Your problem is with who you attribute the desire.

I >personally< don't care and >personally< find the need for this troubling. I also >personally< disagree with nearly all of the evidence rules proposed for tribunals.

I do, however, understand the administrations needs. Why the dichotomy? Because I don't anticipate ever being in a position ot be prosecuted based on vague language. Those in power have a completely different set of requirements than I, because they ARE in that position.

So, in short, I don't think it necessary, but I UNDERSTAND THE DESIRE of those who do.

If, in my position as a manager, I find myself in a position where my subordinates could be fired/jailed/reprimanded for >doing their job<..based on legal language that lacks specificity...I would likely AT LEAST MAKE THE ATTEMPT...to clarify the language before giving up altogether.

That is my point.

And some of the techniques used, though questionable, I do not think qualify as degrading or humiliating. Waterboarding is not one of those techniques. I believe that to be across the line...but >thinking< this and >prosecuting< this are separate. Which is why I keep giving the silly examples that I do. Someone, somewhere may think differently than we do...so applying those types of standards is inherently troubling, maybe not as troubling as the fact we are asking to make them ok, but troubling none the less.

Post #267,927 by bepatient 9/18/06 11:49:06 AM Reply	Your problem is with who you attribute the desire. I >personally< don't care and >personally< find the need for this troubling. I also >personally< disagree with nearly all of the evidence rules proposed for tribunals. I do, however, understand the administrations needs. Why the dichotomy? Because I don't anticipate ever being in a position ot be prosecuted based on vague language. Those in power have a completely different set of requirements than I, because they ARE in that position. So, in short, I don't think it necessary, but I UNDERSTAND THE DESIRE of those who do. If, in my position as a manager, I find myself in a position where my subordinates could be fired/jailed/reprimanded for >doing their job<..based on legal language that lacks specificity...I would likely AT LEAST MAKE THE ATTEMPT...to clarify the language before giving up altogether. That is my point. And some of the techniques used, though questionable, I do not think qualify as degrading or humiliating. Waterboarding is not one of those techniques. I believe that to be across the line...but >thinking< this and >prosecuting< this are separate. Which is why I keep giving the silly examples that I do. Someone, somewhere may think differently than we do...so applying those types of standards is inherently troubling, maybe not as troubling as the fact we are asking to make them ok, but troubling none the less. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #267,962 by jbrabeck 9/18/06 1:39:38 PM Reply	That's what I was trying to say back here [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=267898\|267898] when I said I thought we had missed your point. I didn't think it was YOUR opinion you were arguing, but you understood WHY it was being suggested. A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort. (Herm Albright)
Post #267,963 by bepatient 9/18/06 1:45:44 PM Reply	And my response was affirmative to you a negative affirmative, anyway ;-) Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Welcome to IWETHEY!