It's not that I don't appreciate the struggle (and what I suppose are little "victories", such as yesterday's SCOTUS ruling), but I simply cannot miss the opportunity to reinforce a point made by Adnoto a few posts ago - the woes of the American system of governance inflict harm beyond your borders. For those directly affected, such as the poor souls in Iraq and Guantanamo (to name but two locales), what is needed more than anything else is for the killing and imprisonment to cease. And the "war on terror" is the bipartisan license to kill and imprison. Unless and until this is addressed, it's not that I don't wish you well with your political struggles - I surely do! - but the clock I'm watching is not set for November, 2008, or January, 2009; the hours I'm counting are not in anticipation of the current opposition party becoming the ruling party, but in anticipation of someone - anyone - bringing an end to this illegitimate war and the horror it is inflicting on innocent lives around the globe.

We now return you to your regular programming.

p.s. to kjmurphy - I actually found a copy of "Revolt in 2100" in a closet just the other day. Thanks to your post, I'm gonna read it (again, I think, but frankly, I'm not sure whether I've already read it or whether it's just being gathering dust in the closet. Thanks for the tip.)

Don't you think it's odd that Scalia, an advocate of Constitutional originalism, would state "we are at war with Islamic radicalists" when in fact there has been no Constitutional declaration of war against that noun/group? Isn't "war" strictly defined in the Constitution? Wouldn't a strict textualist interpretation of the Constitution in this regard clearly show that there was only an authorization of military force or defined war resolution powers for specific ends?

Scalia's dissent was disappointing on more than one level. As loyal americans, we have a right to expect a better, higher class of bullshit from our SCOTUS. To hear him whine on about terrorism and 9/11, like some backbench GOP hack (elected or not) is simply not what I want from my supreme court.

Loftier bullshit, please.

I didn't realize, William, that you meant that literally. I thought he had been banned or something. I recall him hinting that he didn't have long to live.

May he rest. I think his heart was always in the right place.

The European "dark age" lasted quite some time. And what followed was not all renaissance. Current conflicts come from past ones. The goal is to stop conflict, not justify it.

As for the differentiation between individual decision-making (DM) and group DM, most research focuses on how the individual decides, recognizing the influence of others. Aiken's own model speaks to this. It's widely agreed that society and organizations (and the groups therein) can create hindrances to ethical DM. For example, the organizational structure and culture, as well as fellow employees, can influence (for better or for worse) an individual's decision, notwithstanding the individual's training or inherent reasoning abilities.

As to the need to persuade others, you may be interested to know that individuals with higher ethical reasoning (akin to Aiken's ethical and meta-ethical levels) do take into consideration how a decision would play. Some DM models instruct the decision maker to make a moral movie to imagine the consequences or to rehearse a defense of the decision (see TL Cooper, The Responsible Administrator). One model has an 8-step process to "find a fit" between the decision maker and the decision (see ICMA link at sig). Once a decision is made, to the extent that there are societal consequences, some organizations will take great pains to "sell" their decision.

Now, to the question of recognizing an ethical problem--it is a challenge in many cases. It requires fact-finding and analysis in some cases, and it requires a differentiation between an ethical problem and a legal one. Studies of DM show that some people don't recognize the more subtle ethical problems (e.g., falsifying data versus bribing an official) if they don't have personal experience in that area. The lack of ability to recognize an ethical dilemma and Aiken's lower levels aren't unethical per se, but the consequences can be detrimental and can result in unethical behavior (e.g., the moral rule: it's better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6).

I specialize in government ethics and am not well-versed in organizational behavior. Some of your questions might be answered differently from someone who specializes in the latter.

Cheers.

Had the Bush administration just declared these people to be POWs and accorded them the protections of the Geneva Conventions, none of this would have come up.

Now, they're getting hoisted by their own petards and they're screaming bloody murder.

Note to Pedinska, Mona, & Holly - put your dancin' slippers back in the drawer. You won't need them today.

What I find the most concerning is that the authoritarian "conservative" movement in the US seems to have a very high threshold for inflicting damage on American institutions and traditions. I fear that they will incite, commit or allow acts of terrorism or harmful negligence in order to cow the citizenry and maintain control over the civilian government and armed forces. -- sinjan

"High threshold for inflicting damage on American institutions...." Yes, that they do. And they have an incredibly high threshold for infliction of damage on our economy. Over the course of the past 2 years I've lost more wealth to the decline of the dollar versus other world currencies or commodities than I've "lost" to taxes (at every level).

I tend to disagree with the sentiments in your second sentence. I don't believe that ultra-rightist factions in our government will "allow acts of terrorism" in order to maintain control, in defiance of the voters. There is no guarantee that I'm right, but it usually 'feels' like hysterical hyperbole when I see this general topic bruited about in this forum. It also always seems like a bit of pointless fretting. The vague fear of collapse of democracy in America is not something I can work against effectively... so what point is there in prattling about it? I'd much rather read about or write about some lesser issue that I can sink my teeth into.

Now, "harmful negligence in order to cow the citizenry..." ...... that's pretty much what's going on at present. And it is readily identifiable -- like Rep. Carney's well-funded support of telecomm amnesty. That is the kind of well-defined issue that you can get your teeth into. Our ultra-rightists take "wide stances" on many of these little issues every day, out in the open, right now. They are vulnerable on these issues. Better protected than they should be, but vulnerable.