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

101–110 of 160 posts

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

#101

Post by jandrewrogers »

sandworm101 wrote: post #83
a_gnostic wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The current scope of "arms" does include most conventional weapons but intersects with other boring regulatory considerations, especially at the State level. Anyone that can buy a gun can also fill out the paperwork to buy or manufacture much heavier weaponry. Most people don't because exercising the right is a headache. You can't drive a main battle tank on a public street or store a surface-to-air missile system in your backyard for basic infrastructure, zoning, and safety reasons that have nothing to do with the weapons per se. Small arms present much less of a practical safety or nuisance risk regardless of type, the same as any firearm.

The paperwork required is the trivial part. I have friends that, essentially for a laugh, filed for and received every Federal approval required to acquire basically the entire range of conventional weaponry. It had a similar level of scrutiny as applying for Global Entry at the airport. If you exercised this, you still need to comply with all the industrial regulations that apply to non-weapons with similar properties, which is expensive and inconvenient.

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

#102

Post by analog31 »

mrangle wrote: post #99
analog31 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps a more interesting study is just to look at things more incrementally. For instance is a slightly more heavily armed population likely to enjoy slightly more rights, or fewer? Should I be optimistic about my rights if I move to a more heavily armed state or region?

That would be interesting. I think you'd have trouble finding enough incrementalism to provide meaningful data. But a place to start might be in European nations that only allow hunting guns.

Indeed, and I think you could get more data by counting countries that "allow" guns by default, simply by being incapable of regulating them.

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

#103

Post by projektfu »

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.

Why did you start with the first phrase of the first amendment, redact the rest of that amendment and the beginning of the second, and then misquote the remainder?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Grammarians have been puzzling over this text for many years.

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

#104

Post by Geisterde »

analog31 wrote: post #60
Geisterde wrote: post #48

[flagged]

Also, what is the game theory when an armed faction of the people gain the ability to overthrow a democracy and install a king, or at least, can credibly threaten to do so?

Generally speaking armed revolution ends with the revolutionaries getting the short end of the stick, they were the keys to aquiring some measure of power, but are no longer useful for a régime focused on controlling its new territory. Following that a constitution and new edicts arise that cement state power while providing a thin vernier of legitimacy.

As far as an armed group in the united states doing that, I think we are a long way off from that. Although I would say democracy is structurally flawed, so long as the american public believes the foundation myth of their representation holds, no such thing is possible. The easiest way then to prevent an armed revolution, is to provide better transparency to elections. You dont even really need to make the elections fair; for instance im pretty sure republican voters will go on accepting that their civil and economic rights are trampled on; Democratic voters will go on accepting disfunctional criminal justice, healthcare, and education systems; so long as we arent playing games with who and how votes are tallied and what level of transparency we have over that process. Breaking that cycle, where the vast majority would really rather unwittingly vote away prosperity, requires a different type of revolution.

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

#105

Post by TeMPOraL »

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…

> 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.

Is that for real? It sounds positively Cardassian.

Dukat: "On Cardassia, the verdict is always known before the trial begins. And it's always the same."

Sisko: "In that case, why bother with a trial at all?"

Dukat: "Because the people demand it. They enjoy watching justice triumph over evil every time. They find it comforting."

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

#106

Post by [deleted] »

k__ wrote: post #45
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…

I totally understand where they coming from. Nevertheless, this loophole gives guilty people plausible deniability, since the system can never be sure to find the truth.

[deleted]

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

#107

Post by sandworm101 »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #101
sandworm101 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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…

The current scope of "arms" does include most conventional weapons but intersects with other boring regulatory considerations, especially at the State level. Anyone that can buy a gun can also fill out the paperwork to buy or manufacture much heavier weaponry. Most people don't because exercising the right is a headache. You can't drive a main battle tank on a public street or store a surface-to-air missile system in…

>> The current scope of "arms" does include most conventional weapons but intersects with other boring regulatory considerations

If those other conventional weapons were covered as "arms" under the 2nd, then those other boring regulations don't matter. The fact that those regs even exist is because so many weapons are specifically not covered as arms. I can own an AR-15. I cannot own a switchblade. I can own a 9mm semiautomatic, but I cannot own a small pen gun. I can own a short shotgun (coachgun) but I cannot own a crossbow in New York. Walk into a Nevada store with a handgun on your hip or an AR over your shoulder and nobody will bat an eye. But carry a sword and you will be arrested. It was only a couple years ago that laws banning "chain sticks" were struck down. SCOTUS has consistently narrowed the 2nd to only protect guns. Most ever other weapon is open for whatever reg the government wants to enact.

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

#108

Post by bagels »

SamBam wrote: post #90
tgv wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Juries make guilty/not guilty findings, not innocence.

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

#109

Post by Geisterde »

projektfu wrote: post #103
a_gnostic wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why did you start with the first phrase of the first amendment, redact the rest of that amendment and the beginning of the second, and then misquote the remainder? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Grammarians have been puzzling over this text for many years.

Why do we pretend that organizationally we exist in the same environment as when they penned the constitution? The people were the militia, and a free state implies the freedom of the people, not the government.
Post reply on HN