Letters to the Editor
-
Conflicted
I'm extremely conflicted about this Diaz matter. On the one hand, he's clearly a martyr (in the noblest sense of the word). On the other he did, indeed, break the law. I've been reading for months about the determination of the Bush administration to create an Executive that is free to break the law with impunity and the concurrent calls for the United States to adhere to the rule of law, not men.
How do we reconcile our calls for the Bush administration to obey the law with our celebration of Diaz' breaking of it? Are we going to resort to rationalizations and "self-justifications" to prove that when our side does it it's the moral high ground but when their side does it it's cynical powergrabbing?
Please note that I'm not criticizing Diaz. I think he's a champion of the human spirit, a paragon of moral courage and a shining example of true patriotism. But what criteria are we going to use to determine which laws should be upheld and which should be ignored? And why is our side allowed to decide when it's okay to break the law when theirs isn't?
These are honest questions I'm asking, and I'm fully aware that my knowledge of this affair is not encyclopedic. Perhaps there is an element of this that I don't understand that constitutes a major difference between Diaz' action and those of the Bush administration (aside from the obvious "Diaz = good, Bush = bad"). I genuinely want someone here to explain to me why this lawbreaking is okay and the familiar examples of the administration's lawbreaking are not. I want to have a clean conscience as I celebrate Diaz. Anyone?