Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I'm not at all surprised that the Bush administration considers itself above the law. I'm more disturbed that the Democrats didn't go after the criminals when they took over Congress in 2006. Obama's administration may be "post-partisan" but they still have to clean up the mess left by Bush, and that means going after law-breakers. It's a matter of values.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and willful disdain of the law even less so.
Glenn,
Isn't it true that, under the German Constitution, it is illegal for wars to be launched and conducted from German soil (where the U.S. maintains the most active foreign military bases)?
And isn't it also true that German civil law has some sort of universal jurisdiction?
Could this be a potetial beginning for a case involving International Law?
there also seems to be a tacit assumption that violations have indeed occurred. The whole point of the international law and Nuremberg principles quoted is that there is no excuse. Ever.
And of course, that is what drives the need to prevent investigation and prosecution.
mutex: Very good point. If they wish to use the "there have been no attacks" argument to defend the practices, then they lose the "you are taking away our valuable tools" arguments against disclosure of torture and illegal surveillance.
The greatest way to expose the rampant subjectivism that plagues our political discourse is to define the core logical conclusions that are derived from that discourse. When those logical conclusions are inconsistent with the principles of Western culture and international law, then the truth of such views will be apparent to all.
Brilliant analysis. Keep up the good fight.
This kind of tyranny was understood by the founders, and the constitution dealt with it, if incompletely.
Tyranny of the majority is not inevitable in a democracy, so long as the rule of law is sustained.
Glenn,
Each time I read one of your columns it makes me intensely happy that your voice is heard. You're a leader in every sense of the word.
It was one thing to advocate and follow those principles when we were just fighting the Axis powers, but it is quite another to do it when we are fighting the terrorists. The terrorists don't follow those values, so if we are to beat them neither can we. Don't you know they would slit you and your familiy's throats if they had the chance? Once we beat them good and are victorious then we can resume adhering to those values once again.
There have been no successful attacks on the nation since the postal rates were raised on June 30, 2002.
When a person is directed to act in a manner antithetical with their core character or values or whatever you want to call it...they know the act, order, or behavior is wrong....
This is where the rubber meets the road. You don't know what or who you are until it's tested and this is when it's tested. If a person caves, for whatever reason, they can no longer claim clean hands/clean character, either privately within themselves or publicly.
They have made themselves culpable, complicit in the crime, up to and including the simple act of knowingly processing documentation of it. The thousands of people who did not speak out, walk out, or otherwise expose these crimes; at whatever cost to their position, can never again claim morality and look at themselves in a mirror with a clear conscience.
That person may be ostracized, demonized, ridiculed, or worse at the point of "standing up", but they know they are right and anything suffered in the short term will be made right in the long term.
THAT is "character", THAT is what a human being, hopefully, strives for. Period.
"As Charles [Krauthammer] said, the country was kept safe ever since 9/11. There has not been an attack. These people did what they did under orders and with patriotism. And Obama should make it clear that none of them is going to be held to account for what they did."--Kondracke
Will we ever tire of pundits and predatory leaders telling us Nurhemburg trials and international laws are for sissies?
The "patriotism" and "I kept your ass safe" card is getting as old as its empty, flag-waving platitudes suggest.
See George Lakoff's book "The Political Mind". Lakoff discusses frames: basic structures of thought. In particular there is what he calls the Strict Father Frame.
"Mapped onto politics the strict father model explains why conservatism is concerned with authority, with obedience, with discipline, and with punishment. It makes sense in a patriarchial family where male strength dominates unquestionably. ..." p. 78.
Most importantly for this discussion, in this strict father frame, the father alone, the Leader, defines, determines, and coincides with, what is right.
Blithely assuming for the moment Obama will pursue an agenda the neo-cons do not approve of it will be very interesting to see if the Busheviks and their enablers in the Democratic Party and the press will still push presidential immunity and "we were just following orders" once Obama is in office. Given the jihad against Slick Willie for far less, I doubt it. The dogs will bark the moment Obama pisses them off. But what's worse is the fact that, given his appointments, his support of FISA, and his silence regarding the Bush junta's illegal activities he will most likely be just another Good Democrat.
Let's be clear, the level of thinking by Jackson, among others, and the principles espoused at the Nuremberg Trials, and that of Bush administration apologists (left, right and center) is not the same. The stages of moral development in the two are not the same. Where Jackson and the Nuremberg Charter tried to codify and enforce a level of moral development like this:
In [the conventional stage moral development] (authority and social order obedience driven), it is important to obey laws, dictums and social conventions because of their importance in maintaining a functioning society. Moral reasoning in stage four is thus beyond the need for individual approval exhibited in stage three; society must learn to transcend individual needs. A central ideal or ideals often prescribe what is right and wrong, such as in the case of fundamentalism. If one person violates a law, perhaps everyone would - thus there is an obligation and a duty to uphold laws and rules. When someone does violate a law, it is morally wrong; culpability is thus a significant factor in this stage as it separates the bad domains from the good ones. Most active members of society remain at Stage four, where morality is still predominantly dictated by an outside force.
The Bush administrations, the extreme-right and their enablers (including many Democrats in Congress and the Senate) have been operating and legislating more at this level:
In [the pre-conventional moral development] (obedience and punishment driven), individuals focus on the direct consequences that their actions will have for themselves. For example, an action is perceived as morally wrong if the person who commits it gets punished. "the last time I did that I got spanked so I will not do it again" The worse the punishment for the act is, the more 'bad' the act is perceived to be. This can give rise to an inference that even innocent victims are guilty in proportion to their suffering. In addition, there is no recognition that others' points of view are any different from one's own view. This stage may be viewed as a kind of authoritarianism.
There was no doubt about the importance of the rule of law as it applied to the Commander-in-Chief when Clinton perjured himself under oath. But it wasn't principle that drove it then and it's not principle that drives it now. It's power-relationships and tribalism. That's the real difference between America then and now.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
