I find, having studied Old English these last few years, that I am often surprised at how many words from then do in fact make their way safely into the present. And, they are usually items that a person (this person, anyway) would not normally have suspected, like underling and wraestlung (wrestling). But, on the whole, point taken; certainly there's less than there's more. Blame science, I guess.

I adolesced in St. Petersburg, Florida in the mid-80s and remember fondly the many hours spent watching the host of our local station's (WTOG) "Creature Feature," Dr Paul Bearer (aka Dick Bennick Sr). Growing up, I never appreciated the significance of just how long this guy was on the air: 1973-1995! Twenty-plus years delivering bad puns all along the same theme; I think at times that such endeavors as his should be held in greater regard—and certainly more often reminisced. The professionalism of hosting wretched movies is still professionalism, after all.

The following items might be relevant to the discussion:

Kuznar, Lawrence A., William G. Frederick, and Robert L. Sedlmeyer. "The Effect of Nepotism on the Evolution of Social Inequality," in Studying Societies and Cultures: Marvin Harris's Cultural Materialism and Its Legacy. Boulder: Paradigm, 2007. 168-79.

White, Richard D. "Consanguinity by degrees: Inconsistent Efforts to Restrict Nepotism in State Government." State and Local Government Review 32 (2000): 108-20.

White, Richard D. "A Tale of Two Bureaucrats: Joseph Nourse, Oliver Wolcott Jr., and the Forerunners of American Public Administration." Administration & Society 40 (2008): 384-408.

There is of course also Adam Bellow's In Praise of Nepotism: A Natural History, but I get the feeling (evoked from both academic and popular reviews) that the work relies more on the Natural and less on the History; for myself, I can do unto eternity without people making claims from "human nature."

FYI, being not a student of the Social Sciences, I managed to turn up only those few records above using the short list of Poli-Sci databases with which I am familiar; were the conversation to steer itself toward the finer points of nepotism among the kingdoms of Anglo-Saxon England or within the world of Beowulf, I'd probably fare better.

"You put someone in their 20's in a situation where they face gunfire on a pretty frequent basis."

I realize I'm late to the party, but I find this distorted sentiment especially noteworthy, as it seems to be the birthing point of so much fatalistic and equivocal rationalization for torture arguments. Such a mindset, evincing the myth of youthful innocence, impressively marginalizes the many actual human persons of ages 1 through 19 out there living assertively in a world of choices.

One wonders how exactly these "left with no choice but to" justifications can securely take root within the minds of a scattering of citizens in a nation employing a volunteer military. The best answer I've come up with is the inadequate theorization of the discourse of childhood.

One point relevant to one particular sentiment repeatedly expressed above:

1.) "Everyone is/can be a hero." Well, no they can't--not if you want the word/concept to retain the specific meaning of which you want everyone to partake. I call upon Aristotle to drop some logoscience: If "everyone [A] is a hero" [B] and if a hero [B] is a man who exhibits extraordinary bravery, firmness, fortitude, or greatness of soul, in any course of action, or in connexion with any pursuit, work, or enterprise [C] (per the OED), then, by the transitive property, everyone [A] is a man who exhibits extraordinary bravery, firmness, fortitude, or greatness of soul, in any course of action, or in connexion with any pursuit, work, or enterprise [C].

Now, leaving aside the obvious nitpick that not everyone is a man, what should be emphasized here is the contradiction produced by such logical thinking. If everyone is somebody who exhibits extraordinary bravery etc., then the extra has been rendered nugatory in favor of the ordinary. If the extraordinary has now become merely the ordinary (because possessed by everyone), then everyone immediately and automatically fails the prevailing definition of heroism because nobody exhibits the necessary extraordinarity anymore. So, contrary to what your parents told you (and no doubt what you tell your own children), everyone cannot be a hero, except by disavowing the one distinctive criterion of heroism—its extraordinarity—thus making the word/concept functionally meaningless with respect to your desires.

An interesting sidenote to the notion of Lady Justice is that from early renderings of her sculptors/painters have oscillated between showing the two pans (lit. "the balance") at equal height (hence "justified") and out of whack, with the latter depiction demonstrating more emphatically the need in justice for "getting even." William Ian Miller's recent Eye for an Eye provides an elaborate and connective look at this concept of "lex talionis" as it has been interwoven throughout Western Judeo-Christian history.

So, just to uncouple the debate for a moment from American legal semantics, I'd like to mention that the Oxford English Dictionary lists two relevant uses of rendition (coming out of earlier French usage): 1a.) The surrender of a place, garrison, possession, etc. (common in 17th c.), for which Queen Elizabeth is cited (1601: "We receiued (with much contentment) the newes of the rendition of Kinsale."); 1b.) The surrender of a person, for which John Milton is cited (1649; "His rendition afterward to the Scotch Army.").

So, the concept of prisoner transfer is not new.

To people with contemporary London experience: On the topic of comparisons of British with US civil rights, can anybody articulate the present quality of public perception of/affection for London's "ring of steel"? I ask because NYC is currently in the process of hardening its borders along the London model.