Not until Lucius Fox got his hands on the technology.

>> ^hpqp:

>> ^shinyblurry:
Neros name was Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus.

Bin Laden's name was Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden.


The point being that his full name doesn't add up to 666. Not only that but Neros original name was Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus. So arbitrarily picking out Nero Caeser as his name because it adds up to 666 and saying this is who John is talking about doesn't cut the mustard. This wasn't who John was talking about, because the man of sin has not yet been revealed. It was prophecy for the future, not for Johns present.

(I think this is my longest post ever, and I really hate long posts, and now I'm just making it longer. But read this one. It's pretty good)

The Constitution is a document that, like a lyric poem, is ultimately a flawed representation of the understandings and intentions of those who wrote it. Differences in the interpretation of the words, clauses, punctuation, and structure of the document can and do mean vast differences in the meaning and application of the rules of the nation. This principle of interpretation is as elementary as it is meaningful.

The Geneva Convention is likewise a document, or series of documents, that poses a similar jurisprudential problem. What Yoo presents in this interview is an indirect, yet unimpeachable explanation of the process by which such documents are examined and applied. There is what is called a "bright line rule" in the Geneva Convention regarding "torture"--i.e. it is a violation of the agreement. However, unlike in local and national statutes where definitions of terms often constitute thousands of pages, the Geneva Convention does not enumerate torturous acts. The term is left largely undefined. What Yoo explains here is that he was tasked with coming up with a legal definition of that term.



The problem many have with this task is that Yoo was directed to define the term as strictly as possible to allow his client (the Office of the Executive) as much leeway as possible. As it turns out, as Yoo tries to explain, there is a dearth of constitutional and legal precedent regarding the legal definition of "torture" (not that such precedent is nonexistent, however, as D_J points out above). Compounding this (for us liberals) is the correct determination that Yoo made regarding the broad powers that the Constitution, the legal precedent and indeed the framers themselves intend the Executive to hold in times of crisis. (For a more in-depth understanding of these claims, read about Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, and about the Society of the Cincinatti). Applying this broad-power tenet to the analysis of the legal definition of "torture" yields a hairy result: the Executive actually has a right and a duty to define the ambiguous term in a way that will most effectively protect the national interest. This is the conclusion that Yoo, and any other lawyer or legal scholar, would come to.

Now, my problem with the recommendation enumerating interrogation techniques that are and are not torture is not that the DoJ or the Bush Administration bent the rule. There was no way to implement the rule without bending it: without an established legal definition, any implementation requires interpretation. There could be no alteration of interrogation techniques ever without interpreting or reinterpreting the term "torture." My problem (and I suppose that this is the problem I am trying to convince you to have as well) is that they did not include enough factors in their calculation of the national interest.



Yoo argues (believes?) that the majority of American citizens support/supported waterboarding, but this is irrelevant. It is not the job of the Executive, and certainly not of the DoJ, to do the will of the people. This is a Republican democracy where (ideally) we elect people not because we think or hope they will execute our will in government, but because we believe them to be more capable of making the analyses and decisions of government. Therefore, a popular mandate does not justify public policy nor excuse elected officials from accountability. It cannot be right only because the people wanted it. This principle is written into the Constitution (which decentralizes power like you wouldn't believe, including the power of the people) in numerable ways, and has been upheld in many aspects by the Supreme Court of the US.

It is the duty of the Executive Office to calculate the national interest in every way multiple times a day. I think what Stewart was trying to get at (in an uncharacteristically poor way) is that the people involved in this decision made a potentially catastrophic failure in their calculation, because they didn't weigh the repercussions (both foreign and domestic) of using waterboarding and other questionable techniques in interrogations. He spends too much time trying to debate the constitutionality of the process and trying to enforce his perception that water boarding is obviously torture (and here the perception of the masses might be relevant, as it might mean that it is not obviously torture, although there is a strong argument that the public perception might truly be that water boarding is torture, but that we're cool with it). Stewart doesn't focus on the policy issues of using questionable techniques. What Yoo says in this interview about the process he used to interpret the not-so bright-line rule "No Torture" is not and should not be the issue. Even though I come down on the "yes it is" side, whether waterboarding is torture under the Geneva Convention is, I'm sorry to say, truly a matter of legal opinion. The issue we should have is that it doesn't matter whether you can legally define "torture" to include or exclude waterboarding, but that waterboarding should not be used regardless of definition.

that's stupid.

Lucius did have at least two or three times a perfect occasion to stab the final boss in the stomach, while he raised his mace. He didn't. That's retarded.

I like to think there is a bit of missing context here to why he's dressed like a santa-clause-lucius-malfoy hybrid.

Just an update on this story:

A post-mortem examination found that Mr Woolmer's death was due to "asphyxia as a result of manual strangulation". "In these circumstances, the matter of Mr Woolmer's death is now being treated as murder," Police Commissioner Lucius Thomas said in a statement.

There are now speculations that Bob Woolmer was murdered by either an irate Pakistani cricket fan or a member of the team involved in match fixing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6482981.stm

I consider religion to be nothing more than a tool used to maintain a subservient populace, and therefore intolerable and unacceptable.

People are free to believe whatever they want (as the woman in this clip proves), but when you blindly agree with archaic and irrational myths that have directly caused the deaths of millions of people throughout history, you shouldn't really expect your beliefs to be respected.

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." - Lucius Annaeus Seneca (born 5 BC, died 65 AD)

The assertive atheist: http://www.flamewarrior.com/index.htm