[afx114]

Well put. I can’t disagree with most of what you’ve said, except for a few shades of gray when it comes to definitions. I think this issue is really many smaller issues packaged together, so sometimes it helps to break them apart and take them individually. I see many questions arising in this debate:

– Does torture even work? This is an important question, but it can’t be answered until my next question is:

– What exactly defines ‘torture?’ The UN has tried to define it, but they are vague and don’t refer to specific techniques. Amnesty International has slightly different definitions (here’s a good read from them titled Torture & The Law). Can we possibly expect to ever achieve a perfect list of every possible form of torture (Barry Manilow I’m OK with, but Celine Dione is definitely torture)? Of course not. So this is difficult.

– Once torture is defined, who do the laws regulating torture apply to? Only to Americans? What about foreigners? Are we allowed to torture them because they’re not US Citizens and therefore aren’t availed the right to not be tortured? Or do we follow our supposed American morals to the necessary conclusion that certain rights are bestowed upon all men, regardless of country? What about enemy combatants? Do we subscribe to the ‘eye for an eye’ school of torture or do we try to retain the moral high ground?

– The larger issue that reveals itself is the slowness of the legislature in dealing with today’s urgent threats. It is certainly understandable that certain issues require instant action, but once you go down that road, what’s the point of even having the legislative process at all then? If all it takes is a national security scare to ram through some new legislation because “we don’t have time,” where are the checks and balances? My guess is that some sort of retro-active approval process similar to what FISA had. It should also probably be a temporary power that is pending further review. But then it begs the question you raised earlier about being retroactively charged with a crime!

So it seems like the torture issue is stuck in an infinite loop. These are all difficult questions, and there are no easy answers.

[afx114]

Well put. I can’t disagree with most of what you’ve said, except for a few shades of gray when it comes to definitions. I think this issue is really many smaller issues packaged together, so sometimes it helps to break them apart and take them individually. I see many questions arising in this debate:

– Does torture even work? This is an important question, but it can’t be answered until my next question is:

– What exactly defines ‘torture?’ The UN has tried to define it, but they are vague and don’t refer to specific techniques. Amnesty International has slightly different definitions (here’s a good read from them titled Torture & The Law). Can we possibly expect to ever achieve a perfect list of every possible form of torture (Barry Manilow I’m OK with, but Celine Dione is definitely torture)? Of course not. So this is difficult.

– Once torture is defined, who do the laws regulating torture apply to? Only to Americans? What about foreigners? Are we allowed to torture them because they’re not US Citizens and therefore aren’t availed the right to not be tortured? Or do we follow our supposed American morals to the necessary conclusion that certain rights are bestowed upon all men, regardless of country? What about enemy combatants? Do we subscribe to the ‘eye for an eye’ school of torture or do we try to retain the moral high ground?

– The larger issue that reveals itself is the slowness of the legislature in dealing with today’s urgent threats. It is certainly understandable that certain issues require instant action, but once you go down that road, what’s the point of even having the legislative process at all then? If all it takes is a national security scare to ram through some new legislation because “we don’t have time,” where are the checks and balances? My guess is that some sort of retro-active approval process similar to what FISA had. It should also probably be a temporary power that is pending further review. But then it begs the question you raised earlier about being retroactively charged with a crime!

So it seems like the torture issue is stuck in an infinite loop. These are all difficult questions, and there are no easy answers.

[afx114]

Well put. I can’t disagree with most of what you’ve said, except for a few shades of gray when it comes to definitions. I think this issue is really many smaller issues packaged together, so sometimes it helps to break them apart and take them individually. I see many questions arising in this debate:

– Does torture even work? This is an important question, but it can’t be answered until my next question is:

– What exactly defines ‘torture?’ The UN has tried to define it, but they are vague and don’t refer to specific techniques. Amnesty International has slightly different definitions (here’s a good read from them titled Torture & The Law). Can we possibly expect to ever achieve a perfect list of every possible form of torture (Barry Manilow I’m OK with, but Celine Dione is definitely torture)? Of course not. So this is difficult.

– Once torture is defined, who do the laws regulating torture apply to? Only to Americans? What about foreigners? Are we allowed to torture them because they’re not US Citizens and therefore aren’t availed the right to not be tortured? Or do we follow our supposed American morals to the necessary conclusion that certain rights are bestowed upon all men, regardless of country? What about enemy combatants? Do we subscribe to the ‘eye for an eye’ school of torture or do we try to retain the moral high ground?

– The larger issue that reveals itself is the slowness of the legislature in dealing with today’s urgent threats. It is certainly understandable that certain issues require instant action, but once you go down that road, what’s the point of even having the legislative process at all then? If all it takes is a national security scare to ram through some new legislation because “we don’t have time,” where are the checks and balances? My guess is that some sort of retro-active approval process similar to what FISA had. It should also probably be a temporary power that is pending further review. But then it begs the question you raised earlier about being retroactively charged with a crime!

So it seems like the torture issue is stuck in an infinite loop. These are all difficult questions, and there are no easy answers.

[afx114]

I find it hilarious that CNBC is re-playing the “Marijuana, Inc.” show that they did a few months ago. Why in the world would they decide to replay it today? HAH!

[afx114]

I find it hilarious that CNBC is re-playing the “Marijuana, Inc.” show that they did a few months ago. Why in the world would they decide to replay it today? HAH!

[afx114]

I find it hilarious that CNBC is re-playing the “Marijuana, Inc.” show that they did a few months ago. Why in the world would they decide to replay it today? HAH!

[afx114]

I find it hilarious that CNBC is re-playing the “Marijuana, Inc.” show that they did a few months ago. Why in the world would they decide to replay it today? HAH!

[afx114]

I find it hilarious that CNBC is re-playing the “Marijuana, Inc.” show that they did a few months ago. Why in the world would they decide to replay it today? HAH!

[afx114]

[quote=KSMountain]You’re making quite a leap (perhaps even an absurd one) when you compare the murder of millions of innocent folks with the waterboarding of 3 folks, who are still alive, who were themselves murderers of thousands.[/quote]

I wasn’t comparing the crimes, I was comparing their defense. It doesn’t just apply to the Nazis, it applies to anyone whose defense is ‘I was just following orders.’

In your opinion is the Nuremberg Defense a valid defense when committing any crime? If I am a UPS driver and I get a ticket for speeding while attempting to make an on-time delivery, am I off the hook because I was ‘just doing my job?’ I think you’d be hard pressed to find any judge who would accept that as a valid argument. (I’m not a lawyer, so please correct me if I am wrong).

[quote=KSMountain]The interrogation techniques were specifically found legal by the attorney general at the time.[/quote]

So the AG is the one that decides what’s legal and what isn’t? I could be wrong, but wasn’t he simply advising the administration on whether he thought it was legal or not? And isn’t it the job of a judge/jury to ultimately decide the legality of it? As far as I know torture is/was illegal. That’s the whole point — why not have a proper trial, and if the administration’s lawyers can convince a judge/jury that torture was legal, then they’re off the hook. If not, they broke the law.

[quote=KSMountain]If every citizen (let alone CIA agents) labored under the threat that whatever behavior they currently legally engage in could later be retroactively declared illegal, that would make it pretty difficult to get anything done. It’s my understanding that that kind of legal shenanigans is actually prohibited in the constitution.[/quote]

Again, you’re operating under the assumption that torture is now (or was when they were doing it) legal. When has torture ever been legal? When Gonzalez declared it so?

I agree with you – torture is not well defined, and that makes legal arguments for and against difficult — but in this case, we had an administration declare that it was legal simply because they wanted to use it, without any regard for whether or not it was actually legal. If the administration wanted to torture — or more specifically waterboard — they should have proposed legislation to legalize it, not bend the rules to get away with something illegal. The last thing we need are our leaders unilaterally declaring laws at their will.

[quote=KSMountain]
Tell me this afx114: Do you think the special forces that shot the 3 pirates should be tried for murder?[/quote]

No, because they acted within the legal rules of engagement. Within the law. Now, if they just went off and shot any random dude on a boat for no reason — sure, they should be tried for murder.

[afx114]

[quote=KSMountain]You’re making quite a leap (perhaps even an absurd one) when you compare the murder of millions of innocent folks with the waterboarding of 3 folks, who are still alive, who were themselves murderers of thousands.[/quote]

I wasn’t comparing the crimes, I was comparing their defense. It doesn’t just apply to the Nazis, it applies to anyone whose defense is ‘I was just following orders.’

In your opinion is the Nuremberg Defense a valid defense when committing any crime? If I am a UPS driver and I get a ticket for speeding while attempting to make an on-time delivery, am I off the hook because I was ‘just doing my job?’ I think you’d be hard pressed to find any judge who would accept that as a valid argument. (I’m not a lawyer, so please correct me if I am wrong).

[quote=KSMountain]The interrogation techniques were specifically found legal by the attorney general at the time.[/quote]

So the AG is the one that decides what’s legal and what isn’t? I could be wrong, but wasn’t he simply advising the administration on whether he thought it was legal or not? And isn’t it the job of a judge/jury to ultimately decide the legality of it? As far as I know torture is/was illegal. That’s the whole point — why not have a proper trial, and if the administration’s lawyers can convince a judge/jury that torture was legal, then they’re off the hook. If not, they broke the law.

[quote=KSMountain]If every citizen (let alone CIA agents) labored under the threat that whatever behavior they currently legally engage in could later be retroactively declared illegal, that would make it pretty difficult to get anything done. It’s my understanding that that kind of legal shenanigans is actually prohibited in the constitution.[/quote]

Again, you’re operating under the assumption that torture is now (or was when they were doing it) legal. When has torture ever been legal? When Gonzalez declared it so?

I agree with you – torture is not well defined, and that makes legal arguments for and against difficult — but in this case, we had an administration declare that it was legal simply because they wanted to use it, without any regard for whether or not it was actually legal. If the administration wanted to torture — or more specifically waterboard — they should have proposed legislation to legalize it, not bend the rules to get away with something illegal. The last thing we need are our leaders unilaterally declaring laws at their will.

[quote=KSMountain]
Tell me this afx114: Do you think the special forces that shot the 3 pirates should be tried for murder?[/quote]

No, because they acted within the legal rules of engagement. Within the law. Now, if they just went off and shot any random dude on a boat for no reason — sure, they should be tried for murder.

[afx114]

[quote=KSMountain]You’re making quite a leap (perhaps even an absurd one) when you compare the murder of millions of innocent folks with the waterboarding of 3 folks, who are still alive, who were themselves murderers of thousands.[/quote]

I wasn’t comparing the crimes, I was comparing their defense. It doesn’t just apply to the Nazis, it applies to anyone whose defense is ‘I was just following orders.’

In your opinion is the Nuremberg Defense a valid defense when committing any crime? If I am a UPS driver and I get a ticket for speeding while attempting to make an on-time delivery, am I off the hook because I was ‘just doing my job?’ I think you’d be hard pressed to find any judge who would accept that as a valid argument. (I’m not a lawyer, so please correct me if I am wrong).

[quote=KSMountain]The interrogation techniques were specifically found legal by the attorney general at the time.[/quote]

So the AG is the one that decides what’s legal and what isn’t? I could be wrong, but wasn’t he simply advising the administration on whether he thought it was legal or not? And isn’t it the job of a judge/jury to ultimately decide the legality of it? As far as I know torture is/was illegal. That’s the whole point — why not have a proper trial, and if the administration’s lawyers can convince a judge/jury that torture was legal, then they’re off the hook. If not, they broke the law.

[quote=KSMountain]If every citizen (let alone CIA agents) labored under the threat that whatever behavior they currently legally engage in could later be retroactively declared illegal, that would make it pretty difficult to get anything done. It’s my understanding that that kind of legal shenanigans is actually prohibited in the constitution.[/quote]

Again, you’re operating under the assumption that torture is now (or was when they were doing it) legal. When has torture ever been legal? When Gonzalez declared it so?

I agree with you – torture is not well defined, and that makes legal arguments for and against difficult — but in this case, we had an administration declare that it was legal simply because they wanted to use it, without any regard for whether or not it was actually legal. If the administration wanted to torture — or more specifically waterboard — they should have proposed legislation to legalize it, not bend the rules to get away with something illegal. The last thing we need are our leaders unilaterally declaring laws at their will.

[quote=KSMountain]
Tell me this afx114: Do you think the special forces that shot the 3 pirates should be tried for murder?[/quote]

No, because they acted within the legal rules of engagement. Within the law. Now, if they just went off and shot any random dude on a boat for no reason — sure, they should be tried for murder.

[afx114]

[quote=KSMountain]You’re making quite a leap (perhaps even an absurd one) when you compare the murder of millions of innocent folks with the waterboarding of 3 folks, who are still alive, who were themselves murderers of thousands.[/quote]

I wasn’t comparing the crimes, I was comparing their defense. It doesn’t just apply to the Nazis, it applies to anyone whose defense is ‘I was just following orders.’

In your opinion is the Nuremberg Defense a valid defense when committing any crime? If I am a UPS driver and I get a ticket for speeding while attempting to make an on-time delivery, am I off the hook because I was ‘just doing my job?’ I think you’d be hard pressed to find any judge who would accept that as a valid argument. (I’m not a lawyer, so please correct me if I am wrong).

[quote=KSMountain]The interrogation techniques were specifically found legal by the attorney general at the time.[/quote]

So the AG is the one that decides what’s legal and what isn’t? I could be wrong, but wasn’t he simply advising the administration on whether he thought it was legal or not? And isn’t it the job of a judge/jury to ultimately decide the legality of it? As far as I know torture is/was illegal. That’s the whole point — why not have a proper trial, and if the administration’s lawyers can convince a judge/jury that torture was legal, then they’re off the hook. If not, they broke the law.

[quote=KSMountain]If every citizen (let alone CIA agents) labored under the threat that whatever behavior they currently legally engage in could later be retroactively declared illegal, that would make it pretty difficult to get anything done. It’s my understanding that that kind of legal shenanigans is actually prohibited in the constitution.[/quote]

Again, you’re operating under the assumption that torture is now (or was when they were doing it) legal. When has torture ever been legal? When Gonzalez declared it so?

I agree with you – torture is not well defined, and that makes legal arguments for and against difficult — but in this case, we had an administration declare that it was legal simply because they wanted to use it, without any regard for whether or not it was actually legal. If the administration wanted to torture — or more specifically waterboard — they should have proposed legislation to legalize it, not bend the rules to get away with something illegal. The last thing we need are our leaders unilaterally declaring laws at their will.

[quote=KSMountain]
Tell me this afx114: Do you think the special forces that shot the 3 pirates should be tried for murder?[/quote]

No, because they acted within the legal rules of engagement. Within the law. Now, if they just went off and shot any random dude on a boat for no reason — sure, they should be tried for murder.

[afx114]

[quote=KSMountain]You’re making quite a leap (perhaps even an absurd one) when you compare the murder of millions of innocent folks with the waterboarding of 3 folks, who are still alive, who were themselves murderers of thousands.[/quote]

I wasn’t comparing the crimes, I was comparing their defense. It doesn’t just apply to the Nazis, it applies to anyone whose defense is ‘I was just following orders.’

In your opinion is the Nuremberg Defense a valid defense when committing any crime? If I am a UPS driver and I get a ticket for speeding while attempting to make an on-time delivery, am I off the hook because I was ‘just doing my job?’ I think you’d be hard pressed to find any judge who would accept that as a valid argument. (I’m not a lawyer, so please correct me if I am wrong).

[quote=KSMountain]The interrogation techniques were specifically found legal by the attorney general at the time.[/quote]

So the AG is the one that decides what’s legal and what isn’t? I could be wrong, but wasn’t he simply advising the administration on whether he thought it was legal or not? And isn’t it the job of a judge/jury to ultimately decide the legality of it? As far as I know torture is/was illegal. That’s the whole point — why not have a proper trial, and if the administration’s lawyers can convince a judge/jury that torture was legal, then they’re off the hook. If not, they broke the law.

[quote=KSMountain]If every citizen (let alone CIA agents) labored under the threat that whatever behavior they currently legally engage in could later be retroactively declared illegal, that would make it pretty difficult to get anything done. It’s my understanding that that kind of legal shenanigans is actually prohibited in the constitution.[/quote]

Again, you’re operating under the assumption that torture is now (or was when they were doing it) legal. When has torture ever been legal? When Gonzalez declared it so?

I agree with you – torture is not well defined, and that makes legal arguments for and against difficult — but in this case, we had an administration declare that it was legal simply because they wanted to use it, without any regard for whether or not it was actually legal. If the administration wanted to torture — or more specifically waterboard — they should have proposed legislation to legalize it, not bend the rules to get away with something illegal. The last thing we need are our leaders unilaterally declaring laws at their will.

[quote=KSMountain]
Tell me this afx114: Do you think the special forces that shot the 3 pirates should be tried for murder?[/quote]

No, because they acted within the legal rules of engagement. Within the law. Now, if they just went off and shot any random dude on a boat for no reason — sure, they should be tried for murder.

[afx114]

A keen mind can parse multitudes of data and select which is applicable to the question in hand. I’d rather have too many choices than not enough — and rely on my filtering skills to get to the juicy nuggets that I need.

But you are right in that the brain needs to be trained to efficiently parse tons of data. I struggle with this daily, as I have an insatiable appetite for knowledge, learning, and yes — data. There is no doubt that thanks to the Internets, the way in which we access and parse data has changed exponentially, even in just the past 3-5 years. While it may seem overwhelming at first, I have no doubt that the mind will evolve to better process data.

Think of kids in middle school or even high school now — they won’t ever know a world without the Internet. Likely their brains will develop differently than those of us who remember a world without unlimited data at our fingertips.

With the likes of Google, Wikipedia, Zillow, and even data such as photos, tweets, and blogs, and your friends lists on Facebook (yes, your friends are ‘data’), there is no doubt that that we have almost unlimited data at our disposal. The key is ‘everything in moderation.’ It’s better to snort a line at a time than to bury your face in a mountain of powder, Scarface style.

NUMBER FIVE… NEED MORE IIINNPUT!

[afx114]

A keen mind can parse multitudes of data and select which is applicable to the question in hand. I’d rather have too many choices than not enough — and rely on my filtering skills to get to the juicy nuggets that I need.

But you are right in that the brain needs to be trained to efficiently parse tons of data. I struggle with this daily, as I have an insatiable appetite for knowledge, learning, and yes — data. There is no doubt that thanks to the Internets, the way in which we access and parse data has changed exponentially, even in just the past 3-5 years. While it may seem overwhelming at first, I have no doubt that the mind will evolve to better process data.

Think of kids in middle school or even high school now — they won’t ever know a world without the Internet. Likely their brains will develop differently than those of us who remember a world without unlimited data at our fingertips.

With the likes of Google, Wikipedia, Zillow, and even data such as photos, tweets, and blogs, and your friends lists on Facebook (yes, your friends are ‘data’), there is no doubt that that we have almost unlimited data at our disposal. The key is ‘everything in moderation.’ It’s better to snort a line at a time than to bury your face in a mountain of powder, Scarface style.

NUMBER FIVE… NEED MORE IIINNPUT!

[Author]

Posts