[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Gank
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=4898771

Don't think i was including **** in the 'sane' category, though.  

But, yeah....  the probelm comes when everyone has nukes - because it increases the likelihood of their use.  And once one nation has fired, the rest feel they can too......of course, the other problem is that when someone like the US starts chucking their weight about, it prompts nations to want nukes and WMD more - simply because it means they have (and they feel they need it) a viable threat to try and deter the Us, or indeed anyone else.

[Rictor]

Alright, lets get the "well within their rights" out of the way right now.

Yes, according to the letter of almost every law on the book, it was well within their rights to arrest Vanunu, even execute him. However, The Law is not the holiest of powers, morality overrules it.

If someting is moral but not legal, it OK. If something is legal but not moral, its not OK. A sovreign nation can make any law it damn well pleases. If Hitler had had a little piece of paper saying "it is legal to kill any Jew", would his actions have been alright?

It comes down to the welfare of one nation against the welfare of all the world. Having something as powerful as a nuke a secret, that endangers the whole world. And it is not the right of any nation to keep it a secret. Same thing with biological weapons or anything like that.

He broke the law, so he's a criminal. But that law is bull**** in the first place, so its doens't matter. If someone breaks a law to serve a higher purpose, he is not a criminal, but rather a hero (of a degree proportionate to the good that he accomplished). If someone murdered Stalin, yes he would be a murderer. But he would have a ccomplished a good greater than that of maintaining the integrity of the law.

[an0n]

Ah, if only you hadn't used the words 'higher purpose'.....

[Ghostavo]

If someting is moral but not legal, it OK. If something is legal but not moral, its not OK.

I think you mean the other way around.

:EDIT:
On second thought, having read it again, it is not OK in either case.

[Gank]

It was pretty much common knowledge Israel had nukes well before whats his face blew the whistle, they even tested one:
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Safrica/Vela.html

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Rictor
Alright, lets get the "well within their rights" out of the way right now.

Yes, according to the letter of almost every law on the book, it was well within their rights to arrest Vanunu, even execute him. However, The Law is not the holiest of powers, morality overrules it.

Actually, no. Morality, as has been discussed in many threads here, is anything but objective. The law is, in theory, objective and is actually binding. Shall we start to use morality as the basis for all our decision making? If so, remember who is in the White House right now, and the things his 'morality' says we should do.

He broke the law, so he's a criminal. But that law is bull**** in the first place, so its doens't matter. If someone breaks a law to serve a higher purpose, he is not a criminal, but rather a hero (of a degree proportionate to the good that he accomplished). If someone murdered Stalin, yes he would be a murderer. But he would have a ccomplished a good greater than that of maintaining the integrity of the law.

Its up to a court to decide if a law is bull****. Not you, not me. If I've got a problem with a law in my country, I get to challenge that law in court. I don't get to break that law willy-nilly and expect to get away with it.
Again, be careful of using 'for a higher purpose' as a criterion for deciding on the 'right' or 'wrong' of an issue. My idea of a 'higher purpose' and your idea of a 'higher purpose' probably don't match up, and neither of us match up with the leadership of certain countries I could (but won't) name.

Shall we just decide, then, that a 'higher purpose' is all we need to make something all right? That's pretty much offering an excuse for anyone to do anything and claim they've got a 'higher purpose'.

[Rictor]

Alright then, have it your way. The law is the ultimate power if and only if certain adjustments are made to make that system just and indicative of the will of the people.

From now on, no more sovreignty. We have a internation court to decide all maters of foreign policy for all countries. Ever person on the planet is offered a chance to vote on any issue that they want.

Its 1986, and Mordechai Vanunu has been captured and taken to Israel. Whether he is guilty or not is put to a worldwide vote, anyone who chooses to can vote. A certain number of people have to vote, otherwise the vote is null. 5 million people turn out, 2 millions from Israel and 3 millions from abroad. They vote, and 65% choose to free him. He goes free.

So long as one country can make legal or illegal anything that will affect any other country, the system doesn't work. Isreal can not decide to keep the nukes a secret, because they affect the whole world. Similarly, America can not make the invasion of Iraq legal, because that is not within its authority.

If **** (and a significant chunk of the American people) claims as his right to determine whether Country A can or can not develop nuclear weapons, surely the people of the world can claim as their right to detrmine this same thing.

[mikhael]

Unfortunately, you can't up and declare national sovereignty null and void.

You got a problem with how some other country handles things? Well tough. You don't get a say--and neither do I. You only get a say in how your own country handles things--and not even always then.

You're sitting there declaring to the world that the Israelis have to bow to your idea of morality and your idea of justice and fairness. Unless and until you're the guy in charge in Israel, its not going to happen. Back here in the real world, the Israelis, for however morally wrong they may have been, were in the legal right according to their own laws (and probably by the laws of most every other first world nation today).

[Sandwich]

From what I understand - and I freely admit that I haven't been following this Vanunu issue at all - it's not that he "revealed" the existance of Israel's nukes to the world. Everyone pretty much knew we had nukes, as Gank said. What I understand that Vanunu did was to reveal secrets about the program - I'd think such things as # of nukes, range, yield, etc.

Originally posted by Rictor
...someone will give this man the Nobel Peace Prize.

__________________________________________

'I Am Happy and Proud to Do What I Did'
 
by Mordechai Vanunu

...

I said Israel don't need nuclear especially now that all the Middle East is free from nuclear weapons, Iraq don't have a nuclear weapons, Libya ... Egypt. All the Middle East is free from nuclear weapons....

Israel needs nukes just like Vanunu needs bodyguards, to protect him via dissuasion and discouragement from the people all around him that want to kill him.

[Rictor]

*sigh*

I'm not talking about law. I'm talking about morality. And before you start yelling bull****, morality is not so random as you would have me believe. Give every person (over the age of say, 16) a list of questions to ascertain their moral standing. When 99% of them agree, we'll take that and call it morality.

I don't care about laws. I know whats right and whats wrong, laws are just that put to paper. Yes, there have been and will probably be more wackos with a perverted sense of morality. Hitler, Stalin, Kissinger. But they are few among very, very many. If I've got a pile of 1,000,000,000 shirts, and they're all blue, except for 20 that are red, I can safely say that "These shirts are blue". This is humanity, not math. Nothing if absolute, nothing is certain. But humanity works by degrees, in moderation. To elect a President, you don't need 100% votes, you need like 60%. There will never we consensus, but we can come close. More people agree on the principles of morality than will ever agree on a leader, or a policy. If it works for politics, why not here.

Again, laws are worthless if they are deemed to be immoral. You can't not legalize killing, rape, theft. If Paul Martin (Canadian PM) made a law tommorow that legalized murder, you would not be wrong to ignore it. This matter was *not* Israeli internal policy, but rather foreign policy. Obviously, they weren't going to use the nuke against their own people, so its foreign policy.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Sandwich
From what I understand - and I freely admit that I haven't been following this Vanunu issue at all - it's not that he "revealed" the existance of Israel's nukes to the world. Everyone pretty much knew we had nukes, as Gank said. What I understand that Vanunu did was to reveal secrets about the program - I'd think such things as # of nukes, range, yield, etc.



Israel needs nukes just like Vanunu needs bodyguards, to protect him via dissuasion and discouragement from the people all around him that want to kill him.

Range, yield, number...thats all vague enough not to detract from the effectiveness of the nukes were it to come to that.

I agree that Israel has the right to have nukes. Just not the right to keep it secret. Every country has equal right to possess weapons, barring special cases. A special case might be if the whole world agrees that the leadership of said country would not use the weapons responsibly. I mean, something akin to the North Korea situation, though even they wouldn't use nukes. Like that, only more drastic.

[mikhael]

The world isn't a democracy. Get over it.

[Rictor]

But that does not mean that we shouldn't strive every day to make it one. If you want any kind of improvement, progress, evolution, you can't be satisfied with current conditions.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Rictor


Range, yield, number...thats all vague enough not to detract from the effectiveness of the nukes were it to come to that.

I agree that Israel has the right to have nukes. Just not the right to keep it secret. Every country has equal right to possess weapons, barring special cases. A special case might be if the whole world agrees that the leadership of said country would not use the weapons responsibly. I mean, something akin to the North Korea situation, though even they wouldn't use nukes. Like that, only more drastic.

....like I said, Israel wasn't punishing him (AFAIK) from "revealing" to the world that we have nukes - the world already knew. They were punishing him for revealing information deemed "secret" by the government to bodies not authorized to possess such material.

And also like I said, I was guessing at the type of information he revealed. For all I know it could have been the in-flight detonation codes, the precise coordinated of Israel's nuclear arms bunker, and the number and location of Israel's nuclear-capable aircraft. A tad bit more serious, wouldn't you think?

I don't know. I'm guessing. Kapiche?

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Rictor
But that does not mean that we shouldn't strive every day to make it one. If you want any kind of improvement, progress, evolution, you can't be satisfied with current conditions.

You can strive. It won't happen in your lifetime--if ever. Me, I think I'd rather keep my national sovereignity. I don't fancy being dictated to by a Canadian, a Chinese, a Brit, a Korean, an Australian, an Arab or a Brazilian.

Now, if you all want to have a democracy under the principles and doctrine found in the Constitution of the United States of America, we can talk, but otherwise, I'll fight you tooth and nail.

[Rictor]

I very much doubt it was anything like that. From what I've read, it always says "for revealing the existance of nuclear weapons programs at the Dimona facility". Also, Israel has a right to declare "secret" anything that affect only Israelis. Same with any other country, so don't think I'm singling Israel out. In my view, the law that made such information secret (assuming it was vague information) was null the second it was writen, because the world had a right to know. Can't punish someone for breaking a null law, can you?

[mikhael]

Your view doesn't matter. You're A) not israeli, B) not in charge in israel, C) not in a position to nullify an israeli law.

I might think its beyond the pale that people aren't allowed to carry a concealed sidearm in Australia. I do not get to declare that law null and void and then go to Australia carrying my Glock and get away with it. As much as I wish it were so, my beliefs don't override a sovereign nations laws.

No matter what YOU think about the validity of a law, the law stands as long as it is enforced and unchanged by the government that made it.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by mikhael


You can strive. It won't happen in your lifetime--if ever. Me, I think I'd rather keep my national sovereignity. I don't fancy being dictated to by a Canadian, a Chinese, a Brit, a Korean, an Australian, an Arab or a Brazilian.

Now, if you all want to have a democracy under the principles and doctrine found in the Constitution of the United States of America, we can talk, but otherwise, I'll fight you tooth and nail.

You know what the difference is between an American and a Brazilian? Their passport, thats about it. Saying that Americans have a right to make laws regarding your life, but not Italians, thats absurd. Also, sovreignty does not extend to matters of foreign policy. All I'm asking is that you not be hypocritical. If America can (and it can) judge (and consequently punish/reward) other nations and individuals based on its own sense of morality, then the world can and should have that same right.

You seem to be very self-serving in this respect. Morality doesn't concern you unless its directly causing you harm. Given that you live in America, the biggest guy on the block, this will very rarely happen. But consder a Venezuelan, or an Iraqi. They can and do suffer becuase of immoral actions undertaken by your government. An injustice is no better or worse if it happens to me or to someone else. Injustice is in and of itself bad, regardless of who it harms.

You can strive. It won't happen in your lifetime--if ever

Nah, thats just being lazy and thinking up clever ways to excuse your laziness and apathy.  Are you clairvoyant? There is no reason why it should not happen in our lifetime.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Rictor
You know what the difference is between an American and a Brazilian? Their passport, thats about it. Saying that Americans have a right to make laws regarding your life, but not Italians, thats absurd. Also, sovreignty does not extend to matters of foreign policy. All I'm asking is that you not be hypocritical. If America can (and it can) judge (and consequently punish/reward) other nations and individuals based on its own sense of morality, then the world can and should have that same right.

I think you just insulted a bunch of Brazilians.
Americans have a right to make laws that affect Americans, or laws that affect people in America. Brazilians can't make a law that say it is illegal to have purple hair and be able to get it enforced in America. See, that's what sovereignity is all about. My people, my government, my laws, my country. Your people, your government, your laws, your country.

You seem to be very self-serving in this respect. Morality doesn't concern you unless its directly causing you harm. Given that you live in America, the biggest guy on the block, this will very rarely happen. But consder a Venezuelan, or an Iraqi. They can and do suffer becuase of immoral actions undertaken by your government. An injustice is no better or worse if it happens to me or to someone else. Injustice is in and of itself bad, regardless of who it harms.

I'm arguing for the sanctity of national sovereignity. That's not self serving. Morality concerns me very much, Rictor, but I know how far my morality extends and whom it covers: me. My MORALITY is not the same thing as my belief in the rule of LAW. Where my morals and the law clash, my morals win, unless someone else will be affected. If there is anyone else involved, the trumps morality every time. See, my morals might not match my wife's, but the laws that apply to both of us are exactly the same. That's why the law makes such a useful yardstick: its the same for everyone.
If I wanted to be self serving, I'd argue to forcibly disarm Israel--and every other country except the US. Why? Because they're all threats to me. That's self serving, Rictor.

Nah, thats just being lazy and thinking up clever ways to excuse your laziness and apathy.  Are you clairvoyant? There is no reason why it should not happen in our lifetime.

No, I can't tell the future, but I can look at my fellow human beings and see that--barring some fundamental change in their basic nature--they're not going to give up their petty prejudices and artificial speciation. That's like suggesting that all the wolves in the world might decide to form one giant pack. Reality, I'm afraid, intrudes yet again on your utopian vision.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Thomas Jefferson
“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”

Equal rights of others. Not equal rights of other Irsaelis, equal rights of others. This would imply the whole world, or more specifically in this case the Middle East.