Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale

daviddfriedman.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 160 posts

Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale

#81

Post by guyomes »

sandworm101 wrote: post #70
AlexandrB wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What about gun ownership (oh thats the nerve), its easy to assume things will be better when guns are banned, but what is the actual game theory in the balance of power between a people and their government when the people are stripped of their ability to defend themselves from an oppressive government? While this has surface appeal, this theory of "gun ownership as bulwark against oppression" falls apart when you…

>> the US still manages to exert power over its populace Self-oppression. For all the fearmongering, the US population is clearly able to install random people into high office and rewrite the rules as they see fit. Both Obama and Trump are clear evidence that you don't need to be from established political families to gain power. Literally any idiot can be elected should the people want them. Many are.

Another indicator is the rate of citizen un prisons. The laws on gun ownership doesn't prevent the US government to have high rate of citizens incarcerated [1]. On the other hand, US is a state of law, and in theory, US incarceration does not come from oppression but from justice and written laws [2]. Now even though gun ownership might be one way to garanty that US remains a state of law, it is not obvious that it is the only way. If US was not a state of law, I would not be comfortable that GAFAM companies gets their own armies, as in the funny dystopian novel Jenifer Government [3].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarcera...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechtsstaat

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Government

Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale

#82

Post by Geisterde »

jostmey wrote: post #71
Geisterde wrote: post #48

[flagged]

I like and appreciate your viewpoint. I push back on your stance on gun ownership. How does your view change when governments control weapons as powerful as nuclear weapons? How does this tilt the balance of power when ordinary citizens only have guns? Does this require a rethink?

As ive said in other comments, I think the their power is foundationally based on propaganda. I think censorship resistant methods of communication and other cypherpunk tools are probably more relevant in the day to day of fighting government overreach; I just think guns are something of a prerequisite for that process to work. Yes, there is always the possibility that the government starts nuking citizens for challenging their power, which is why it is important that any revolution takes place peacefully.

I wouldnt suggest anyone willingly enter an armed conflict with the government for a variety of reasons. For example, you are likely being played, after Maos revolution all the revolutionaries got sent to the hills to be worked to death. Another one would be your own information horizon being manipulated, youve just walked into Gretchen whitmers office thinking there is a huge militia ready to follow in your footsteps, you only need to light the match! Violence sucks, blood calls for more blood and errodes the social fabric; there are USSR officials still collecting pensions in exchange for getting out of the way. Or we could get nuked.

So yes, it does require some more forethought than "weve got guns so we are just going to fight the government", however there already exists an understanding of this, evidenced by the fact that they are only catching the mentally stunted in entrapment schemes.

Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale

#83

Post by sandworm101 »

a_gnostic wrote: post #76
jfengel wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point, I think it has less to do with a belief in a complete gun ban, which seems an absurd thing to even contemplate. It's more that absolutely nothing is done at all. Not even Sandy Hook produced any change whatsoever. A prominent argument was that the entire thing was a fake for the purpose of banning guns, tacitly admitting that reality did merit some kind of change. So at this point it's more of an indic…

The supreme court, stacked or not, has no bearing over gun ownership, nor does congress. "Congress shall make no law […] the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." supercedes both of them.

>> no bearing over gun ownership

Except they have great sway over definitions. They dictate what "arms" actually means. They dictate whether that word includes entire classes of weapons. The court currently protects only guns, but a small reinterpretation of "arms" could easily expand it to include bladed or explosive weapons, both of which are not currently protected. Does the 2nd cover flamethrowers? SCOTUS gets to make that decision.

Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale

#84

Post by clankyclanker »

a_gnostic wrote: post #76
jfengel wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point, I think it has less to do with a belief in a complete gun ban, which seems an absurd thing to even contemplate. It's more that absolutely nothing is done at all. Not even Sandy Hook produced any change whatsoever. A prominent argument was that the entire thing was a fake for the purpose of banning guns, tacitly admitting that reality did merit some kind of change. So at this point it's more of an indic…

The supreme court, stacked or not, has no bearing over gun ownership, nor does congress. "Congress shall make no law […] the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." supercedes both of them.

...Not in practice? The US has had laws in the books regulating gun ownership for almost a century.

https://time.com/5169210/us-gun-control-laws-history-timelin...

Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale

#85

Post by jgeada »

Geisterde wrote: post #48

[flagged]

> What about gun ownership (oh thats the nerve), its easy to assume things will be better when guns are banned, but what is the actual game theory in the balance of power between a people and their government when the people are stripped of their ability to defend themselves from an oppressive government?

Funny, the French seem to have no trouble standing up against their government while the armed US nuts seem ever so compliant. Maybe it isn’t the guns.

Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale

#86

Post by lsy »

a_gnostic wrote: post #76
jfengel wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point, I think it has less to do with a belief in a complete gun ban, which seems an absurd thing to even contemplate. It's more that absolutely nothing is done at all. Not even Sandy Hook produced any change whatsoever. A prominent argument was that the entire thing was a fake for the purpose of banning guns, tacitly admitting that reality did merit some kind of change. So at this point it's more of an indic…

The supreme court, stacked or not, has no bearing over gun ownership, nor does congress. "Congress shall make no law […] the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." supercedes both of them.

This isn't true under current US jurisprudence: if a law that infringes on a fundamental constitutional right can be shown to be narrowly tailored to, and the least restrictive means of achieving, a compelling state interest, then it passes strict scrutiny and is considered constitutional.

Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale

#87

Post by Geisterde »

lelanthran wrote: post #64
Geisterde wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Define torture if you are so inclined. Regardless, the plea bargain system has been repeatedly abused to compel false testimoney from people otherwise helpless to defend themselves from a lengthy and costly legal proceeding that will leave them ruined. Its a violation of their human rights, its prohibited by the constitution, and empirically has ruined millions of people. Crimes that do not involve violence against a…

I agree with everything you said, and still disagree that Golding suspects until an appearance in court is the same as waterboarding them or pulling their fingernails. Just because I pointed out that such a practice is not, in fact, any form of torture does not mean that the practice is not unduly burdensome and unfair.

I appreciate that view, but thats not a qualitative analysis of torture. Im not sure that it could be appropriately defined in a way that distinguishes torture from other types of violence, so maybe the word is really only useful in creating an emotional effect.

Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale

#88

Post by Geisterde »

jgeada wrote: post #85
Geisterde wrote: post #48

[flagged]

> What about gun ownership (oh thats the nerve), its easy to assume things will be better when guns are banned, but what is the actual game theory in the balance of power between a people and their government when the people are stripped of their ability to defend themselves from an oppressive government? Funny, the French seem to have no trouble standing up against their government while the armed US nuts seem ever…

Everything in france is going according to plan, having people rioting on the streets isnt necessarily something the government is trying to prevent, it gives them the political cover to enact totalitarian laws...which is precisely whats happened there.

Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale

#89

Post by SamBam »

watwut wrote: post #46
retrac wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is called "double jeopardy". It is explicitly prohibited in most legal systems. Even where it isn't explicitly prohibited, it's generally assumed as a basic principle (like innocent until proven guilty). It's basic: if someone can be retried because of new evidence, the prosecution will introduce a little bit more evidence (probably evidence they intentionally held back!) after each acquittal, and try them again…

There is that "factual innocence is not a reason to let the convict goes, because somehow magically knowing an innocent person is in prison makes justice system more trustworthy" supreme court gem. There should be obvious difference between "minor new development" and "major new finding". Likewise, there should be obvious difference between "potentially innocent person is in prison" and "prosecutor wants new attempt…

I'm not sure precisely what supreme court gem you're referring to, but just to be clear, double jeopardy only applies when a jury finds a person innocent. People who are found guilty can potentially have a new trial if new evidence comes to light.

Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale

#90

Post by SamBam »

tgv wrote: post #53
Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although my first reaction is to support the idea of being able to retry cases when new evidence emerges, I can see the pitfalls if this were applied in a real-world justice system. There would have to be some pretty big barriers to overcome to prevent abuse (on the usual suspects, the poor and/or people the police/politicians just don't like) and then more rules to make sure those barriers themselves aren't used as…

Isn't it common to be able to re-open court cases? That (technically, legally) sidesteps ne bis in idem (aka double jeopardy), but it requires that substantial new evidence is brought. So basically it adds that barrier, and the barrier becomes higher for every new attempt.

No, it's not common to reopen court cases if the jury finds a person innocent. You can certainly reopen court cases where someone was found guilty, but that's not double jeopardy.
Post reply on HN