isn't war because terrorists are not afforded the same rights as active participants in war... via the Geneva Convention for example
the burden of proof, and right to trial... are paramount in these times... when things are at their darkest, that's when upholding these value is MOST important (to point the finger at your opponent and say they aren't playing by the rules is quite CHILDISH, especially when you've went through such lengths to formalize the opinion in your citizens that the reason the enemy attacks is because they hate your freedoms/way of life
the problem with classifying people as terrorists and then assassinating them without any due process is that the "arguement" is made in the court of public opinion... usually by the media networks who are biased and lacking of journalistic integrity... if that's all you need to justify killing people, the arguement can QUICKLY/EASILY be made about ANYONE
the ONLY real, understandable reason I can contemplate would be putting these individuals to trial and making the proceedings available to the public would reveal many skeletons the US has in it's closet... but the validity and morality of this are another debate
as a religious text I don't believe in says (paraphrased)... how you treat the lowest of me, is how you treat all of me... this doesn't just equate to the poor/downtrodden... but to the most vile and unrepentant
holding your morality/standards to be so high compared to someone else means very little when you sacrifice them (irrespective of whether or not it is convenient or easy to do so)

You misunderstand.
It isn't war because America, or NATO or the west has declared war against the terrorists. That's not where this started. Your naive belief in that is what's tainting your understanding of this.
The Islamic Jihadists have openly declared and been waging war on us since long before the events of 9/11. The 'us' I refer to in this is not merely America, or the west, but anyone and everyone who is not themselves an Islamic fundamentalist as well.
You can fumble around all you want over reasons and 'proofs' that America is not really at war with the jihadists, but the reality is that THEY are at war with America. It is the very identity they have taken for themselves for pity sake. We've only been able to ignore it for so long because 90% of the casualties in this war have been middle eastern moderate muslims. Your ilk seem to want to claim sympathy for religious differences by allowing the status quo to continue were muslims get to continue to bear the full brunt of the jihadist war against us both. It's twisted and I detest it.


I never mentioned anything to the beginnings of hostilities.. you are making assumptions there. And with the government (multiple administrations) labelling these actions as the "WAR ON TERROR", by definition, they declared it war (even if they choose to not adhere to the rules of war)... the fact that they then went through the trouble (primarily for interrogation purposes) declared terrorists not covered by the Geneva Convention, and thus having no rights as war participants is what I was pointing out.

It's nitpicking, and childish to resort to a "who declared war on who" because if you want to get down to it, you are plainly ignoring western powers foreign diplomacy/intervention over the last 50+ years. There is many reasons why these fundamentalists are hostile... if "your way of life" actually makes the list, its not your love of fast food, miniskirts and women's rights... its how your way of life is subsidized through intervention in terms of their leadership, whether it be through installation of puppet/friendly regimes (no matter how oppressive/brutal) or through regime change or through economic hardships placed on nations who's leaders don't fall in line... let alone other issues such as Israel.

It's this police state mentality which garnered the West such a lovely reputation in the middle east... and as much as you'd love to point out it's for stability in the region, or so democracy can make inroads, or whatever other propaganda you happen to believe in... the truth is it has ALWAYS been about oil and oil money... not even in the interests of the western power's citizenry as much as for the oil lobbies.

Democracy and freedom are only ok as long as they fall in line with Western (particularly American) interest. If they were being honest it would be outfront there, plain as day the MAJOR issue there is ENERGY (and the money to be made from it).

So as much as you believe it is WESTERN nation's responsibility to solve problems (forcebly and usually without consent of those involved) in this manner, its EXACTLY this type of thinking that got us here. And if you honestly think we've only started meddling in the Middle East, you are naive (perhaps blind is a better word).

Extremism will only be defeated by the environment in the Middle East being such that it can't take root and grow. This will never be accomplished by force or political buggery.

You should stop playing cowboy's and indians, come back to reality, and start detesting the real issues at play here... not FOX TV political rhetoric.

All of the above doesn't even touch on the original point I made that if you are a US Citizen, you should be viewing the assasination of a US Citizen, at your government's sayso, without their providing ample reason (or any really) as to why he could not have been captured, with some foreboding... let alone the US government's denile of his family trying to get him legal representation etc...

If you want to hold yourself up as a shining beacon for the world to follow... when the going gets tough, better not falter or backup and do a complete 180, or all the preening and puffing you did early... it shines in a different light

What do they call that when 1 person (or entity) gets to decide what the laws are, at any given point in time, irrelevant as to what they may have been just a few moments earlier?

>> ^kymbos:

Why would you ring the head of another state to offer them a biscuit?


I don't know. 'cos their Sarah Palins neighbours?

OTOH maybe if international diplomacy always started with the generous offer of biscuitude the world wouldn't be so fucked up. Maybe that's the solution to the middle east?

Hey jews, we don't like you!
Yeah well, we're not too keen on you arab guys either!
That said, I do like biscuits.
Really? Me too! Also I don't like pork.
Wow, us too! Let's put this whole thing behind us, come round and we'll have pork free biscuits!

and thus was the world saved thanks to me.

You're welcome.

>> ^legacy0100:

I'm not sure if I've seen the same video. I gotta check my list.


You got this great vid: http://videosift.com/video/Emoticon-Diplomacy

I can't usually watch Pat because he likes to use the same tactics as Bill O'Reilly, where smugness is used like air freshener, and making people feel inferior is more the goal than the betterment of mankind. Many sift talks end up going in this sudo-intellectual, elitist route. Many have been consumed by its trollness, myself included. So before I get into what I want to say, I just want to say every conversation than ends up in draconian foot pounding here on the sift, even more so when I am the perpetrator, causes me weeks of anguish and usually sends me away for a week in trembling anguish for the loss of an opportunity to have real, meaningful conversation.

I like Pat's point, though, I think he muddles it a little; in the first half, he seems to rail against the notion that representative democracy works well, and in the second a rant about unelected representatives are destroying Ireland. Even so, I think the point of layers of democracy via representation seems to eliminate your representation through dilution. When you have a state, federal, continental, and world representative, it is hardly possible for your view of the world to be completely represented, or every fractionally. The policy of direct diplomacy had its failing, which was mob rule. I think an interesting problem that Pat is pointing out about representative democracy is very real...that you end up not having any representation because of the conflict between all the different levels. So while you got a vote a person into office, he wasn't the right person in the right office to affect the things that you wanted him to affect. A complicated maze where any change you want is impossible to get via a vote for your representative.

So for pure democracy, you get a direct voice that can get overruled by many shouting over your own. In representative, that same muddling happens when more and more systems of democracy are layered in. I would be interested to hear your opinion on this @dystopianfuturetoday. I think last time I dabbled in these waters I was called a fascist, trying to avoid a similar occurrence

I am not saying that representative democracy is systemically flawed absolutely, but has an undesirable entropy. I like trying to brain up better systems, it is how my brain works. Rep Dem has many benefits, though, some of the largest in the history of man...so trying to capture those same successes would be hard, but perhaps possible. Is there something better than Rep Dem...I surely hope so...lets vote on it!

>> ^kceaton1:

This could very well be true. I just want to hear i from his mouth. The fact that it's been an issue for months with nothing said or done is the ridiculous part. No stance can change that part.
Yes, the activists do not follow the logic well. I'll agree with that. But, I also don't like my government hiding as much information as it does. I understand militarily it may be needed, but almost everywhere else it's fear of repercussions in politics and people trying to manipulate others.


Agreed on all points. I'd like Obama to hold a press conference on Manning, and really take the bull by the horns. I also wish the press corps would hammer him about this constantly (though preferably in the fair "what's the hold up on giving him a trial" sense, not the straw man "why are you pronouncing his guilt prematurely" sense).

I think too much gets classified, but I think in the case of the state department e-mail, I think there's a lot of grey area there. In one sense, I don't think government leaders should be in the habit of having wildly divergent public & private conceptions of their policy. But given that such things are probably unavoidable, I'd like for diplomacy to be able to happen in both kinds of forums to maximize the ability for it to work.

For the most part, I think Wikileaks reminds us of what the value of a real press is -- it's to dig up the dirt the people in power are keeping secret to avoid accountability. I think without some sort of adversarial press, it's impossible for us to ever hold anyone in power accountable. It seems like in America, we don't really have a real investigative, journalistic press anymore.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^kceaton1:
Habeas Corpus is the thing bothering me a lot. The fact that Obama almost flippantly discarded the issue angers me. As it means that: one, he doesn't care for habeas corpus when it comes to those that he believes committed crimes, and two, he wants him to rot for what he did, or lastly, he doesn't know enough about the issue to make a smart comment/decision.

Well, look at the transcript again. For one, we don't know what the question was, but we know the full answer was:

No, no, but look, I can’t conduct diplomacy on an open source. That’s not how…the world works. If you’re in the military, and…I have to abide by certain classified information. If I was to release stuff, information that I’m not authorized to release, I’m breaking the law…We’re a nation of laws. We don’t individually make our own decisions about how the laws operate…
He broke the law.

Does that sound like he's responding to a question about Manning's case, or something along the lines of "You don't think the American people deserve the right to know what its government is doing?"
That kind of question presumes that Manning did what he's accused of, and makes the case that the law Manning broke shouldn't be there...to which Obama says "we can have a philosophical difference...but he broke the law." That's why my initial comment was "bad on the activists for making this about the moral value of what Manning did, and not about Manning's right to a trial". That's an argument to take to the public in defense of Wikileaks, not an argument to take to Obama out of concern for Bradley Manning's treatment.
Don't get me wrong, I love to see everyone so concerned about habeas corpus and the presumption of innocence and all that, but I think people are misrepresenting what Obama actually meant here. I can live with the professional spin doctors willfully misreading the context to draw attention to their various rags, but I expect people here to be a touch more grounded.


This could very well be true. I just want to hear i from his mouth. The fact that it's been an issue for months with nothing said or done is the ridiculous part. No stance can change that part.

Yes, the activists do not follow the logic well. I'll agree with that. But, I also don't like my government hiding as much information as it does. I understand militarily it may be needed, but almost everywhere else it's fear of repercussions in politics and people trying to manipulate others.