4 ms·

>I suspect it's out of an honest attempt at doing the right thing. no. It is to cover their asses. Like in the case of torture - if they just go and torture it

>I suspect it's out of an honest attempt at doing the right thing. no. It is to cover their asses. Like in the case of torture - if they just go and torture it would be one thing, instead they have been doing it according to the rules reviewed and approved by government lawyers, who declared the torture is legal. Thus people have been tortured, yet nobody can be punished for performing it. Nor people who only wrote the [illegal] rules, nor people who only followed the [illegal] rules. Using such responsibility deflection schema government can do anything as long as it follows "the rules" [which it wrote itself] and even the people with moral compass can look in the mirror easy because they only doing their job and follow the rules. (another example - recent public outcry about drone killing of Americans was easily put down by switching attention to the alleged fact of existence of the "strict designation and targeting rules" the government follows without even publishing the rules, just a mere statement of their existence)

jamieb 13y ago
Seriously. Let's be honest. We used to torture people in extreme cases, but the person doing it knew that (a) it was illegal, and (b) if they were exposed they would be disavowed. (Of course, they might get away with it if they had some really good dirt on their boss, but that requires "using" a "card"). So the person doing the torturing had to be really fucking sure that this person was "guilty" and further that torturing would actually work (which is "not often"). The kind of operative doing this work was strongly personally committed to our country and extremely aware of their own personal investment. Instead, we now have state-sponsored, legalized torture, and so any and all sociopaths can happily try their hand at torture just for the jolies, at no personal risk. Spying must be illegal. A nation still needs to do it, but the brave few who do it, are braver still for doing it at personal risk.
rayiner 13y ago
> (another example - recent public outcry about drone killing of Americans was easily put down by switching attention to the alleged fact of existence of the "strict designation and targeting rules" the government follows without even publishing the rules, just a mere statement of their existence) As a technical U.S. citizen, Anwar_al-Awlaki had due process rights. Therefore, the relevant inquiry was: what process is "due" (M-W: "owed," "capable of satisfying [an]... obligation," "required or expected...")? It's a foundational principle of Constitutional law that "due process" does not necessarily require a jury trial. So the legality of al-Awlaki's targeted killing depends entirely on the issues you dismiss out of hand. The fundamental question is whether the designation and targeting rules are sufficient "process" (meaning "legal procedure") in context. Far from being a "responsibility deflection schema" it is a good faith attempt to stay within the bounds of the law while still following through with an important governmental objective: bringing to justice an enemy of the United States. It's no different than when any person or company asks their lawyer "can we do this?" Because here is the thing: not everybody agrees with you (you, VladRussian2 personally). Lots of people think your ideals are stupid and dangerous.[1] Outside the echo-chamber of this website, lots of people have no problem with torture in the course of war, lots of people think supposed "Americans" who take up arms against the U.S. can't claim the protection of their Constitution. Is the government just supposed to go by principles? If so, why your principles instead of other people's principles? It's not a workable system. That's why we instead follow rules, rules we all agreed to. In the course of following those rules, we often have to make judgment calls about exactly what those rules do and do not allow us to do. And sometimes, we're on the edge of that boundary and make good faith attempts to stay on the right side. [1] I remember as an undergraduate in Atlanta in the lead-up to the Iraq war, lots of people seriously suggested turning the middle east into a "glass parking lot" as a solution to the problems in the region. You may not like those people (and I personally found those comments tasteless), but they are as much a part of our body politic as you, and their principles carry just as much weight as yours.

jamieb 13y ago

Seriously. Let's be honest. We used to torture people in extreme cases, but the person doing it knew that (a) it was illegal, and (b) if they were exposed they would be disavowed. (Of course, they might get away with it if they had some really good dirt on their boss, but that requires "using" a "card"). So the person doing the torturing had to be really fucking sure that this person was "guilty" and further that torturing would actually work (which is "not often"). The kind of operative doing this work was strongly personally committed to our country and extremely aware of their own personal investment. Instead, we now have state-sponsored, legalized torture, and so any and all sociopaths can happily try their hand at torture just for the jolies, at no personal risk. Spying must be illegal. A nation still needs to do it, but the brave few who do it, are braver still for doing it at personal risk.

rayiner 13y ago

> (another example - recent public outcry about drone killing of Americans was easily put down by switching attention to the alleged fact of existence of the "strict designation and targeting rules" the government follows without even publishing the rules, just a mere statement of their existence) As a technical U.S. citizen, Anwar_al-Awlaki had due process rights. Therefore, the relevant inquiry was: what process is "due" (M-W: "owed," "capable of satisfying [an]... obligation," "required or expected...")? It's a foundational principle of Constitutional law that "due process" does not necessarily require a jury trial. So the legality of al-Awlaki's targeted killing depends entirely on the issues you dismiss out of hand. The fundamental question is whether the designation and targeting rules are sufficient "process" (meaning "legal procedure") in context. Far from being a "responsibility deflection schema" it is a good faith attempt to stay within the bounds of the law while still following through with an important governmental objective: bringing to justice an enemy of the United States. It's no different than when any person or company asks their lawyer "can we do this?" Because here is the thing: not everybody agrees with you (you, VladRussian2 personally). Lots of people think your ideals are stupid and dangerous.[1] Outside the echo-chamber of this website, lots of people have no problem with torture in the course of war, lots of people think supposed "Americans" who take up arms against the U.S. can't claim the protection of their Constitution. Is the government just supposed to go by principles? If so, why your principles instead of other people's principles? It's not a workable system. That's why we instead follow rules, rules we all agreed to. In the course of following those rules, we often have to make judgment calls about exactly what those rules do and do not allow us to do. And sometimes, we're on the edge of that boundary and make good faith attempts to stay on the right side. [1] I remember as an undergraduate in Atlanta in the lead-up to the Iraq war, lots of people seriously suggested turning the middle east into a "glass parking lot" as a solution to the problems in the region. You may not like those people (and I personally found those comments tasteless), but they are as much a part of our body politic as you, and their principles carry just as much weight as yours.