Welcome to SLTrib Readers

July 4, 2004 | 21 comments
By

Hello, readers of the Salt Lake Tribune. You’re probably here because of Peggy Fletcher Stack’s recent story.

Dan Burk’s original post is more than a week old, so it’s in our archives rather than the main page. CLICK HERE to go to that post.

Feel free to look around, to read over other posts, and to make comments about the posts. Please bear in mind that the blog’s Comment Policies prohibit comments that personally attack or insult other commenters.

Welcome, and we hope you enjoy the blog!

21 Responses to Welcome to SLTrib Readers

  1. Steve Evans on July 3, 2004 at 11:23 am

    Holy moley! Congrats, Kaimi. I’m glad Peggy got in touch with you.

  2. danithew on July 3, 2004 at 11:30 am

    Fun! It’s nice to look up a Trib article on-line and see a link straight to this blog.

  3. Mason Konkle on July 3, 2004 at 2:07 pm

    The fact that the Tribune’s article references this blog and gets so much of it’s source material from the legal justification of torture discussion is a sign of things to come.

    Sites like Times and Seasons are helping to create decentralized news gathering, where an entire community helps to (1) find and identify worthy topics of discussion and (2) supply a balanced evaluation of those topics where the entire spectrum of viewpoints is represented.

    I find this to be much more appealing than simply reading a “fair and balanced” article from a major newspaper.

  4. lyle on July 3, 2004 at 5:13 pm

    Well…this is the first instance I know of where an LDS blog has been cited in a newspaper. Kool.

    Although…I find the subject matter somewhat distasteful. At least the article was balanced. Hopefully Bro. Burk & Judge Bybee are never called to work on a J. Reuben Clark Committee together.

    I’m also somewhat saddened to see such undeserved accusations thrown at a talented & faithful member of the Church. Of course who knows…maybe Bro. Burks raking of Judge Bybee over the coals will somehow improve LDS PR & help make converts? not…

  5. Gordon Smith on July 4, 2004 at 12:27 am

    Lyle, They actually were on a J. Reuben Clark Law Society committee together. The one that planned the LDS perspectives conference, though I am not sure whether they ever met face to face. For the record, I like both of them.

  6. Renee on July 4, 2004 at 7:46 pm

    Lyle, to say that one should not criticize actions by other members simply because it could be offputting to potential members is folly.

    That’s the very logic that *does* put people off. It happens a lot in politics, as you know, people get criticized for having the cajones to say that someone else isn’t doing right by the party.

    What’s the quote? Something like all that it takes for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing.

  7. lyle on July 4, 2004 at 10:38 pm

    Gordon: That was a ‘were’. My reference is to “future” work together.

    Renee: Whatever happened to taking your brother aside & correcting him in private? Not that the D&C should guide our actions when they deal with politics…

  8. Kaimi on July 4, 2004 at 11:35 pm

    Lyle,

    As you’re doubtless aware, a public statement of policy is best countered by a public critique.

    Your frequent participation in this board and elsewhere illustrates your own unwillingness to rely on private communication. If someone makes a statement that you disagree with about a political issue, you feel it is appropriate to address them in public, including calling their position erroneous.

    So, why do you think it is inappropriate for Dan Burk to do the same?

  9. TR on July 5, 2004 at 12:12 am

    maybe, Lyle did what he did, because, dan posited what is essentially a political question, and couched it terms of Scriptural Commandments. And, since, unlike a lot of other matters that the Scriptures teach us, the question raised does not lend itself to s pat answer – i.e like whether a devout LDS person ought to consume alcohol. The issue of whether or not some forms of “torture”, or ‘aggressive interrogation techniques” are rather complex questions that cannot be answered by a simple yes or no, but, seems some on this board, on the torture thread, seemed to take a very black-and-white approach to it, and roundly condemned Brother Bybee for his involvement inthe famous memo. Personally, if I was in a situation where i might be able to extract valuable info from a terrorist suspect that mightsave the lives of countless innocents, I would gladly do whatever is necessary. I wonder what heavenly fater would have to say to me when I reach the pearly gates, if He knew that i had the opportunity to save the lives of countless innocents, but, i nstead quoted Scriptures, and chose not to do what was necessary at that point to save the innocents. I wonder…….

  10. lyle on July 5, 2004 at 8:19 am

    Kaimi: The memo was not initially a _public_ document. Hence, I do think it is different. Also…where is the increased showing forth of love as suggested by the Lord in the D&C? I see none of it…except among those who defend Jay in that article.

    Also, as TR eloquently points out…the T&S policy _supposedly_ bans questioning other individuals faith. However, that doesn’t seem to apply when a liberal wants to implicitly question a conservatives faith…as Kingsley has mentioned in the Tonsorial Jihad thread.

    Frankly Kaimi, I think you have a double standard going on. Maybe the T&S board should re-think letting itself be _used_ as a political weapon (hm…I wonder how that SLTrib report got wind of the thread???) which:
    1. slams a good man (which is mean)
    2. slams his faith (which is contra T&S policy)
    3. slams his politics (why is this newsworthy? Oh yeah, I forget…because it does #2 in spades!!! Maybe you should just roll-out a pro-Kerry banner ad on the site?)

    p.s. I appreciate you mentioning that you suspected that I had one also. My distinction above might not hold…in which case, I fall back upon the second. Then I’ll be more than willing to re-evaluate. :)

  11. Adam Greenwood on July 5, 2004 at 8:37 am

    Lyle,
    Look, I vehemently disagree with D. Burk’s characterization of Bybee. But how are we Mormons to call each other to repentance if we can’t ever object to the public actions of our public figures? Brother Bybee can take the heat.

  12. sid on July 5, 2004 at 10:04 am

    I am sure that Bro Bybee can take th heat- I bet he is taking a lot more from the mainstream press ( which is not sympathetic to Bush Admin appointees or employees anyway), and from legal academics. Problem I see is this – bro burke attacked Bro Bybee’s legal writings, and essentially accused him of being un-Mormon like, which is why perhaps it stuck in the craw of lyle and I and a few other regulars here at T&S. Mind you, I am, by no means a neo-con, it is just t hat I am worried by what I see – that some Mormon academics seem to have taken on the worst characteristics of their left-leaning, po-mo academic compatriots – i.e. , condemning a man who happens to have scholarly opinions diametrically different that theirs, and then seeming to imply that Bro Bybee’s writing somehow made him less of a devout Mormon.

  13. lyle on July 5, 2004 at 10:28 am

    Adam: Agreed…a forum is needed. I’m simply suggesting that one that is D&C compliant is more appropriate. Also, by calling Jay’s faith into question…I think this is a blatant violation of the T&S protocols.

  14. Renee on July 5, 2004 at 11:33 am

    >Renee: Whatever happened to taking your brother aside & correcting him in private? Not that the D&C should guide our actions when they deal with politics…

    Perhaps it’s your do or die by the Republican party track record that makes me think you wouldn’t care if this was a Catholic criticizing Kerry in public.

  15. lyle on July 5, 2004 at 1:24 pm

    1. D&C applies to our community. A Catholic wouldn’t necessarily feel bound by it.
    2. However, I would personally prefer that Catholic Bishops talk with Kerry in private. However, I’m not exactly in authority over them, am I? Neither am I here, but nor do the Bishops have the T&S protocol or D&C to deal with.

  16. Kaimi on July 5, 2004 at 3:51 pm

    Lyle,

    I’m glad that you’re aware of the comment policies. However, please bear in mind that the permanent bloggers are the arbiters of the policy. We have a range of views represented on the blog, and hope that most readers feels that their viewpoints are adequately represented by one or more of the regular bloggers.

    We invited to Dan Burk to guest blog, and he did so very well. He was our guest, and we don’t wish to talk negatively of him (though disagreeing with his position is certainly acceptable). If Dan had violated T & S protocols, I am certain that he would have been told of this by the regular bloggers. His post and following comments were not viewed as violating T & S policies.

    I’m aware that some determinations may be viewed as subjective; all language is subjective, and one person may view a post one way while another person has a different interpretation. Views will differ. The proper arbiting body’s view is what is determinative. I understand that you personally think that Dan’s post should be considered as going against T & S policy, but the bloggers and blog administrators have not come to the same conclusion.

  17. Jim F. on July 5, 2004 at 6:31 pm

    Lyle and others have said that Dan Burke’s post slammed Jay Bybee and his faith, but that is an unfair characterization of what Dan wrote. Certainly he questioned how someone LDS could do what Bybee did and said that he found that deeply troubling. However, questioning how, as a Latter-day Saint, Bybee could do what he did is quite different from attacking Bybee’s person or faith. For one thing, it genuinely allows for a response to the question.

    Though personal attacks and questioning the faith of another are forbidden on this site (and sometimes various people of various political persuasions have forgotten that), Dan’s post was fairly clearly not such an attack or questioning. It isn’t fair to characterize it as such or to accuse those who manage T&S of a double-standard in this regard.

  18. Jim F. on July 5, 2004 at 6:36 pm

    By the way, I’m less inclined than Kaimi to believe “all language is subjective” so our posts are open to a variety of interpretations. Of course there are ambiguities, but the fact that we communicate at all suggests (a la the arguments of the philosopher Donald Davidson) that there is a great deal of agreement between us. We can disagree about what something means, but that is the exception rather than the rule. So for the most part, we all know what the people who post on T&S mean, even when they are supposedly only implying that meaning.

  19. lyle on July 6, 2004 at 12:31 am

    Jim: How is questioning a sitting federal judge allow for a response to the question?

    Kaimi: Thanks for the clarification. Now I have a much better idea where the “line” in the sand is & how far folks can push it. Welcome to polarization…

  20. lyle on July 6, 2004 at 12:43 am

    Jim: feel free to ask Kaimi, since he clerked for a Federal Judge, how Judge Bybee might responde. Perhaps he might even ask his former Judge how that judge would respond if sandbagged about some former memo he had written…

    Also, is it a matter of fair characterization? What about perception? Hm? Should we take a poll & see how many people felt Judge Bybee was sandbagged? & how many were happy by it? upset?

    ———————-

    All: Why don’t we all pause, breath deep…and then ask yourself, truly madly deeply, how you would feel about this. Sen. Reid has mentioned how deeply hurt he is by how his fellow Saints treat him oft. I hope that there isn’t another LDS citizen serving his country in Nevada who will now feel the same pain.

    thus spoke one

  21. Restoring Lost Comments on November 25, 2004 at 9:32 pm

    [Restoring Comments Inadvertently Lost in the WP transfer] :

    Senator Reid has also indicated a degree of embarassment and chagrin that this memo has come out after he had offered Bybee his support in the confirmation process. Bybee knew about the memo and refused to answer questions on the issue when they were put to him during confirmation hearings. Who exactly was “sandbagged” in this whole business?
    Comment by: obi-wan at July 6, 2004 07:18 AM

    *****

    It made me awfully sad to learn that Mr. Bybee (he is not an Elder in my sight) wrote that memo justifying torture.
    I am considering writing to the First Presidency of the Church about this because it is far worse than people seem to understand.
    The CIA has done studies to show that the intelligence provided under torture is not necessarily reliable.
    Most importantly though, it should come down to this, for someone like Mr. Bybee: would he accept his own children to be tortured? If not, how could he accept other people’s children to be tortured?
    Why are we lowering our standards like this? It does not matter how low the standards are of the other person. It should never matter.
    I am very sad that other people of my faith and religion seem to find easy ways to excuse torturing and sexually humiliating others.
    You guys do realize that the only reason this memo was disavowed was because we got caught red handed at Abu Ghraib.
    You do realize that more justifications for torture would have been made had Abu Ghraib not been what it is.
    Please, oh please, be better than this! I beg you.
    Comment by: Daniel Dubei at July 12, 2004 10:23 AM

    *****