6 ms·

but since when governments need to provide evidence and to whom? the world government? Can I go to random governments around the world and ask them to show evid

but since when governments need to provide evidence and to whom? the world government? Can I go to random governments around the world and ask them to show evidence about their security issues to my organization?

ashtonkem 5y ago
Yes, and you should. And for those governments who can’t or won’t provide evidence, you should disregard their assertions as baseless and suspect. I mean, why wouldn’t you demand proof? Governments have a long and nasty history of conflating their political interests with security interests, just trusting their assertions seems extremely foolhardy.
- LegitShady 5y ago
  because it would compromise means and methods
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    Tough. The logical consequence of “we can’t show you the proof” is “okay, I don’t believe that you have any”. After all, you would not believe my assertions about fantastical achievements without evidence, and the consequences of that hypothetical are much lower than the state saying it should be able to kill people in the name of “counter terrorism”. More succinctly; “it would compromise means and methods” is a phenomenal way to cover up shaky or non-existent evidence.
    - starik36 5y ago
      All the evidence of Russian collusion and hacking is almost always presented without any evidence whatsoever. Yet no one in the mainstream media thinks to question it.
      - ashtonkem 5y ago
        [flagged]
        LegitShady 5y ago
        It's not what aboutism, it's the introduction of reality to your 'logic'. You are asking why you don't have access to the evidence into an investigation into a designated terrorist group, and being told 'tough', and now demanding standards of evidence in other countries meet your needs. Again, no country in the world cares about your wish to have access to terror investigation evidence. None. Zero.
        ashtonkem 5y ago
        > It's not what aboutism, it's the introduction of reality to your 'logic'. Again, please follow the rules of this forum. You’re pushing the norms of politeness here very, very hard. > You are asking why you don't have access to the evidence into an investigation into a designated terrorist group I actually never asked that question. What I actually said was “if the state doesn’t provide evidence, then we’re under no obligation to take its assertions seriously”. The rest of your point in this paragraph makes no sense in the context of what I actually said. > Again, no country in the world cares about your wish to have access to terror investigation evidence. None. Zero. It seems like you’re getting weirdly personal about this. This isn’t about “my wish”, and that’s honestly a bad faith interpretation of what I’m saying. If we strip out the personal attacks, the core of this argument is actually clearly false. Governments don’t want to give out evidence, yes, but they care a lot about swaying public opinion. If they didn’t care, they wouldn’t even bother justifying their actions as anti-terrorism. If the public in general demanded a higher standard of evidence, then governments absolutely would begin sharing more of it. My “wish” alone isn’t enough, obviously, but in aggregate our wishes do matter a lot.
        LegitShady 5y ago
        It's not your state, and your state wouldn't give you confidential evidence into a terrorism investigation either. You can imagine there are plenty of informants and intelligence taps to which the state doesn't want to give clues, right? Why do you think this foreign state isn't as capable of dismissing your demands as you are of saying 'tough' to them? That's the issue with your original 'tough' comment. It's just internet bravado, and doesn't survive contact with reality.
    - pythonlion 5y ago
      countries do hit jobs rarely and when they do its clear this person was involved 100% of the time. That's the only case people get killed in the name of “counter terrorism”. the discussion was about banning an organization not a person.
      - ashtonkem 5y ago
        They claim that, yes. Then again the DOD also claimed that their final drone strike was on a valid combatant, later on they had to admit that it was just a worker being greeted by his children. Whoops (/s). Obviously banning an organization is much lower stakes than killing or jailing someone, and we should adjust accordingly. Still, if Israel (or any other country really) is going to run around and say that an organization or person is connected to terrorism, they should pony up enough evidence commensurate with the actions they propose so that we can discuss the matter. The pressure for any state to conflate political and security threats is high, and public scrutiny is part of what provides a counter balance. This is particularly important if a country is demanding that the international community writ large take action against a given person or organization. Should not the citizens of the countries being asked to participate have the opportunity to see some evidence and discuss the matter?
    - LegitShady 5y ago
      flipside of tough - you're demanding a foreign nation compromise its security so that you can feel better. You and your demands are nobody and nothing to a foreign state. So no. tough.
      - ashtonkem 5y ago
        No, I’m demanding they support their allegations before killing people. Giving the state unfettered access to kill and jail god knows who based on unsupported allegations of terrorism is very dangerous territory, and any right thinking person should be wary of handing out that kind of power. Saying this is about making me “feel better” is pushing the limits of good faith discussion, don’t do that.
        LegitShady 5y ago
        It's not your state, and this did go to court, you just weren't privy to the evidence because you're not a party involved in the investigation or the case, and have no security clearance in this foreign state to know the details.
Quanttek 5y ago
Any state abiding by the rule of law, human rights, and democracy needs to provide evidence proving such allegations beyond a reasonable doubt and enabling the victims to challenge such administrative decisions in court. If Israel wants to drop the pretense of democracy, so be it. But human rights and the rule of law are universal obligations under international law.
- pythonlion 5y ago
  this is biased for countries which are not under conflict and don't get accused by the other side every other week
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

ashtonkem 5y ago

Yes, and you should. And for those governments who can’t or won’t provide evidence, you should disregard their assertions as baseless and suspect. I mean, why wouldn’t you demand proof? Governments have a long and nasty history of conflating their political interests with security interests, just trusting their assertions seems extremely foolhardy.

LegitShady 5y ago
because it would compromise means and methods
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  Tough. The logical consequence of “we can’t show you the proof” is “okay, I don’t believe that you have any”. After all, you would not believe my assertions about fantastical achievements without evidence, and the consequences of that hypothetical are much lower than the state saying it should be able to kill people in the name of “counter terrorism”. More succinctly; “it would compromise means and methods” is a phenomenal way to cover up shaky or non-existent evidence.
  - starik36 5y ago
    All the evidence of Russian collusion and hacking is almost always presented without any evidence whatsoever. Yet no one in the mainstream media thinks to question it.
    - ashtonkem 5y ago
      [flagged]
      - LegitShady 5y ago
        It's not what aboutism, it's the introduction of reality to your 'logic'. You are asking why you don't have access to the evidence into an investigation into a designated terrorist group, and being told 'tough', and now demanding standards of evidence in other countries meet your needs. Again, no country in the world cares about your wish to have access to terror investigation evidence. None. Zero.
        ashtonkem 5y ago
        > It's not what aboutism, it's the introduction of reality to your 'logic'. Again, please follow the rules of this forum. You’re pushing the norms of politeness here very, very hard. > You are asking why you don't have access to the evidence into an investigation into a designated terrorist group I actually never asked that question. What I actually said was “if the state doesn’t provide evidence, then we’re under no obligation to take its assertions seriously”. The rest of your point in this paragraph makes no sense in the context of what I actually said. > Again, no country in the world cares about your wish to have access to terror investigation evidence. None. Zero. It seems like you’re getting weirdly personal about this. This isn’t about “my wish”, and that’s honestly a bad faith interpretation of what I’m saying. If we strip out the personal attacks, the core of this argument is actually clearly false. Governments don’t want to give out evidence, yes, but they care a lot about swaying public opinion. If they didn’t care, they wouldn’t even bother justifying their actions as anti-terrorism. If the public in general demanded a higher standard of evidence, then governments absolutely would begin sharing more of it. My “wish” alone isn’t enough, obviously, but in aggregate our wishes do matter a lot.
        LegitShady 5y ago
        It's not your state, and your state wouldn't give you confidential evidence into a terrorism investigation either. You can imagine there are plenty of informants and intelligence taps to which the state doesn't want to give clues, right? Why do you think this foreign state isn't as capable of dismissing your demands as you are of saying 'tough' to them? That's the issue with your original 'tough' comment. It's just internet bravado, and doesn't survive contact with reality.
  - pythonlion 5y ago
    countries do hit jobs rarely and when they do its clear this person was involved 100% of the time. That's the only case people get killed in the name of “counter terrorism”. the discussion was about banning an organization not a person.
    - ashtonkem 5y ago
      They claim that, yes. Then again the DOD also claimed that their final drone strike was on a valid combatant, later on they had to admit that it was just a worker being greeted by his children. Whoops (/s). Obviously banning an organization is much lower stakes than killing or jailing someone, and we should adjust accordingly. Still, if Israel (or any other country really) is going to run around and say that an organization or person is connected to terrorism, they should pony up enough evidence commensurate with the actions they propose so that we can discuss the matter. The pressure for any state to conflate political and security threats is high, and public scrutiny is part of what provides a counter balance. This is particularly important if a country is demanding that the international community writ large take action against a given person or organization. Should not the citizens of the countries being asked to participate have the opportunity to see some evidence and discuss the matter?
  - LegitShady 5y ago
    flipside of tough - you're demanding a foreign nation compromise its security so that you can feel better. You and your demands are nobody and nothing to a foreign state. So no. tough.
    - ashtonkem 5y ago
      No, I’m demanding they support their allegations before killing people. Giving the state unfettered access to kill and jail god knows who based on unsupported allegations of terrorism is very dangerous territory, and any right thinking person should be wary of handing out that kind of power. Saying this is about making me “feel better” is pushing the limits of good faith discussion, don’t do that.
      - LegitShady 5y ago
        It's not your state, and this did go to court, you just weren't privy to the evidence because you're not a party involved in the investigation or the case, and have no security clearance in this foreign state to know the details.

Quanttek 5y ago

Any state abiding by the rule of law, human rights, and democracy needs to provide evidence proving such allegations beyond a reasonable doubt and enabling the victims to challenge such administrative decisions in court. If Israel wants to drop the pretense of democracy, so be it. But human rights and the rule of law are universal obligations under international law.

pythonlion 5y ago
this is biased for countries which are not under conflict and don't get accused by the other side every other week
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]