Enhanced Interrogation- from a guy who did it, and saved a lot of lives

[Fargo]

I'm not asking about any particular provision(s) of the document. I'm really not concerned with the document at this point.

If the document in question, or any other, alleges to protect rights, what is the origin of those rights? Do they pre-date the document? Does the document create them?

What are rights, and what is their origin?

The origin of whatever idea the document refers to as a right depends upon what that idea is. You are going to have to be specific about what you are referring to as a right otherwise there's no point in trying to discuss it.

You are demanding that others define a non-specific term.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The origin of whatever idea the document refers to as a right depends upon what that idea is. You are going to have to be specific about what you are referring to as a right otherwise there's no point in trying to discuss it.

You are demanding that others define a non-specific term.

Are you saying that "rights" as cited by the Constitution is subject to interpretation? If you are, I doubt that would be a very popular view in this forum.

Kut (asks for clarification)

 

[ATM]

The origin of whatever idea the document refers to as a right depends upon what that idea is. You are going to have to be specific about what you are referring to as a right otherwise there's no point in trying to discuss it.

You are demanding that others define a non-specific term.

How about the right to your knowledge, including the knowledge that you have rights?

 

[Woobie]

Something something derives something something consent of the governed.....

Someone show me where KSM consented to U.S. Constitutional rule and protections. While you're working on that, I'll show you how the government we all consented to has been formed to provide for the common defense and ensure domestic tranquility.

 

[Fargo]

Are you saying that "rights" as cited by the Constitution is subject to interpretation? If you are, I doubt that would be a very popular view in this forum.

Kut (asks for clarification)

Yeah, things like the right to vote in a primary election, or the right to a grand or petit jury, or many of the other things in the Constitution which come from the peculiarities of the English system of law.

There are other just ways of resolving cases other than petit juries, there are other just ways of bringing charges than grand jury indictment, and there are many other perfectly legitimate ways of choosing candidates then via primary elections.

Just because something is described as a right, in no way means it is inherent.

 

[ATM]

...Someone show me where KSM consented to U.S. Constitutional rule and protections...

Someone show me where I did.

 

[Woobie]

Someone show me where I did.

Have you renounced your citizenship?

 

[Lex Concord]

Yeah, things like the right to vote in a primary election, or the right to a grand or petit jury, or many of the other things in the Constitution which come from the peculiarities of the English system of law.

There are other just ways of resolving cases other than petit juries, there are other just ways of bringing charges than grand jury indictment, and there are many other perfectly legitimate ways of choosing candidates then via primary elections.

Just because something is described as a right, in no way means it is inherent.

So, at least some rights are inherent?

 

[Fargo]

So, at least some rights are inherent?

Yes, I believe I referenced that in my first reply to you.

 

[Lex Concord]

The origin of whatever idea the document refers to as a right depends upon what that idea is. You are going to have to be specific about what you are referring to as a right otherwise there's no point in trying to discuss it.

You are demanding that others define a non-specific term.

I have made no such demand.

I merely asked a question (okay, maybe a couple). I'm more curious what others consider to be rights and how that might relate to the ongoing discussion at hand.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Yeah, things like the right to vote in a primary election, or the right to a grand or petit jury, or many of the other things in the Constitution which come from the peculiarities of the English system of law.

There are other just ways of resolving cases other than petit juries, there are other just ways of bringing charges than grand jury indictment, and there are many other perfectly legitimate ways of choosing candidates then via primary elections.

Just because something is described as a right, in no way means it is inherent.

Thank you for the clarification. I think for the issue at hand, were speaking of natural, not legal rights. And while admittedly there may be some overlap in what we are discussing, I think it's a fair bet that the liberty conscious will believe that natural rights, from the understanding of Natural Law, hold precedence.

 

[ATM]

Have you renounced your citizenship?

I never announced it that I can recall.

 

[Woobie]

I have made no such demand.

I merely asked a question (okay, maybe a couple). I'm more curious what others consider to be rights and how that might relate to the ongoing discussion at hand.

I would say that of the rights codified in the Constitution, many are inherent. But, the U.S. Government has no authority or responsibility to protect those rights for a person, unless that person is a citizen or guest. So while I may object on Constitutional grounds to the encroachment on RKBA for a citizen, I feel no need to guarantee that right to an illegal alien, even though I believe the right to protect one's self to be universal. Likewise, while I have a right to a fair and speedy trial before a jury of my peers, someone in ****hole-istan who is plotting my demise has no such rights in our country. He may or may not in his, but if he's doing something that brings American troops to his front door, more terrible things than water boarding are already taking place. On the other hand, the U.S. Government -which has no responsibility to serve him patte and caviar, and offer him turn down service- has a responsibility to protect its own citizens. Placing yourself at enmity with us does not get you rights. Felons can't vote or have guns, and foreign nationals who blow up skyscrapers don't get to claim 4th, 5th, 6th or 8th amendment protections. Sorry.

 

[Tombs]

I have made no such demand.

I merely asked a question (okay, maybe a couple). I'm more curious what others consider to be rights and how that might relate to the ongoing discussion at hand.

What do I think is a right?

Anything that doesn't infringe on the rights of others.

More of a philosophical matter than necessarily a simple black/white legal definition, as you can create an argument to decide whether something is a right or not through the Socratic method.

I would say the 9th amendment recognizes this concept.

 

[Fargo]

Thank you for the clarification. I think for the issue at hand, were speaking of natural, not legal rights. And while admittedly there may be some overlap in what we are discussing, I think it's a fair bet that the liberty conscious will believe that natural rights, from the understanding of Natural Law, hold precedence.

If we want to discuss natural rights, let's do that. There are a multitude of theories of what creates a natural right, with the most popular around here appearing to be a Jon Stewart Mills/Benthamite principle of utility plus principle of nonaggression blend.

I personally find that philosophy to be rather banal which is why while I often sympathize with the libertarians, I will never describe myself as one. The idea that we are all slaves to pleasure versus pain and that morality is nothing more than a balancing game in my opinion diminishes what it is to be human.

Is more of a Thomistic/Aristotelian guy; hell I even like Kierkegaard and JPII if it comes to studying human nature. I do think there is an inherent dignity in human nature which brings with it certain natural rights or demands, such as the right of self-defense or the right to just legal process or the right to have input into your government.

This brings us back to the question of at what point can a person forfeit some or all of his rights via his evil behavior towards others?

I personally think that some of them, like life liberty and property are forfeitable , that is the whole purpose of the criminal justice system. Others, like the right to just legal process, are not.

 

[Woobie]

I never announced it that I can recall.

It's the default. The people writing the rules made it the default. If you don't like it, put your money where your mouth is. I personally think it should work a bit differently, but if I were not a citizen, I would be trying to become one.

 

[ATM]

It's the default. The people writing the rules made it the default. If you don't like it, put your money where your mouth is. I personally think it should work a bit differently, but if I were not a citizen, I would be trying to become one.

People write rules contrary to natural law all the time. If you adopt any or all of those as a default for yourself, fine.

I'm not in the habit of renouncing that which I didn't announce.

 

[Lex Concord]

I would say that of the rights codified in the Constitution, many are inherent. But, the U.S. Government has no authority or responsibility to protect those rights for a person, unless that person is a citizen or guest. So while I may object on Constitutional grounds to the encroachment on RKBA for a citizen, I feel no need to guarantee that right to an illegal alien. Likewise, while I have a right to a fair and speedy trial before a jury of my peers, someone in ****hole-istan who is plotting my demise has no such rights in our country. He may or may not in his, but if he's doing something that brings American troops to his front door, more terrible things than water boarding are already taking place. On the other hand, the U.S. Government -which has no responsibility to serve him patte and caviar, and offer him turn down service- has a responsibility to protect its own citizens.

Does the government have the authority or responsibility to violate inherent rights if one is not a citizen or guest? Governments certainly have the power, and they exercise it frequently. But the question is should they?

There really isn't a point in discussion of legal rights in such a conversation, as legal rights (along with the codified levels of protection for inherent rights) are subject to change with varied levels of effort. In short, anything can be made legal. Whether it be a right conferred by the organization of government or the laws that emanate from that organization, sufficient will of the people and their representative, or the rulers, as the case may be, and the necessary effort to get to the "stroke of the pen" are all that are required to create a legal right.

The root of the matter is what things constitute inherent rights; which, if any, are subject to forfeit; and upon what grounds?

So, to be specific, as Fargo has requested, does the restriction against "cruel and unusual punishments" in the Eighth Amendment represent a codified protection (from government) of an inherent right, or is it a "legal right" established by the U.S. constitution?

 

[jamil]

People write rules contrary to natural law all the time. If you adopt any or all of those as a default for yourself, fine.

I'm not in the habit of renouncing that which I didn't announce.

So, there's never been a box on any form that you've ever filled out which says you are a US Citizen? Or do you just leave the box blank?

 

[Woobie]

Does the government have the authority or responsibility to violate inherent rights if one is not a citizen or guest? Governments certainly have the power, and they exercise it frequently. But the question is should they?

There really isn't a point in discussion of legal rights in such a conversation, as legal rights (along with the codified levels of protection for inherent rights) are subject to change with varied levels of effort. In short, anything can be made legal. Whether it be a right conferred by the organization of government or the laws that emanate from that organization, sufficient will of the people and their representative, or the rulers, as the case may be, and the necessary effort to get to the "stroke of the pen" are all that are required to create a legal right.

The root of the matter is what things constitute inherent rights which, if any, are subject to forfeit, and upon what grounds.

So, to be specific, as Fargo has requested, does the restriction against "cruel and unusual punishments" in the Eighth Amendment represent a codified protection (from government) of an inherent right, or is it a "legal right" established by the U.S. constitution?

First of all, I would make a distinction. These tactics are specifically not used as punishment. They are used to gain information. The punishment is an entirely different matter.

Secondly, I think the legal vs. inherent discussion is interesting in this instance. I would say humans have an inherent right to not be treated like an animal. But I would also say that right doesn't trump another humans right to be alive. If I have to choose between the two, I will side with preserving the innocent life over the dignity of the murderer. Also, I am in no way convinced any of the ten things on the CIA list stoop to the level of inhumane. They're mean, but so is letting your dog poop on someone else's lawn.

Thirdly, I will reiterate the source of a right does not impose a responsibility to protect that right for all mankind. A government formed of the people, by the people, for the people has no business with someone that is not one of its people. Inasmuch as some goat rapist decides to attack the people the government is formed to serve, that government must do its obligation, not invent reasons to shirk that obligation. The government is a legal entity, not a moral entity. So while some founding principles are morally based, they do not make the mechanics of the government moral. Being a legal entity, it must deal with those who possess legal standing.