The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale • Hacker News Board

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

#121

Post by chx » Sun, Dec 17, 2023, 6:34 PM UTC

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.

Except for the first two centuries after that was written the Supreme Court didn't interpret that section to mean anything goes. In particular, in 1939 it upheld a federal ban on sawed-off shotguns (United States v. Miller). It was not until 2008 when in District of Columbia v. Heller they said the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.

So it's not so clean cut as you'd think.

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

#122

Post by CamperBob2 » Sun, Dec 17, 2023, 6:40 PM UTC

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.

Grammarians have been puzzling over this text for many years.

It would help if someone could find another phrase in the Bill of Rights that refers to, or even alludes to, the primacy of the rights of the state (whether "Congress" or a collective state-sanctioned "militia") over those of the citizenry.

There don't seem to be any such phrases, which lends a lot of credence to those who argue that the preface to the Second Amendment is just that -- prefatory, with no functional or prescriptive aspect whatsoever. The Bill of Rights is simply the wrong place to look for rules that grant, rather than restrict, governmental authority.

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

#123

Post by teknico » Sun, Dec 17, 2023, 6:53 PM UTC

k__ wrote: post #31

"In the history of Western culture no legal system has ever made a more valiant effort to perfect its safeguards and thereby to exclude completely the possibility of mistaken conviction" Reminds me of a law that was repealed recently in Germany. They wanted to "reopen" cases where people were already found not guilty, when new technology would find new evidence. In one case, a murderer was found not guilty, and later…

No such safeguard in Italy: people are regularly tried from three to up to five times.

It’s not rare for someone to be found guilty after having been found not guilty once, and sometimes even twice.

https://www.nicolaporro.it/uccise-il-padre-per-difendere-la-...

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

#124

Post by kmeisthax » Sun, Dec 17, 2023, 6:57 PM UTC

hn_acker wrote: post #120

watwut wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The case you're referring to is Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993). The relevant excerpt is in Justice Antonin Scalia's concurrence [1]: > There is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough), for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction. ... > With any luck, we shall avo…

It's hard not to read SCOTUS's argument as selfish. The zeroeth amendment of every legal system is "the people shall not waste the judge's time", and apparently it comes even before "we let 10 guilty men go free to save 1 innocent man".

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

#125

Post by smnrchrds » Sun, Dec 17, 2023, 7:00 PM UTC

hn_acker wrote: post #120

watwut wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The case you're referring to is Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993). The relevant excerpt is in Justice Antonin Scalia's concurrence [1]: > There is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough), for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction. ... > With any luck, we shall avo…

> Four months after the Court's ruling, Herrera was executed. His last words were: "I am innocent, innocent, innocent. . . . I am an innocent man, and something very wrong is taking place tonight."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herrera_v._Collins#Subsequent_...

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

#126

Post by smnrchrds » Sun, Dec 17, 2023, 7:01 PM UTC

mrangle wrote: post #100

graphe wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Innocent until proven guilty isn't generally assumed. Look at India.

Or even at France, if memory serves.

Is this what you are referring to?

https://www.france24.com/en/20170830-france-reacts-dutertes-...

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

#127

Post by toast0 » Sun, Dec 17, 2023, 7:02 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #113

Geisterde wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reasonably well, all things considered. There are something like 20+ million ar-15s in america, were american gun owners considered an army it would be the largest ever conceived of with no close second; perhaps here you will find the reason you enjoy more liberties than someone living in china or north korea. And I never said it was fair, I said it was a balance; the balance is very clearly biased towards the govern…

> Reasonably well, all things considered. There are something like 20+ million ar-15s in america, were american gun owners considered an army it would be the largest ever conceived of with no close second; And how would those ar-15 bros would fare against an organized, professional army, with training, logistics, and coordination, not to mention air support, tanks, and the state on its side? Not to mention most of th…

> And how would those ar-15 bros would fare against an organized, professional army, with training, logistics, and coordination, not to mention air support, tanks, and the state on its side?

Depends on the terms of engagement and the makeup of the professional army.

Are ar-15 bros going to effectively take and hold territory? Maybe on a temporary basis, there's a lot of potential objectives that are regularly barely defended. But it's pretty easy to roll out the national guard or whoever to flush people out if desired.

Can ar-15 bros be a significant problem for occupying forces? Almost certainly yes.

If you wanted or needed to remove this group or their weapons from a territory, it's going to be a major challenge, and highly disruptive to the other occupants, and that's going to inspire more people to take up arms. This is insurgency 101.

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

#128

Post by aquafox » Sun, Dec 17, 2023, 7:39 PM UTC

k__ wrote: post #31

"In the history of Western culture no legal system has ever made a more valiant effort to perfect its safeguards and thereby to exclude completely the possibility of mistaken conviction" Reminds me of a law that was repealed recently in Germany. They wanted to "reopen" cases where people were already found not guilty, when new technology would find new evidence. In one case, a murderer was found not guilty, and later…

> the constitution forbids to convict someone two times for the same crime He wasn't convicted, which means the reason he isn't convicted for the first time now is because he is not allowed to be convicted twice. That doesn't make sense to me.

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

#129

Post by Geisterde » Sun, Dec 17, 2023, 7:43 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #113

Geisterde wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reasonably well, all things considered. There are something like 20+ million ar-15s in america, were american gun owners considered an army it would be the largest ever conceived of with no close second; perhaps here you will find the reason you enjoy more liberties than someone living in china or north korea. And I never said it was fair, I said it was a balance; the balance is very clearly biased towards the govern…

> Reasonably well, all things considered. There are something like 20+ million ar-15s in america, were american gun owners considered an army it would be the largest ever conceived of with no close second; And how would those ar-15 bros would fare against an organized, professional army, with training, logistics, and coordination, not to mention air support, tanks, and the state on its side? Not to mention most of th…

You are so secretly obsessed with the thought of a civil war you have taken to projecting your views on others. I never said american gun owners were an army, nor did I suggest an armed insurrection. It is merely a bulwark against the most extreme forms of government oppression. The cost of a more overt version of oppression of the american public is too high for the government to entertain. Regarding anything the government does, if they cant do so quietly, then they must do so through propaganda, and if they cant garner enough public support then they back off.

The american public has no guns, only the occasional shooting rifle. Did I do it right? You do not distinguish between freedom and liberty, those liberties are at times suspended. Things are definitely not ok in the united states, but thats not what guns are there to stop at this stage of our political system. The most valuable tools in the day to day are encryption and censorship resistant systems.

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

#130

Post by wolverine876 » Sun, Dec 17, 2023, 8:12 PM UTC

verisimi wrote: post #40

acdha wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is somewhat true but it’s a reminder of how far out it was: the Bush administration had to invent a new theory of executive privilege to authorize it, did it outside of the country because they knew it wouldn’t be accept by a real court, and then they still felt the need to “accidentally” delete the tapes.

Yes. What nonsense the whole of the legal system is. And people think it is about justice. If justice occurs on account of the legal system, its a happy accident, not by design!

This attitude prevents real progress, and results in additional injustice. The legal system is imperfect, and very flawed in some respects. The way forward is to understand the mechanism, and improve it, relentlessly. In the end it's a human institution and will be flawed, but that's all we have - humans all the way down.

The people on the sideline saying it's all pointless are not only obstructing those doing actual work, they benefit from the legal system - the work of all these people and generations working toward justice - without contributing their share.