Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rictor on November 12, 2004, 07:23:29 am
-
Mordechai Vanunu arrested by Israel...again (//"http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/4002227.stm")
He served like 15 years in prison for revealing the existance of Israel's nuclear weapons back in the 80s, and they just released him a few months ago.
Now they arrested him again, despite the fact that anything he knows is 20 years out of date, and the fact that anything he had to say, he already said it back when he was first arrested.
Also, its very, very unlikely that he gave any information now, first of all because he said many time that he has no further wishes to give away any secrets, and also because he has no useful info, everything he knew, he leaked years ago.
But that didn't stop them from arresting him again.
Go figure.
-
The article says he spoke to journalists from the BBC, which is violating the terms of his release. That's probably why.
If they're that bent on locking him up again, they'll always find an excuse...
-
...:wtf:?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Now they arrested him again, despite the fact that anything he knows is 20 years out of date...
Don't be dense. 20-year-old information on nuclear weapons isn't out of date. How old do you think most of America's nuclear arsenal and associated equipment is? We're talking stuff from the early to mid-80's - the height of the Cold War.
Remember, nukes != computers. They don't get outdated 2 years after they come out. :rolletes:
-
True, and nukes own computers in another way as well: EMP - this pretty much scrambles everything that isn't valve-powered...
-
But the point is, everything he knows he has already told the world. He doesn't have any new information, unless you think someone has has been passing him nuclear secrets while he was in solitary confinment.
And have you actually read the BBC interview? Its just the standard questions, nothing even remotely secret or important. Don't you think he's suffered enough, he hasn't even done anything wrong this time (well, in my opinion, and much of the world's, he didn't do anything wrong the first time either, but from Israel's perspective I can see how they would be pissed).
-
It doesn't matter, if his release agreement said "Don't talk to any of the press.", then he shouldn't have talked to them. Sounds like his own fault.
-
So, you are obliged to do anything the government says, regardlss of whether it just? If something is unjust, I don't see how it can be legal (and vice versa).
-
You misunderstand his position, he was in prison. All he had to do to get out was to abide by an agreement that he signed saying he understood it. He didn't abide by part of that agreement so he went back to prison. I don't see how this is anyone's fault but his own.
As to why he was in prison in the first place, his act of disclosing classified information is traitorous. He's lucky they didn't kill him.
-
If you believe that Iran or North Korea have no right to conceal the existance of their nuclear weapons (not to mention the right to have them) then why can Israel keep their nukes secret?
Simple answer: they can't. They have no right to keep that secret, unless you believe that every nation has that right, which clearly you dont.
And also, you missed my point. Just because the government says such and such does not make it just. If the government said "after you are released from prison, you are not allowed to wear blue shirts for 1 year" that would quite clearly be bull****. The government has no right to keep a person from talking to anyone they want, its simply outside their authority.
And besides, he didn't reveal anything, because he had nothing to reveal.
Seriously, for a conservative, you sure do give the government a lot of power over its citizens. Remeber the good old days when conservatives used to mistrust thr govenrment, and favour individual liberties? Sadly, those says are no gone, and now the right favour an ncreasingly large and centralized government, not bound by the rule of law and able to oppress it citizens at will.
-
It's nothing more than violation of contract; he would've signed documents that would legally restrict him from revealing any information he was privy to during his tenure with the Israeli weapons programme. No doubt the penalties for breach of this agreement have been pursued to their fullest extent. If he couldn't keep his mouth shut as he agreed to do, he should never have signed on and should never have contributed to what he (now) had a moral objection to.
This has f*ck all to do with state oppression, every other civilized country would do the same to traitors.
-
Whistleblower. How is he different than any other, except that what he revealed was vastly more important for the safety of the world?
And I assume you don't support nations like Iran hiding their nuclear program, if it does indeed exist (unlikely), so tell me, how exactly are you not a hypocrite?
-
Iran hides there nuke program, they have the right, we have the right to demand they stop, if someone in Iran knows about the program and tells us he would be a trator to the current Iran government, we would love him, Iran and us are enemies wich is why he would be a trator and why we would like him, if Iran got ahold of him I would expect them to kill him and I wouldn't be *****ing at them for doing it, I would be *****ing at our government for not protecting him.
you sign an agreement and you break it you should expect to have to deal with the consequences.
-
Rictor, the point is that it wasn't public knowlede. I'm quite sure that the people in charge of every nation with anything resembling a grudge against, or interest in the affairs of, Israel certainly knew of the existence the the nukes. The public doesn't need to know that kind of thing, that is why we elect leaders(hopefully with a good moral code); to handle that kind of thing for the citizenry.
Also, let's consider why Israel would need nukes when their neighbors don't. Let's see, hmmm, could it have something to do with every nation at Israels borders wants it gone? If they were to coordinate an attack they could overwhelm the IDF with little effort. Israel's possesion of nukes is the only thing that prevents a genocidal war that would end with the destruction Isreal and the extermination of the resident Jews and Christians.
Also, with the disclosure of the existence of nukes in Israel, Vanunu made it a target for nuclear terrorism. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of civilian political groups who's stated purpose is the destruction of Israel. With the knowledge that Israel has nukes, they would feel that the stakes are raised and step up their efforts.
They don't understand the idea of a detterant, because they would have no qualms about using a weapon of such undeniable power and atrocity.
-
you know Ricky's gona tear that aprat right?
-
You're missing the point. Israeli nukes are no better for the world than Iranian nukes, in fact the case could be made that they are worse. Nukes threaten everyone, which means that anyone who bring information to the world about dangerous weapons is acting morally.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Rictor, the point is that it wasn't public knowlede. I'm quite sure that the people in charge of every nation with anything resembling a grudge against, or interest in the affairs of, Israel certainly knew of the existence the the nukes. The public doesn't need to know that kind of thing, that is why we elect leaders(hopefully with a good moral code); to handle that kind of thing for the citizenry.
Also, let's consider why Israel would need nukes when their neighbors don't. Let's see, hmmm, could it have something to do with every nation at Israels borders wants it gone? If they were to coordinate an attack they could overwhelm the IDF with little effort.
Also, with the disclosure of the existence of nukes in Israel, Vanunu made it a target for nuclear terrorism. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of civilian political groups who's stated purpose is the destruction of Israel. With the knowledge that Israel has nukes, they would feel that the stakes are raised and step up their efforts.
They don't understand the idea of a detterant, because they would have no qualms about using a weapon of such undeniable power and atrocity.
1. Once you says that "the public doesn't need to know" you are on a very slippery slope. These are public funds, which means that not only does the public have a right to know, they have a right to decide what to do with those funds. Secrecy is one of the central foundations of militarism and tyranny. The public does need to know, everything that the government does the public needs to know because the government must rule with the consent of the people and be accountable to them. If no one knows what the government is doing, you have tyranny.
2. You can't say that Iran has a desire to use nukes because you are not Iran. You can't claim that they would use them if they had them, or pass them on to people who would use them, because you have no information about this. What you do is you have in image of Iran (or whatever in your mind, as an evil, souless, theocratic hellspawn, and you derive all their supposed actions from that. No, they would not use nukes, because they're not ****ing idiots. They are not suicidial. No, whatever you may think, your enemies are not madmen, they are sane people. When has Iran even once threatened the US or Israel with nukes? When have they ever used nukes? Oh wait, thats right, no one has, except of course the good old US of A.
You have to use facts to back up your arguements. Iran has never shown a willingness to use nukes, only to aquire them, which under the circumstance is totally understandable. They're surrounded on both sides by US troops, and Israel right in the neighborhood (and needless to say, they have no great love for the Iranians). You claim that Saddam's non-existant WMD were an imminent threat to America, despite the fact that he never once showed any intent of attacking America. But Iran, oh no, they have no right to defend themselves, cause they're surrounded and their enemy has made it quite clear that they are willing to attack.
Israel's possesion of nukes is the only thing that prevents a genocidal war that would end with the destruction Isreal and the extermination of the resident Jews and Christians.
You need a heavy dose of reality my friend, Israel has the most powerful military in the region, not to mention the biggest guy on the block looking out for them.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Whistleblower. How is he different than any other, except that what he revealed was vastly more important for the safety of the world?
And I assume you don't support nations like Iran hiding their nuclear program, if it does indeed exist (unlikely), so tell me, how exactly are you not a hypocrite?
You assume too much; on a national level Iran can hide whatever the hell they want. That national law may not apply to other nations but that's an entirely different matter. The fact is that if you sign a contract or agreement legally restricting you from releasing information on whatever level about something you're privy to, you're liable to whatever penalties they can throw at you. I have no sympathy for this guy because he knew EXACTLY what he was getting into when he signed his 'whistleblower' rights away.
-
I'll say it again, morality wins over legality every time. People who disobey unjust laws are not doing anything wrong.
He did the world a big favour, at the expense of his nation's interests. Quite heroic if you ask me.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
I'll say it again, morality wins over legality every time. People who disobey unjust laws are not doing anything wrong.
Liberator would agree with you
-
You disagree with civil disobedience?
-
And he would be right. Despite what you may think, the vast majority of people have a very similar moral compass. Thats where laws are derived from. It is absurd that something which is moral can be illegal.
What it really comes down to here is, whats more important, the welfare of the world or the welfare of Israel (or any country). I do not support furthering one country's agenda at the expense of security for the whole world.
-
the welfare of you and your family, or the welfare or other people you don't know, many of wich (from your perspective) hate you and your family?
-
Israel should just get it over and kill this guy so i don't have to put up with rictor making threads about the guy every other month.
-
oh come on, that was once, like 6 months ago.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
I'll say it again, morality wins over legality every time. People who disobey unjust laws are not doing anything wrong.
Originally posted by Bobboau
Liberator would agree with you
In certain situations, yes I would. But what we're talking about bears no resemblence to civil disobedience. To get that information he had to have been "in the loop". To get "in the loop" he had to display certain aptitudes and attitudes in certain situations that showed the higher ups that he was worthy of being "in the loop". He betrayed them, and the Isreali people in general, by foreswearing his oath not to disclose any classified information he might have had.
Certain law are immoral, however I think you're speaking specifically about a certain court case involving abortion and trying to bait me. In my opinion, one court case should have no bearing on another. The whole idea that a court case decided 10, 20 or 100 years before a case taking place now is insane. A case should be decided based on the evidence provided and how it relates to standing law, not a similar case from some time previous. Roe vs. Wade should have no bearing on whether abortion is "legal". There has never been a law against it. Roe v. Wade's power comes from the threat of the precedent that it set up. It's not a law, judges can't make law. if they could we'd really be screwed.
-
I wasn't even alluding to abortion, I was just speaking in general.
also, the whistleblower principal doesn't exclude state secrets such as this. The concept is exactly the same: if you feel that your employer is acting in a harmful or immoral manner, and you choose to expose them, you can not be retaliated against.
-
(http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/wcower7.gif)
:lol:
-
Rictor, while whistle blowing is moral thing to do in certain situation (where you've fulfilled certain professional requirements), even when it's justified, you're still completely liable and not under any protection (except perhaps public outrage saving you).
This is made very clear in my professional training as an engineer; we have a duty to do our utmost to maintain our confidentiality while doing everything we can to convince our employers, management, contractees, etc., that there is an ethical or illegal problem in such situations.
Only once it is clear that it's not working should we then blow the whistle. Even then, there is no complete protection for a whistleblower.
HOWEVER, we are being distracted by something that has NOTHING to do with this current situation.
This is no longer a question of whistle-blowing. This is contract. The man signed an agreement not to talk to media in exchange for freedom. He broke his contractual terms. There was no excuse for such a breach. Therefore, arresting him is something that should follow.
-
It's inside Israeli borders, so it's under Israel law. If they want to bash his head in with big ****ing rocks because he littered, they're perfectly entitled to do so - until such a time as we are able to bomb the crap outta of them.
-
yes, however its on a technicality. Read the interview. They ask him completely non-threatening questions. It was harmless.
Also, the contract was clearly signed under coercion. I mean, sign or you stay in prison. Thats not very favourable conditions. Either he sign, or they keep him locked up, which they could continue to do indefinitely.
And I'm reffering partially to the initial arrest, which is what I mean when I say he should be considered a whistleblower. And if you think that politely asking the Israeli government (any government) to tell the world of their nuclear secrets, which they have gone to great lengths to hide, is realistic, well, you're kind of way off the mark.
-
The initial arrest has nothing to do with the current situation. It may be the cause of it, but it is not a factor in whether he should be arrested or not.
Regardless of whether it's "moral" (humanity) to do the whistle-blowing, nevertheless, he still committed treason. If he managed to get out of the country, good for him, but he did not, was arrested and put into jail.
In most nations, treason is punishable by execution. Even in Canada, where capital punishment is abolished, the law does not explicitly rule out capital punishment for high treason (although it is exceedingly unlikely to occur). It is the only crime in Canada you could be executed for.
He was put into jail for life. Whether or not this "coerced" him to sign the contract for his freedom, he could have been left to rot in there. He opted to sign and is obligated to follow the contract terms.
He was not only doing something illegal in that interview, he was also doing something MONUMENTALLY STUPID.
Furthermore, since he's not doing any whistle-blowing this time, there isn't even a moral excuse to do so. He should've just gone and lived quietly.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
yes, however its on a technicality. Read the interview. They ask him completely non-threatening questions. It was harmless.
-Irrelevant
Also, the contract was clearly signed under coercion. I mean, sign or you stay in prison. Thats not very favourable conditions. Either he sign, or they keep him locked up, which they could continue to do indefinitely.
-Irrelevant
And I'm reffering partially to the initial arrest, which is what I mean when I say he should be considered a whistleblower. And if you think that politely asking the Israeli government (any government) to tell the world of their nuclear secrets, which they have gone to great lengths to hide, is realistic, well, you're kind of way off the mark.
-Irrelevant
-
Ah, short, succinct and to the point. :D
My long explanations tend to obfuscate the point.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
(http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/wcower7.gif)
:lol:
you know i wanted to post that as well
-
Originally posted by Rictor
I'll say it again, morality wins over legality every time. People who disobey unjust laws are not doing anything wrong.
He did the world a big favour, at the expense of his nation's interests. Quite heroic if you ask me.
Sorry but no. If everyone acted according to their so-called superior moral compasses you'd have anarchy. Personally I'd find it quite acceptable to go out and hang all convicted serial murderers but the law prevents that. So does it prevent people who think children can be turned into punching bags from abusing them. The law might be unfavourable in some cases, but it largely represents the majority view of morality in them, and going above or below it represents a dangerous precedent for anyone.
Aside from this how exactly is he a hero? How did the world really benefit from this knowledge?
-
It just occured to me how many of you would fit into a perfect Orwellian society.
-
Originally posted by SadisticSid
Aside from this how exactly is he a hero? How did the world really benefit from this knowledge?
Everyone benefited from the knowledge that Israel can kick their "friends" collective assess any day so they shouldn’t attack. :lol:
But of course Israel proved in 4 or so wars that she didn’t need nukes to do that. :rolleyes::yes:
Ric if it was an unjust law why did he sign? You think asking a traitor not to approach the press and talk to them after his release is an unimaginable request?! He agreed to the terms therefore even if he disagrees with the policy he is under obligation to follow that or knowingly face the consequences.
I don’t think anyone realizes the full volatility of the information he carries. Revealing the simple design layout of Dimona or any of the 9or so facilities around the country that are part of the production of nuclear stuffs could be catastrophic alone.
Basically you are supporting anybody in any country (because there is no country in the world without military secrets I guarantee you) to come forth and start spilling all the critical information to the world press. One word: chaos. :shaking: :doubt:
-
That would work in a world where we could trust our governments splinter, the problem is you can't trust your government and the people who may one day run it not to use these weapons or the laws against speaking out about them against someone trying to stop an injustice.
-
Originally posted by vyper
That would work in a world where we could trust our governments splinter, the problem is you can't trust your government and the people who may one day run it not to use these weapons or the laws against speaking out about them against someone trying to stop an injustice.
your right trust is what counts and even though no one in the world is trustworthy with weapons of this magnitutde there are some who are more trustworthy then others IE America over Iran :lol:
And for the time being the use of Israeli nukes has never been seriously considered (yes that thing in the beggining of "sum of all fears" was made up) but are being used strictly as a deterent for our enemies who cant seem to keep thier dirty hands off us and let us live like anyone else to simply exist. So for now I would support Israel having nukes galore.
-
But Israel is an evil regime....
-
But we must apply an equal standard to all, thats the very basis of a society of law and justice.
You have to use facts, not your imagination, in determining who is trustworthy and who is not. Iran (as an Islamic State) has AFAIK not once ever attacked a foreign nation. Not once. Iraq actually started the Iran-Iraq war by invading, so that doesn't count.
Now, lets look at the US. Starting from the present day and working backwards, we have: Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Desert Storm, Grenada, Nicaragua, Lebanon, the Bay of Pig, Cambodia, Vietnam, Korea etc etc.
And this is not counting the various proxy wars (Afghanistan in the 80s, Columbia) or support for genocidal wars (Indonesia) or coup d'etats (Venezuela, Haiti, Georgia, Chile, Iran, Guatemala etc) I'm sure I'm forgetting some, but this seems like plenty.
I have no reason at all to believe that Iran would attack another country, much less use nukes, because they have not shown any signs of external agression (not counting internal repression which I by no means support).
So, who do you trust more, a nation who in its current incarnation (and to the best of my knowledge, all previous incarnations) has been peaceful, or a nation who can't go 5 years without starting a war?
edit: the only agression I can think of is the taking of the hostages, who were later released and in any case, you have to expect some retribution after decades of the Shah's rule. Also, considering how Reagan & Co worked to prolong the suffering of the hostages for their own gain, I wouldn't exactly say all you Bushies have the moral high-ground.
-
All that is well and good Rictor, but you forget that individuals within governments can act on their own without official sanction. If Iran gets nukes, you can guarantee that shortly thereafter, Islamic terror organizations will have access to them. It's chicken & egg time, my friend, and the chicken must be prevented from laying that egg.
-
How is that different from the US weapons industry from dictating American policy?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
I have no reason at all to believe that Iran would attack another country, much less use nukes, because they have not shown any signs of external agression (not counting internal repression which I by no means support).
They have shown plenty of outside agression especially against Israel but they havnt acted on it... directly YET. indirectly they have "sponsored" many things. :doubt:
And I do belive that just because one country isnt trustworthy enough not to have nukes dosnt mean they all are...
If you have a gun and your friend wants to check it out you trust him hes responsible... but if your kid or just some kid wants to... your not going to be stupid enough to give it to him.
-
so rictor, I'm guessing if some guy from North Korea were to run accross the border (assumeing this were remotely posable) and gave detailed information about the locations and defences of NK's nuclear program you'd consiter him a hero?
-
Originally posted by Liberator
All that is well and good Rictor, but you forget that individuals within governments can act on their own without official sanction. If Iran gets nukes, you can guarantee that shortly thereafter, Islamic terror organizations will have access to them. It's chicken & egg time, my friend, and the chicken must be prevented from laying that egg.
So by your logic it would be perfectly valid to annihilate the United States of America since they were the chicken to laid the egg of the current Iranian government, who then developed nuclear weapons, which then fell into the hands of terrorists.
Ohh wait, since the egg was already lain, I guess you're saying it'd be valid for me to build a time machine and then blow up the US in the late '70s before the Shah was plopped back in :p
-
or the british...
-
Hey now we had our failures but I'd say we did pretty well with Canada and India.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
All that is well and good Rictor, but you forget that individuals within governments can act on their own without official sanction. If Iran gets nukes, you can guarantee that shortly thereafter, Islamic terror organizations will have access to them.
Eh? Where do you get this crap from?
How on earth are you sure that the Iran would give nukes to the terrorists any more likely than USA or Israel would?
I'm much more affraid of those countries having such weapons than any other country in the world..
-
What we'll do is go back in time and kill Abraham. That should sort all of this out, since no Abraham means no Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.
-
hell, just nuke Africa
-
Bah. Amateur.
I say we find replicator and pour acid on it. End of all life on Earth.
-
Iran is rather...unstable. They fund terrorist groups, it's actually in their government's budget if you care to look. They make dire threats against the United States and the West in general on a regular basis. They aren't progressive in any possible sense of the word. You can decry conservativism here in the US all you want, but we're nothing compared to a nation under the perversion of Islamic law that Iran subscribes to.
They have never attacked anyone primarily because they'd never win. Either they'd get locked in a war of attrition, they'd get trounced, or they would fight for worthless territory. They could hold against Iraq; they could not take Iraqi territory. To the north was once the Soviet Union, and one would have to have been well and truly mad to attack them, even though nothing there was really worth taking to there. To the west there was nothing worth taking as well.
As for being trustworthy, Iran has said much to the effect it's going to come and get us Western infidels...but they haven't. Not exactly a good record. On the other hand, under the Bush adminstration, when the US has said they're going to do something related to foreign policy, they've done it. That you don't like what has been done is immaterial. The truth is the US has a much better record of carrying out its promises.
-
Better an honorable enemy than a lying friend.
-
Question: The guy who shot off his yap about Israel's nuclear weapons program. What exactly did he disclose that was so bad? Just that they had a weapons program, or where they all are? More to the point, to whom?
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Vanunu
-
ionia:
AFAIK, just the existence and general number (if I recall correctly around [l]20[/l] 100 at the time). And who he revealed it to is pretty much the whole world, via some British paper, the Sunday Times I think.
edit: oops, make that a hundred.
-
Sandwich? That wikipedia article... er...
The arrest came three months after Vanunu said in an interview that Israel was behind the John F. Kennedy assassination. In the interview he had said the assassination was due to "pressure [Kennedy] exerted on then-head of government David Ben-Gurion to shed light on Dimona's nuclear reactor."
-
oh come on?!
Look, if claiming that Group X was involved in the Kennedy Assasination is grounds for inprisonment, you better start building a ****-load of new prisons for all those people running around with "I shot JFK tshirts". Its ridiculous.
I hereby claim that the Japanese government killed JFK. And the Italians too. And the Illuminati. So, I guess I'll be seeing you guys in a few decades, maybe less with good behaviour.
Israel is justing digging itself a deeper hole. When someone says "So-and-so shot JKF" and, instead of laughing at them, you imprison them, thats looks a bit suspicous, no? The only reason there would be retribution over that remark is if someone withi Israel took it seriously. By going afte Vanunu, Israel has actually given credibility to the theory. I mean...its JFK ffs, one of the most popular consipracy theories of all time.
-
Rictors right, if a guy says 'My government did this' and then that very government suddenly grabs them and locks them up, then I'm going to be very very inclined to believe him :)
-
Would explain why the american government covered it up too wouldn't it.
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Sandwich? That wikipedia article... er...
What, you think I actually read what I refer to? :p
-
Of course, these days they'd use a helicopter and an FFAR pod, just to be sure ;)
:nervous:
*runs!*