[Taristin]

You disagree with civil disobedience?

[Rictor]

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.

[Bobboau]

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?

[phreak]

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.

[Rictor]

oh come on, that was once, like 6 months ago.

[Liberator]

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.

[Rictor]

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.

[Ford Prefect]

[ChronoReverse]

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.

[an0n]

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.

[Rictor]

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.

[ChronoReverse]

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.

[Bobboau]

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

[ChronoReverse]

Ah, short, succinct and to the point.

My long explanations tend to obfuscate the point.

[phreak]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect

you know i wanted to post that as well

[SadisticSid]

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?

[vyper]

It just occured to me how many of you would fit into a perfect Orwellian society.

[Splinter]

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.

But of course Israel proved in 4 or so wars that she didn’t need nukes to do that.  

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.

[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.

[Splinter]

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

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.