4 ms·

In no world can the FBI be viewed as 'combatants.' They're a civilian law enforcement agency, and the Geneva convention definitely _does not_ apply to them. Et

In no world can the FBI be viewed as 'combatants.' They're a civilian law enforcement agency, and the Geneva convention definitely _does not_ apply to them. Ethically, yes, they shouldn't be doing this, but we can't pretend rules of war apply to a civilian agency with 0 role in combat.

adventured 11y ago
The parent comment was not making that comparison. They were not trying to imply that the FBI is a combatant on a battlefield. It was meant to be an example of friction caused by multi-directional pressure (in the FBI's case, to strictly obey the law and yet to be aggressive in solving crimes by any means within the law).
- AnkhMorporkian 11y ago
  I guess I'm confused then, because that's precisely what the FBI is doing, and that's exactly what the grandparent comment is doing. The FBI didn't try to side-step the courts, it brought it to them directly and is indeed strictly following the law.
  - matt_wulfeck 11y ago
    > it brought it to them directly and is indeed strictly following the law If this is your definition of "strictly following the law" imagine yourself in a scenario where the FBI brings a lawsuit against you: risk going to court, losing, and going to jail, or hiring a lawyer and fighting something with dubious constitution grounding. There are so many different ways to lose when the FBI plays this game against private companies or individual. They sue you because they want to put you in jail, not clarify the law. If you're a strongly opinionated CEO of a company with a war chest you fight it and at the very least stay out of jail. If you're the CEO of a small ISP/web hosting company you suck it up, do what they say, and follow the gag order.
    - AnkhMorporkian 11y ago
      What would you propose then? Obviously someone needs to fight the law enforcement agents making these requests; we can't just tell the FBI "you just have to follow the law exactly as it's written, you can't challenge anything" because that would severely tie its wrists. I do agree it's not quite fair to put defense costs on the company/individual that needs to fight it, but the alternative I can think of is a public defender type system that I don't think many people would be happy with for corporations.
      - Zigurd 11y ago
        > "you just have to follow the law exactly as it's written, you can't challenge anything" Isn't that what we expect from all people and institutions? moreover, we expect the people to be in control of "challenges" to the laws, and the laws themselves. Much of what's wrong with government comes from government creating self-serving laws.
        AnkhMorporkian 11y ago
        Laws are rigid and don't keep up with the changing times. You might argue that that's the government's fault for not passing new laws, and that's a fair point. However, the judicial has set a precedent over the past 200 years or so of interpreting laws to fit with changing circumstances. Given that's the case, it's hard to blame the FBI for taking advantage of that. The laws are what the courts interpret them to be; no more and no less. Like it or not, strict interpretation is a fantasy and has been since the late 1700s.
- dredmorbius 11y ago
  Substantively correct, yes (as said commenter).
dredmorbius 11y ago
My point is that high-order directives -- to obey the terms of the Geneva Convention, or to uphold the rights enumerated and limits of government stated in the US Constitution -- can and do in fact devolve upon all whom they govern. Not merely courts. Yes, I expect that courts would be tasked with drawing boundaries where extraordinary discretion is required. But throwing up your arms and saying "hey, we're the executive branch, not my problem" doesn't cut it. In fact that can very well land your ass in gaol or at the receiving end of a civil rights lawsuit (modulo limitations on liability for government officials, but that's another worm of cans). Incidentally, I strongly recommend developing at least one or two abstract thinking skills if you're going to play around here. Helps smooth things along.
- fabulist 11y ago
  I strongly recommend you learn to debate without resorting to ad hominem attacks. Helps keep things thoughtful and productive, and not just here either. :)
  - dredmorbius 11y ago
    That's not an ad hom. It is pointed personal commentary.
    - fabulist 11y ago
      You're wrong.
      - dredmorbius 11y ago
        An ad hominem isn't a random insult. It is a dismissing of an argument because of an irrellevant personal trait. E.g., yo're double jointed therefore you know nothing of erlang lathe forming. Relevant personal attributes, especially those which address credibility, are generally in bounds (see also "the asymmetry of bullshit", a/k/a Brandolino's law). And observations of personal character not used as basis for argument aren't ad homs. Full stop. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html If you're going to use logical fallacies, try to use them correctly. And while the initial comment whose tone you disagreed with, and the paragraph above may not be seen as acceptable on HN (I tend to feel they skate within bounds), both point out a category of error, and steps a person might take to correct them. Insufficient abstract interpretation in the first case, incorrect use of specific terminology in this case. Of course, you could simply insist on being wrong. But that's your call. Cheers.

adventured 11y ago

The parent comment was not making that comparison. They were not trying to imply that the FBI is a combatant on a battlefield. It was meant to be an example of friction caused by multi-directional pressure (in the FBI's case, to strictly obey the law and yet to be aggressive in solving crimes by any means within the law).

AnkhMorporkian 11y ago
I guess I'm confused then, because that's precisely what the FBI is doing, and that's exactly what the grandparent comment is doing. The FBI didn't try to side-step the courts, it brought it to them directly and is indeed strictly following the law.
- matt_wulfeck 11y ago
  > it brought it to them directly and is indeed strictly following the law If this is your definition of "strictly following the law" imagine yourself in a scenario where the FBI brings a lawsuit against you: risk going to court, losing, and going to jail, or hiring a lawyer and fighting something with dubious constitution grounding. There are so many different ways to lose when the FBI plays this game against private companies or individual. They sue you because they want to put you in jail, not clarify the law. If you're a strongly opinionated CEO of a company with a war chest you fight it and at the very least stay out of jail. If you're the CEO of a small ISP/web hosting company you suck it up, do what they say, and follow the gag order.
  - AnkhMorporkian 11y ago
    What would you propose then? Obviously someone needs to fight the law enforcement agents making these requests; we can't just tell the FBI "you just have to follow the law exactly as it's written, you can't challenge anything" because that would severely tie its wrists. I do agree it's not quite fair to put defense costs on the company/individual that needs to fight it, but the alternative I can think of is a public defender type system that I don't think many people would be happy with for corporations.
    - Zigurd 11y ago
      > "you just have to follow the law exactly as it's written, you can't challenge anything" Isn't that what we expect from all people and institutions? moreover, we expect the people to be in control of "challenges" to the laws, and the laws themselves. Much of what's wrong with government comes from government creating self-serving laws.
      - AnkhMorporkian 11y ago
        Laws are rigid and don't keep up with the changing times. You might argue that that's the government's fault for not passing new laws, and that's a fair point. However, the judicial has set a precedent over the past 200 years or so of interpreting laws to fit with changing circumstances. Given that's the case, it's hard to blame the FBI for taking advantage of that. The laws are what the courts interpret them to be; no more and no less. Like it or not, strict interpretation is a fantasy and has been since the late 1700s.
dredmorbius 11y ago
Substantively correct, yes (as said commenter).

dredmorbius 11y ago

My point is that high-order directives -- to obey the terms of the Geneva Convention, or to uphold the rights enumerated and limits of government stated in the US Constitution -- can and do in fact devolve upon all whom they govern. Not merely courts. Yes, I expect that courts would be tasked with drawing boundaries where extraordinary discretion is required. But throwing up your arms and saying "hey, we're the executive branch, not my problem" doesn't cut it. In fact that can very well land your ass in gaol or at the receiving end of a civil rights lawsuit (modulo limitations on liability for government officials, but that's another worm of cans). Incidentally, I strongly recommend developing at least one or two abstract thinking skills if you're going to play around here. Helps smooth things along.

fabulist 11y ago
I strongly recommend you learn to debate without resorting to ad hominem attacks. Helps keep things thoughtful and productive, and not just here either. :)
- dredmorbius 11y ago
  That's not an ad hom. It is pointed personal commentary.
  - fabulist 11y ago
    You're wrong.
    - dredmorbius 11y ago
      An ad hominem isn't a random insult. It is a dismissing of an argument because of an irrellevant personal trait. E.g., yo're double jointed therefore you know nothing of erlang lathe forming. Relevant personal attributes, especially those which address credibility, are generally in bounds (see also "the asymmetry of bullshit", a/k/a Brandolino's law). And observations of personal character not used as basis for argument aren't ad homs. Full stop. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html If you're going to use logical fallacies, try to use them correctly. And while the initial comment whose tone you disagreed with, and the paragraph above may not be seen as acceptable on HN (I tend to feel they skate within bounds), both point out a category of error, and steps a person might take to correct them. Insufficient abstract interpretation in the first case, incorrect use of specific terminology in this case. Of course, you could simply insist on being wrong. But that's your call. Cheers.