Hacker News Reader

Comment by ec109685 | Hacker News Reader

Why would you assume that? Nuclear bombing and not caring about civilians is not normal behavior.

The Clinton emails were supposed to be private, yet never had anything close to that type of behavior.

Well at least one US president actually did nuke civilians, on purpose, twice, instead of merely talking about it. Another fire bombed them. And that's even before Vietnam, Laos, Iraq, or drone assassinations where any civilian can just be labeled as non-civilian by the government without much proof or oversight.

That was in the middle of something that was referred to (at that time already, by the participants themselves!) as "total war".

That doesn't change the fact that it was a crime, even at the time and considering the conditions.

By what legal standard was it a crime? Keep in mind, that it has to be a standard that was at force at the time of the attack; and that the nuclear bombings were not even the deadliest air raids during the war.

> Keep in mind, that it has to be a standard that was at force at the time of the attack

Does that mean that Nuremberg and Tokyo trials were just a farce?

"[Chief US prosecutor] Jackson is away conducting his high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg. I don't mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas." - US Supreme Court Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone [0]

"No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." - US Constitution Article 1 Section 9 [1]

"No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed." - United Nations Universal Declaration of human rights. Article 11 [2]

[0] http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p167_webera.html

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section9

[2] http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

Is that a rhetorical question? Of course yes! More seriously, international tribunals always present a difficulty from the law standpoint. "Presidents" always arrange their country to not sign international treaties and dodge international penalties (e.g. Singapore has never signed treaties against torture). Of course Nuremberg and Tokyo trials could be viewed as a farce by exaggerating the doubts, but they're extremely widely legitimate. Legality without legitimacy also happens: The Hague tribunal is legal but its legitimacy is criticized because it only attacks African presidents. Being legal is the bonus that brings a mathematical proof to a decision, but being legitimate is even more important.

In a parallel fashion, WWII's Prisoners Of War (POWs) were renamed DEF by the US ("Disarmed Enemy Forces"), to dodge the Geneva convention about POWs, and some were badly treated (The Wikipedia page has a discussion on the numbers – see "Other Losses").

There is no such thing as black and white.

Yes. My point was that if atrocities against civilians in Hiroshima or Dresden were not crimes by gizmo686's logic above, then neither were Nazi atrocities, and Nuremberg and Tokyo trials were nothing but a fancy lynching.

That's ridiculous. The nazis eradicated a peaceful civilian population. The USA nuked cities where literally everyone was somehow engaged in a war against them, and who had started it in the first place.

I think you need to check your facts a bit - a lot of Japanese civilians were killed by these bombs

Not quite. If the Allies prosecuted German pilots and their commanders for, say, strategic bombing of London - including civilian targets - then yes, it would have been a sham. But they weren't, precisely because the Allies did it too. So the atrocities people were prosecuted for at Nuremberg was stuff like shooting surrendered prisoners, or deliberately executing civilians in controlled areas.

Yes. However, I was merely applying gizmo686's criterion of a crime, "it has to be a standard that was at force at the time of the attack", to Nazis in similar fashion as (s)he applied it to Allies.

And Nuremberg trials was famous for doing precisely what gizmo686 described -- charging defendants with "crimes" that were defined as crimes after the fact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials#Criticism

The way they did it was by claiming that the crimes didn't stem from any written law, but rather from an unwritten universal (for Europe, at least) custom. This is not actually all that far fetched - the notion of "customs of war" long predated any formal conventions etc.

Their expository value was great, their legal value was specious.

Are you going to pretend that no civilians were killed during the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? If you don't, you have your crime. Killing civilians was pretty damn widely agreed upon on that it's not acceptable. The US committed a war crime, and a crime against humanity. Accept it. It's not the first, and there are plenty others to follow.

How do we meaningfully say that something is internationally illegal? Or how do we say that a nation commits crimes? There is no international legislative body. The International Criminal Court isn't respected. When the ICC is disrespected, an international police force doesn't come to enforce the court's will. And by what basis is the ICC even the legitimate court of the international?

The notion that there are some "norms of civilized behavior" that go beyond states and their written laws is very old, dating back centuries and even millenia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_gentium

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostis_humani_generis

It works in the same manner as unwritten common law does - set by custom and precedent.

>Why would you assume that? Nuclear bombing and not caring about civilians is not normal behavior.

Did not say, or imply that they were normal behavior. I said that other presidents (not all other, some other) have probably said similarly disturbing things.

>The Clinton emails were supposed to be private, yet never had anything close to that type of behavior.

Clinton wasn't who I had in mind, but I suspect private, verbal conversations would be more revealing than emails.

There were a number of emails that alluded to "let's say no more and discus important stuff on other more secure channels". If I'm not mistaken. They were savvy enough not to put anything damming down in writing.

That's one of the reasons they were motivated to use private email. Because they were fully aware it was one FOIA away from being a public forum. But at the same time, all of the important stuff was via other channels. There was hardly any direct work stuff at all in those emails. Mostly just her foundation and campaign conversations.

You've still provided zero evidence that they would have had interest in nuking anyone.

That's a feature of modern American life. I would guess that easily 60% of large company CEOs, Mayors, Governors, etc either don't use email or at all or limit its use to trivial matters.

Since 2006 when the courts changed their rules, any email sent for official or business purposes, with the except of client-attorney email is potentially postcard. Nothing important to a company should be in there.

There is no evidence that Clinton used private email in order to skirt FOIA.

Apparently there is:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160623/09170034795/email...

There is one email in that blog post that mentions FOIA requests, and there is no response to it from Clinton saying that it's why she won't use her state.gov email address.

We already know why she used her own private email server — to use her Blackberry. This has been repeatedly established by the inquiries and the FBI investigation. We even have an email to Powell in 2009, well before any of the emails in that blog post, that shows her reason. https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/30324

Yet the state dept was willing to issue her an approved Blackberry which she declined.

Evidence exists to support this was intentional to hide information. Evidence doesn't equal proven. Granted it is not proven, but saying there exists no evidence doesn't seem to be accurate.

> Yet the state dept was willing to issue her an approved Blackberry which she declined.

That is exactly backwards. She requested a Blackberry-like device similar to the one given to Obama but was denied. https://www.google.com/amp/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/emails-s...

> Evidence exists to support this was intentional to hide information.

No such evidence exists, which is why all inquiries and investigations came to the conclusion I stated above.

She was offered a compliant Blackberry by Mull. http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/23/heres-everything-we-know-s...

>No such evidence exists, which is why all inquiries and investigations came to the conclusion I stated above.

That doesn't mean there was no evidence. It only suggests that evidence wasn't proven. You can not draw the conclusion there was none.

The FBI also came to the conclusion that Clinton wasn't intelligent enough to understand confidential markings. Then the stunt the FBI pulled just before the election I would say the FBI has shown itself to be incompetent.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/7/fbis-comey-hi...

> She was offered a compliant Blackberry by Mull. http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/23/heres-everything-we-know-s....

Mull was the Executive Secretary of the State Department at the time he sent that email (two years after the NSA had denied Clinton's request). He was in no position to overrule the NSA and make that offer. At no point during Clinton's tenure were Blackberry devices authorized to access state.gov email servers. He was very likely referring to http://www.zdnet.com/article/nsa-wanted-hillary-clinton-to-u..., which was the only authorized device up to 2015 and was the device that the NSA offered (but not supported by State department infrastructure) http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/nsa-re....

> That doesn't mean there was no evidence.

Then where is it?

Aside: citing the Moonie Times and the Daily Caller projects know-nothingism. Here are the three top articles on the Daily Caller right now:

1. Charlie Sheen Offers America The Most Insane Ticket To Take Down Trump

2. TPM’s Josh Marshall Reduced To Tweeting Porno Link Of ‘Teasing, Licking’ ‘Angela & Strawberry’TPM’s Josh Marshall Reduced To Tweeting Porno Link Of ‘Teasing, Licking’ ‘Angela & Strawberry’

3. ‘FK YOU. GO TO HELL’: Georgetown Prof Loses It On Muslim Trump Voter‘FK YOU. GO TO HELL’: Georgetown Prof Loses It On Muslim Trump Voter

None of this is news.

>Then where is it?

It was given. Apparently you don't like the source. Here's another. http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/JW-v...

Also, there were a lot of questions being asked about FOIA considering there was no evidence. http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judic...

Again, your original assertion is not defensible that there was no evidence. Again evidence does not equal proven. Simply there was information that suggests a rationale.

It's not that I didn't like the source. It's that the evidence didn't hold up to the most basic scrutiny. Mull simply did not have the ability to give Clinton a Blackberry.

Aside: you are aware of what Judicial Watch is, right? They're the conservative group that led the prosecution against Clinton on this issue and repeatedly failed. Of course they are going to ask questions about FOIA, the Espionage Act, and anything else they can try to stick on her. You're being misled by listening to only the prosecution and not the judge or the defense that totally dismantled their case.

>It's that the evidence didn't hold up to the most basic scrutiny

So there was evidence?

>Mull simply did not have the ability to give Clinton a Blackberry.

That is irrelevant to establishing a motive. The emails don't suggest that Clinton was aware of that fact and they do suggest that Mull for some reason thought this information that would be important to Clinton's decision.

>you are aware of what Judicial Watch is, right

Yes, but this is to be expected. When the right is in power, I expect left leaning groups to lead the charge to accountability and vice versa. It is rare that a group ever holds itself accountable.

>judge or the defense that totally dismantled their case.

They thought it was good enough to proceed with questioning. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/judge-orders-clinton-answer-w...

I'm not sure what you mean by dismantled. They requested a deposition and was granted. Clinton did not answer all questions and they have requested through federal court that she answer all questions. I have not seen an update on that request.

> So there was evidence?

Don't be facetious. That's like saying that there is evidence that the Sun revolves around the Earth because we see it pass overhead every day. That evidence doesn't hold up to basic scrutiny either.

> That is irrelevant to establishing a motive. The emails don't suggest that Clinton was aware of that fact and they do suggest that Mull for some reason thought this information that would be important to Clinton's decision.

The emails don't even suggest that Clinton saw Mull's offer, and they don't suggest that either Abedin or Clinton thought Mull's offer was viable after their experience with the NSA. Why should they waste their time with it if it wasn't going to go anywhere?

> Yes, but this is to be expected.

Exactly. Then why do you use them as your sole source? The Daily Caller article lifts its entire story from Judicial Watch's arguments. If you wanted to learn why those arguments didn't work the first n times, the other side's arguments are out there for you to see.

> They thought it was good enough to proceed with questioning.

He threw them a bone. He denied their motion to depose Clinton and instead sent her a written questionnaire. She returned her answers on October 13, containing exactly the same reasons she gave before for using the Blackberry.

>The emails don't even suggest that Clinton saw Mull's offer, and they don't suggest that either Abedin or Clinton thought Mull's offer was viable after their experience with the NSA. Why should they waste their time with it if it wasn't going to go anywhere?

You are making assumptions for which we don't know the answers. Which is exactly why such questions are asked to begin with.

>Then why do you use them as your sole source? The Daily Caller article lifts its entire story from Judicial Watch's arguments. If you wanted to learn why those arguments didn't work the first n times, the other side's arguments are out there for you to see.

Likewise then why do you suggest I simply dismiss claims by taking the other side's argument?

We can also assume it would be a defensive position. Evidence doesn't become no evidence based only on the other side's account. It might be determined to be weak, irrelevant to claims etc based on investigation.

Stating there was no evidence suggests there was 0 basis to make the claim prior to investigation. We don't in hindsight do the investigation and then look back and say the evidence isn't evidence. We can say the evidence wasn't conclusive or didn't support said claims strong enough to investigate further etc.

> You are making assumptions for which we don't know the answers.

You are making the claim that Clinton used her private server to skirt FOIA, and your evidence is that the Executive Secretary once sent an email about using a device approved by the State Department. Nowhere in the response does Clinton or anybody on Clinton's team say that they won't use this non-existent device because they want to skirt FOIA, yet somehow this constitutes (the sole) evidence to support your claim. Meanwhile, we have her entire email chain with the NSA and mountains of testimony under oath supporting the other conclusion that she used her personal server simply because she wanted to use her Blackberry.

> Likewise then why do you suggest I simply dismiss claims by taking the other side's argument?

I don't. I'm simply suggesting that you discard arguments that have already been discarded. The side that has been attacking Clinton for 20 years isn't going to tell you which of their arguments didn't hold water.

Edit: This chain has reached maximum depth, and I can't reply any further. Can we agree that there is no reasonable evidence that Clinton used her personal email server in order to skirt FOIA?

>You are making the claim that Clinton used her private server to skirt FOIA

I am not making that claim. I am asserting that evidence existed to suggest that is a possibility. I am not trying to prove the claim.

>mountains of testimony under oath

Yes, and this testimony occurred due to evidence that was being investigated.

It seems you are trying to prove to me the outcome or conclusions instead of whether or not any evidence existed.

  We already know why she used her own private email server — to use her Blackberry

Her stated reason for the request was that she didn't want to have to carry multiple devices. Apparently, she (and her "expert" staff) couldn't figure out that you can access multiple accounts (and servers) from not only one device but even within one app.

You're being intentionally dense. The reason she would have to carry multiple devices is that she wanted to use her Blackberry, but the Blackberry was not allowed to access state.gov email. She would have continued to use her Blackberry to access her personal email, which would have meant she would need another device to access her state.gov email.

The State Dept IT tech was wrong about FOIA. Whether an email is subject to FOIA disclosure depends on the content and recipients, not the infrastructure. Clinton's personal emails would not have be FOIA-able even if it did go through State servers. There are also exceptions for some work emails.

The question of what is subject to FOIA is complicated.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com