Many things!
Instill a fear may be. Demonstrate their power to kill at will and their willingness to do so. Prevent outing of more truths about the Silicon Valley-Washington DC alliance. Meh.
Let the downvotes begin… :)
Next they'll be threatening to quit Twitter!
... South Park?
... nobody?
... I'll be in my trailer.
"Do you want terrorist groups? Because this is how you get terrorist groups."
Or, another way, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. What option are citizens left with when state collusion to deny people their basic rights occurs in broad daylight?
In 1985, when I was the Deputy Director of the Reagan White House Task Force on Terrorism, [my working group was asked] to come up with a definition of terrorism that could be used throughout the government. We produced about six, and each and every case, they were rejected, because careful reading would indicate that our own country had been involved in some of those activities.
If we applied the laws we used to prosecute the Nazis at Nuremberg, every single post WWII US President/government would be considered to have committed war crimes.
Had it occurred in the context of anything but World War II, and was it aimed at anyone other than the Nazis, I think the consensus on it would be much more... nuanced. But because there is a very significant interest (across the US, Germany, Russia, Japan, etc.) in maintaining the Nazis as a singular sort of villain, so abjectly evil as to defy all comparison past or present, special rules apply.
(Plus, I suppose, there's some grading-on-a-curve that happens when the inevitable comparison is made between the Allied handling of the postwar environment and that of the Soviets; the Nuremberg Trials may have had certain jurisprudential imperfections, one could easily argue, but at least they didn't require heavy equipment just to dig the mass graves. Though that seems like damning with faint praise.)
Both the USA and Germany had the death penalty at the end of WW2.
If you actually applied the law as you would in peacetime (as is reasonable because the gas chambers had no military necessity in the way a PoW camp would) then anyone involved in the process, including bringing supplies to the camp, would have been guilty until proven innocent. Evidence of participation is evidence of guilt, and by civilian standards of the time 90% of Germans in uniform and probably 20% of civilians should have been hung.
The Nuremburg trials were like Rwanda's Peace and Reconciliation process. Something that was knowingly far from completist, but just enough to stop the bloodshed and retribution.
> but at least they didn't require heavy equipment just to dig the mass graves
If you support the right of the state to kill (in War, etc) then what's the problem? Pretty much every Nazi was a criminal and had committed and supported war crimes. Pretty much everyone else was a collaborator.
(fwiw, that's the risk of going to war as a democracy. When you have choice, you have culpability.)
But my point is this: the same allies that came up with these reasons for prosecution, created such offenses, have been (not the only) ones to then go on and breach them, steadily, ever since.
i.e. my intent is not necessarily to hold up Nuremberg as a victory for humanity (though certainly _some_ of the things that came about from it are good), but to also implicate many of the allies and governments to follow as very much "do as I say, not as I do".
Here is my standard reference about the subject. Note that it is critical of the US -- and that ROE is still followed quite closely. Compare that to [terrorists and non democracies].
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n04/michael-byers/the-laws-of-war-u...
(Are you really surprised by the content of this answer..?)
----
Edit: My answer to throwaway98237's deleted follow up comment:
>> a small band of tribes from Afghanistan
>> Also, the "laws of war" have evolved over time.
You went from: Setting an equal sign between terrorists and real armies (which use legal weapons psychological warfare against enemy soldiers, not against civilians).
To: Excusing terrorists because (a) some of them also do guerrilla warfare and (b) because the laws of war were a bit different 50+ years ago?
That is just not coherent.
Bye.
Don't appreciate your aggressive tone.
You started by arguing that following the laws of war is terrorism. That subject of law have been really discussed, there are lots of academic papers. I'd be happy to see references?
And your follow up was just not possible to parse. Please read Byer's article, it taught me a lot on the subject.
IMO, pushing bills for changes in laws or copyrighting is probably their second best bet. Their best bet is to push people away from the web -- like they succeeded with physical books by dumbing down ebooks as much as they could.
America has become the Black Mirror reflection of itself and its foundational ideals, and is a terrible world role model.
And I have never once claimed that the US is a role model for the world. In fact, a quick glance at my comment history would show that in many areas, I believe quite the opposite.
The artificial prison was of his own making, not that of any country. He chose to seek asylum, blaming a lurking boogeyman ready to extradite and or execute him, and continued to use this, rebuffing multiple attempts to resolve the issue (and arguably in many ways no other person would be allowed to do, dictating how, when or indeed if he would be allowed to be interviewed).
Certainly, many governments act in appalling ways. But Assange put himself in a predicament where he is now in legal hot water for his _actual_ avoidance of due process for _alleged_ activities.
Not like Guatanamo.
And not like your ad hominem attacks upon me to suit your cause.
As history has shown, you cut off the head of one state problem and then you have six problems. Be it Osama, Ulbricht or Assange. Two of those three problems could have been solved permanently by other means (decriminilization and thorough transparency, respectively). Dogma seems to rule our rulers.
Silencing Assange, by whatever means they choose, will most likely backfire.
I'll refrain from commenting ill about Ulbricht on this site...
I specifically used language that steered clear of that incinuation. "State problem", not "problem in general." "As history has shown." I was referring only to the similarities regarding the outcome of offing the leaders of those respective communities, as well as how state leadership simply refuses to reflect on their past actions.
I really struggle to find how you drew that conclusion out of what I wrote. There was nothing concerning that subject, never mind a suggestion - in fact it was quite the opposite:
* Ulbricht would have had no market, if drug abuse was treated as a health problem and not a criminal problem.
* Assange would have had nothing to leak, if the state wasn't make shady deals.
* I can't think of any effective solution to terrorism. Making a demonstration is all we have.
"two of those three problems."
The leaks he's released target dozens of nations. He has a lot of enemies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_published_by_WikiL...
edit: apparantly he didn't do the panama papers, but the above link shows a lot of players who are going to be angry at him, especially his host nation considering he leaked UK Trident nuclear secrets last year.
I find it amusing that facts about how Russian citizens are being ripped off by their autocratic elites is a "hitjob." What does that word even mean? These documents are verified to be real. Putin's regime is that corrupt. Apparently, Assange and his Russian handlers have a desperate case of being able to dish it out, but not being able to take it.
I'm sure they wouldn't shed any tears but it's unlikely they'll try to draw more attention to themselves.
There's really only one group large enough to do what they want, damn the consequences.
Did this stop Putin from murdering x amount of journalists? I suspect chilling speech is the ultimate goal and some petty revenge as well. Also maintaining the perception of being a "strong man" ruler who does whatever he wants.
>There's really only one group large enough to do what they want
I think you're vastly underestimate the intelligence agencies of many countries here. The CIA bogeyman gets you instant upvotes on reddit/HN but the reality is that the top 30 or so nations have impressive intelligence organizations with far reaching abilities. Cutting an internet line at an embassy in London isn't exactly the moon landing here.
Until we hear some technical details of some vast and highly technical attack that only the US can perform, I'll remain skeptical of such claims. The reality is that cutting or DDOS'ing lines is a trivial attack. This isn't Stuxnet and you guys know it.
Messing with the communications capabilities of an embassy is not something done without a whole lot of possible fall-out.