Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiModeration in the Pursuit of Justice Is No Virtue
What we're talking about here is the torture of detained terrorist suspects in American custody in a grotesque violation of both our treaty obligations under the Geneva Conventions and our historic principles as a democratic nation.
By their own machinations and attempts to redefine and pervert both treaties and our own laws, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Attorneys General John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales, Cheney's chief of staff David Addington and any number of lesser suspects sought to shield themselves from, or put themselves above, justice.
They did so knowing full well that what they were doing — clearing the way for interrogators at Guantanamo and in the Central Intelligence Agency’s secret dungeons around the world to do anything it took, short of murder, to extract information from terror suspects.
The "harsh interrogation methods" included water-boarding, stripping and humiliating prisoners, subjecting them to extremes of temperature, putting them into stressful physical positions for hours, the use of psychotropic drugs and doubtless other equally uncivilized practices.
Water boarding has always been treated as a criminal act in this country. Military officers were court-martialed at the turn of the last century for water boarding Filipino guerrillas. More recently, an East Texas sheriff was sentenced to 10 years in federal prison for water boarding a suspect and extracting a confession from him.
Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue, and its no way to begin an administration that was elected on promises of change. What it says is that if you're one of the elite and powerful, your violations of the law will be overlooked, no matter how much damage you did to our country’s standing in the world.
What signal does it send to Mr. Bush's gang of unindicted co-conspirators, who've unwrapped a Pandora’s boxful of other offenses — from perverting the administration of justice, to illegally eavesdropping on the phone conversations and e-mails of ordinary Americans, to salting the stream of intelligence with bogus material, to inviting their cronies to loot the Treasury with no-bid military contracts, to lying under oath to congressional oversight committees, to applying political litmus tests to the hiring of civil service employees to the wholesale destruction of White House e-mails and records? Etcetera. Etcetera.
This nation was founded on the principle of equal justice under the law. No one — no one — ought to be able to skate or hold a get-out-of-jail-free card by virtue of having been the most powerful felon in the land, or of working for him.
This signal on torture investigations says that Sen. Obama wants to start his administration as a uniter, not a divider, trying to untangle the unholy mess that the Decider and Co. are leaving behind them in the economy, in our military, in virtually every walk of our national life. It speaks to his desire to reach across the aisle to the defeated Republicans and try to bring them back into the fold as Americans.
That's all well and good, but not if it comes at the cost of lifting the blindfold off Justice’s eyes and letting her pick and choose who'll pay for criminal acts and who won't. That's no way to begin, and no way to continue.
Out in West Texas, crusty old ranchers plagued by coyotes killing their calves and baby sheep shoot the offending beasts and hang their carcasses on the nearest barbed wire fence as an object lesson to the rest of the pack.
Unless the newly empowered Democrats in the White House and on Capitol Hill hang a few coyotes on some fences in Washington, D.C., they're making a huge mistake that will come back to haunt them, and all the rest of us, too.
Unless the truth, the whole truth, is unearthed, justice is done and the Republican closet is emptied of festering transgressions, the next pack will do it again, secure in the knowledge that their positions will protect them from the penalties that more ordinary citizens must pay for the same crimes.
The people of this nation have spoken loudly. They voted to throw the rascals out. They voted for a different way of governing, a different way of law making. They voted for equal rights under the law.
If their desires aren't satisfied — if the new broom sweeps no cleaner than the old one — the next time around they may move things up a notch and throw all the bastards out — and they'd be fully justified in doing so.
46 Comments so far
Show AllThe Glue That Holds Chaos Together
We need prosecutions and executions for the Bush Administration. We can sweep up the remains later.
Excellent post!
Lots of great comments here.
Jane Mayer "The Dark Side" spoke last weekend at the miami book fair-she said that she has interviewed CIA agents while writing her book, who told her that the only reason they didn't go beyond the pale, was that they envisioned congressional investigations and jail sentences taking place in the future. She said that if obama administration does nothing, these guys will have no deterrants at all.
If obama doesn't go after these guys and their high crimes at all, then he is absolutely no different in any way that suggests substance. And that means it is all window dressing. I already see this (and saw this). It doesn't take that much insight.
"...grotesque violation of both our treaty obligations under the Geneva Conventions and our historic principles as a democratic nation."
That is just so old school.
These days, disregard for any kind of principle is as "mature" as holding people accountable to principle is "revenge."
mephitis
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Washington is full of execrable traitors who deserve the maximum penalties for treason. Justice in this nation is an illusion. The "law" is a joke perpetrated on those dumb enough to capitulate. No wonder some people resort to body-bombs.
Bush is certain to short-circuit investigations and silence potential witnesses with a shameless, broad pardon. However, human rights crimes fall under universal jurisdiction, so any competent court could indict any number of perpetrators, up to and including Bush and Cheney, and request extradition from the US. The pardon would not preclude extradition, and these thugs could end up on trial in Europe or even Syria or Iran, where they would get a taste of their own medicine. If we're serious about human rights and the rule of law, serious about deterring future crimes, we'll cooperate. Our standing in the world, a fortiori in Muslim nations, would instantly improve immeasurably.
Alex
It's probably too late to influence his decision, but Obama needs to appoint a principled conservative Republican to AG, someone like Bruce Fein or Patrick Fitzgerald. Unfortunately, it looks like we're getting Holder, who not only helped Marc Rich get his pardon, but also helped squelch investigations of corporate backing of death squads in Columbia.
http://www.counterpunch.org/murillo11192008.html
William Rood, patriotic citizen of the world
A principled conservative is one who is not outwardly violent, racist, reactionary and greedy but will vote with those conservatives that are, every time.
Sioux Rose
ANTI: Excellent suggestion!
An excellent article by Mr. Galloway!
While it is true that Obama is not yet the president, the fact that he is considering, apparently, keeping Gates on speaks volumes.
I am afraid that he will indeed show moderation in the pursuit of justice.
But the american people will rationalize this away, sweeping it under the rug.
Trying to put the best face on this, perhaps Barack might have a surprise or two up his sleeve once he is innaugurated into office. Like an independent counsel to go after allegations relating to torture--that way it is free of any potential accusation of partisan witch hunting. Whether such will happen will depend upon progressive pressures to make it so.
Let's remember that it was not only wht Bushco did but the way in which it was done that was so disgusting. Partisanship is something we need less of at the Justice Department. We can only hope that Barack Obama will not allow himself to be bullied by ass-kissing handlers and make his own decisions and be his own man in this and other matters.
But if none of the above is the case, to pick up a bit on what Siouxrose said earlier, know that many, many, people in the intel and military services detest what their agencies were made to do by these gangsters in the Bush adminstration. The violent deaths of the likes of JFK and William Colby (former head of the CIA for crying out loud!) prove that no one is ever beyond being struck down "mysteriously and/or unexpectedly". Amazing how those sorts of tragedies never get fully solved either.
Poet
This is exactly why international courts are the next best thing when national politics eclipses the independence of the judiciary.
The excuse of sovereignty is bunkum. International courts can apply national law. Pan Am explosion, International court in the Hague, Scottish Law.
Anybody who still believed the Democrats offered any hope after Nancy Pelosi declared "impeachment off the table" two years ago needs to seek therapy for acute delusion syndrome.
When Pres. Clinton began his term, there was discussion of prosecuting some of the Iran-Contra gang. Pres. Clinton gave them a pass on some crimes it was still feasible to prosecute. After eight years of bitter partisanship, these same criminals appeared in the next Bush regime to commit even more heinous crimes. These people will never stop until there are legal consequences for their crimes.
Exactamente.
We need to move forward and heal the nation, not drudge up old grudges. I'm tired of pitting Red States against Blue States in some kind of crazed cage match. Let's break the cycle of endless partisan bickering. Does anyone really believe attacking Bush and his supporters will get us anywhere? For eight years it's gotten us nowhere. We need to focus on articulating our own vision for the future, instead of just condemning the transgressions of the Republicans. If we waste all our time going after Bush, only to get stonewalled by his team of lawyers, Obama's agenda for change will go up in smoke. Let's not waste time fighting losing battles when there is so much work to be done. Much like Nixon, when Bush leaves office, he will become a non-entity, a persona non grata. He won't be able to harm anyone anymore, so despite our collective desire for revenge, we'd only be raising his stature by keeping him in the public eye. Let's throw this monster down the memory hole and get to work making the world a better place.
It is nothing to do with partisanship to say that the illegal invasion of a sovereign nation, leading directly to the bloody death of countless thousands, is a crime of the highest order and shoule be punishable. It is nothing to do with partisanship to say that certain principles need not only to be voiced but be seen to be followed with conviction.
Your rationalizing leads to a situation where a very dangerous and pernicious precendent is set. And one that future Bush types will note down with glee.
It has nothing to do with revenge, it is simple about principle, about having them and about punishing transgressors of those principles.
Of course I appreciate it's hard to stand up for principle when the spinal column has been removed.
I understand your concerns. They are precisely why a principled Republican who will stand up for the Constitution and accountability and can be relied on to vigorously prosecute these crimes is essential to defusing the charges of partisanship.
William Rood, patriotic citizen of the world
A principled Republican is a stealthy regressive.
Would you say the same thing if your local bank was robbed and a few tellers murdered in the process? There's nothing wrong with cleaning up the mess and moving on, but your sentiment to ignore Bush's crimes (or any criminal act) because his lawyers may stonewall or because it's a losing battle is exactly what the criminals want you to believe. Bush may move on, but ignoring his carnage, which I fully expect the meekly anemic democrats to do, is incredibly irresponsible and pathetic.
....is incredibly irresponsible and pathetic.
And will guarantee that come 4 or 8 years or whenever the ignorant masses start blaming the present lot for the damage caused by the past lot, the same kind of hoods will be back in town.
Unfortunately the corruption of the US (and most of the world for that matter) is so deep that you cannot remove the cancer without killing the patient.
But not facing the problems, as politically preferable as that may be, does not make them go away. Ergo, the global financial and economic melt down.... Ah the Karma again!
This isn't about what Bush would have us believe. It's about realizing the obstacles Obama is up against. As he has said,
""I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breaches, and intentional breaches of the president's authority,"
"I believe if we began impeachment proceedings we will be engulfed in more of the politics that has made Washington dysfunction," he added. "We would once again, rather than attending to the people's business, be engaged in a tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, non-stop circus."
Okay, so the first part is hard to accept, it's pretty clear that Bush has probably committed "grave" (literally) breaches of his authority. But the second part is crucial, if you declare open season on all Republicans, our greatest opportunity to reform the system will devolve into a "a tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, non-stop circus."
Joe,
you're so hopelessly wrong-headed and deluded about this. The Democrats are using this justification because they're afraid that a system that faithfully adheres to justice will undermine their capitalistic kingdom, where politicians and their corporate cronies get to maintain power. There's absolutely no foundation to this empty rhetoric about "divisiveness" and a "tit-for-tat circus," etc., ad nauseum. These are excuses from gutless politicians who are indebted to corporate America and who are scared s**tless about bucking the corporate and military powers that are to end 230 years of social injustice. The reasons are clear: they're all guilty of participating in a grand fraud of classism and injustice perpetrated against labor, against indigenous peoples, against anyone and everyone who will do their bidding for a few of the scraps of consumptive capitalism. It's a complete crock, and Obama has already amply demonstrated that he is an enemy of the people by siding with war criminals who've made a shambles of constitutional and civil liberties and robbed the nation blind. Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer, Emanuel, Obama, along with Bush, Cheney, Rove, Perle, Wolfowitz, Rice, Rumsfeld, on and on into the ranks of corporate America and its facilitators in the media, are all guilty of conspiring to deny America justice. The only circus in town is the one you seem to think will "reform the system." It's all an illusion, you idiot!
To hell with impeachment! While so many nations have their right-wing death squads funded by our tax dollars, it's past time for Americans to form justice-and-liberty death squads to take back our nation from the perpetrators of over 2 centuries of deceit, lies, murder, and grand larceny.
That's setting these serial killers free with a slap on the wrist, telling the world that these motherfuckers are above the law and leaving this festering wound open and stinking to make all our citizens lose faith in government.
Obama doesn't have to do anything except leave their prosecution up to his AG and Justice Dept. and let the chips fall where they may. Investigations may reveal lots of Republicans to get rid of and even some conservative Democrats. It would help us to fix the system they destroyed.
Charles Manson and Jeffrey Dahmer have nothing on conservative politicians. Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Kissinger, etc. are criminals and mass murderers that put the former to shame.
War crimes investigation "Off the table", Rahm Immanuel, Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder? Doesn't waste time does he?
"We'll hold his feet to the fire once elected" the hopefuls cry out with jubilation.
Problem is, his socks are lined with asbestos.
I wish that I could have as much faith in Obama as his fans expressed on Election night. After the primaries, he betrayed the progressive base, and except for words in speeches, he has done nothing so far to indicate that he
will provide us with a presidency any better than Clinton's. He has voted to support depriving us of our right to privacy; he's in favor of offshore drilling;
he voted for Paulson's folly--the bailout; his Chief of Staff and Attorney General appointments speak loudly of 'same old, same old'; he hopes to bail out the American automakers, the same ones, who in the 1970s, couldn't read the handwriting on the wall and continued to produce gas guzzlers and refused to adapt to environmental truths. I hope that his presidency will prove me unnecessarily pessimistic, but I can't help it. I don't trust the man----yet.
Galloway is shocked by President Elect Barack Obama's actions ? This statement says more about Galloway than it does Obama ! Obama is behaving as predicted if Galloway bothered to seek out any radical opinions. Heck Galloway could have even gotten this type of analysis from Ralph Nader.
It should be fun to watch the gnashing of teeth from Liberal Quarters as Obama slowly betrays their agenda with a thousand cuts.
BTW the title for this piece was lifted from a segment of Barry Goldwater's speech to the 1964 Republican Convention.
"Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."
Liberty in the vice of defense is no extremism.
Extremism in the vice of liberty is no defense.
Vice in the defense of liberty is no extremism.
Defense in the vice of extremism is no liberty.
While I fully agree with Mister Galloway's assessment of the truly heinous and criminal behavior of the Bush administration, and while it would be personally satisfying for many of us to see them brought low, I am less sanguine about hanging "a few coyotes on the fences in Washington, D.C.". Pretending that the world is still as apparently simple as the wild west was one of the behavorial proclivities that got us into this sorry state.
What Mister Galloway seems to suggest borders on the same kind of distructive extremism that Goldwater promulgated: the 'nothing's too extreme in the pursuit of liberty' kind of extremism that led to some of the worst excesses of the republic and reminds me of the latter days of the French Revolution. During the period that they call Thermador, after the revolutionaries had already neatly dispatched the ruling class, the taste of blood and power was still intoxicating and they turned on themselves and others who were essentially innocent of any crime but did not live up to the absurd, essentially totalitarian, views of the revolutionary counsel. Once the (even metaphorical) bloodletting starts, it's hard to stop.
Yes I want to see the top-level criminals in the Bush administration tried and, if convicted, punished for what I, and I think most Americans would consider their crimes. Though revenge would be sweet because of the magnitude of their crimes, I want justice not revenge. As Ghandi opined, "an eye for an eye and soon the whole world will be blind".
But visiting justice on them should be tempered with moderation - the same moderation we'd appreciate if we were brought before the law. After all, in an ethical system, what's good for us is good for everybody else - even the Bush Administration.
But I don't for a moment think the system will allow Mister Bush or his associates to be held accountable. And since he wisely, some might say presciently, refused to ratify our participation in the International Criminal Court, I am not aware of any current mechanism to assure that ultimate accountability save the possible action of Congress where, except for a few Congressional voices howling in the wilderness, I (cynically) think no consequential action will be forthcoming. For those in Congress, expecially in the leadership levels, it would set a bad precedent since most of them were complicit to one degree or another in Mister Bush's crimes. So my advice is don't hold your breath that Mister Bush or his accomplises will ever face justice.
You write "I am not aware of any current mechanism to assure that ultimate accountability". I think you will find that Torture and War Crimes are considered under extraterritorial and/or rather under Universal Jurisdiction and therefore irrespective of America's non ratification of ICC, such criminals can be arrested under international warrant and tried in any state that includes Universal Jurisdiction in their laws.
According to Amnesty International, 1 September 2001. Section II. Universal Jurisdiction over torture, Universal Jurisdiction: The duty of states to enact and implement legislation - Chapter Nine (Torture: The legal basis for universal jurisdiction,
"All states parties to the Convention against Torture and the Inter-American Convention are obliged whenever a person suspected of torture is found in their territory to submit the case to their prosecuting authorities for the purposes of prosecution, or to extradite that person. In addition, it is now widely recognized that states, even those which are not states parties to these treaties, may exercise universal jurisdiction over torture under customary international law."
Fair enough. But I'll believe it possible when I see it happen. Historically international law has only applied to weak nations and flaunted by strong ones. Perhaps I'm being cynical (the unfortunate consequence of too long a life in the realm of realpolitik) but I just don't see another nation bringing Bush & Co. to justice.
Tirebiter
Good comment. Anyone that believes the US is going to give up one iota of its sovereignty to any other nation or group of nations is living in La La Land.
Welcome to La La Land.
When your economic existence depends on others through trade and finance, for them to maintaining the value of your currency while lending you the means to subsist, you have already ceded your sovereignty in the absolute terms that you seem to fantasise as that concept. You may notice that the rules governing trade and financial transaction, transparency etc., are now being revamped globally (much like closing the gate after the horse left the barn), but willingly or not the US will do what is necessary, one way or another. Its own existence depends on working within a global community in terms of a framework of norms. This means not least climate and Kyoto Protocols Mark II. Do not confuse sovereignty with a licence for self serving delinquency. That was the Neocon delusion.
In effect the use of state terrorism through military force and "shock doctrine" economics to impose neo-colonial hegemony was and still is unacceptable and the US has been made aware of its own recent folly in this domain.
International law exists to protect Americans equally. The real effect of Karmic Law, is that if one does not see the importance or meaning of universal standards for justice and human rights, and has lost the capacity for equanimity and compassion one has actually become the cause of ones own downfall.
My point exactly is that the laws and the means to apply them exist, whether Bush or Cheney can evade them by avoiding certain countries, as does Mr. Kissinger, they know and we know their crimes and the law will always win in the end. It will still be the law when they have turned to dust.
Sioux Rose
LUCITANIA: A good example of your 2nd to last paragraph is seen in the auto makers now begging for subsidies. They could have built far more energy efficient vehicles but preferred to gigantic gas guzzlers, and now... they have become the cause of their own (karmic) downfall. Your comments are appreciated.
"My point exactly is that the laws and the means to apply them exist, whether Bush or Cheney can evade them by avoiding certain countries, as does Mr. Kissinger, they know and we know their crimes and the law will always win in the end. It will still be the law when they have turned to dust."
Very eloquent.
But I'm still patiently waiting for Mister Kissinger to pay for his crimes of thirty-five years ago. We will all die waiting.
I guess my point is this: what good is a law that can be so easily evaded?
The fact that 'they know and we know their crimes' assumes that they have a sense of guilt or shame - either one a necessary ingredient to moral angst - which is what I think you hint at here. I would argue they have no shame and feel no guilt that they know and we know their crimes. I don't think it makes the slightest difference to them. Perpetrators of such behavior have usually manufactured a nice little internal justification to protect themselves from any such shame or guilt.
…… I guess my point is this: what good is a law that can be so easily evaded?
The law is not defined by the people who break it nor the failure of the community to enforce it. What defines the law is our respect for it, and each other that respect it.
Mr. Kissinger is not welcome to tea at my house, and I wouldn’t buy a used car from Mr. Rumsfeld. Now that may not restrict them much in there activities but it defines them and it defines us and the moment we say it doesn’t matter because we have no power to enforce it we lose that ability to identify ourselves relative to the law.
If you break the law and get caught and punished, the damage you did is no more or less than if you evaded capture. What you did cannot be undone by prosecution under the law. Only justice can be served. And justice is best served by its application and its application means that people respect the law.
In other words the law does not work because you are dissuaded from robbing the 7-11 because there is a law against it, a cop at the corner, you might get caught, and you are afraid of doing the time. It works because you respect the law, weather it is enforced or not. Would you help yourself to the money in the till if you could? Of course not, even if you could, you would not because it’s wrong. The laws are just the codification of what we know to be right and wrong.
We have no interest in how bad the bad guy feels or not, or whether he feels better because he got away with it for years. The only thing that matters is that law is respected by you and me and everyone else who is civilized and that when we can, however we can, we ensure that the law is enforced so that justice is served.
“What defines the law is our respect for it, and each other that respect it.”
Respect is not automatic, it has to be earned. I have no respect for unjust laws.
“In other words the law does not work because you are dissuaded from robbing the 7-11 because there is a law against it, a cop at the corner, you might get caught, and you are afraid of doing the time.”
I would argue that most of the time for most people this is precisely how the law works. If we all ‘policed ourselves’ and followed our ‘better angels’, notwithstanding the coercion of the state, a codification of laws would be unnecessary. While we all possess values and I assume some kind of internal ethical compass, we are all subject to laws with which we disagree. So which is more ethical, obeying the law, any and every law - even unjust ones - or following our ‘better angels’? And if we cannot follow those better angels, then we should admit to the recognition that we obey because to refuse to obey sometimes leads to unpleasant and unwanted consequences.
“The laws are just the codification of what we know to be right and wrong.”
Really? I suggest that ‘laws’ are far more complicated than a simple codification of what we know to be right and wrong. Laws are more often than not societal constraints to maintain the status quo – whether they are right (as in just) or not. Historically there was a law that treated some people as property and required others to return this escaped ‘property’ to his owner/master. Is this a ‘right’ (as oppossed to a ‘wrong’) that you wish to argue for?
“The only thing that matters is that law is respected by you and me and everyone else who is civilized and that when we can, however we can, we ensure that the law is enforced so that justice is served.”
I hope you mean here that ‘just’ and ethical laws are respected by everyone, not just laws in general. Blind obedience to the law, any law, is often a sign of an authoritarian personality. There were and are a lot of unjust laws that should not be respected by ethical people. Sometimes to be ‘civilized’ is to rebel against the law if the law is uncivilized. Sometimes not enforcing the law is justice.
…. Respect is not automatic, it has to be earned.
…… lot of unjust laws that should not be respected by ethical people. Sometimes to be ‘civilized’ is to rebel against the law if the law is uncivilized. Sometimes not enforcing the law is justice.
We are straying a bit off the subject to discuss jurisprudence, but I think we are saying the same thing but from different points of view. Two hundred years ago society was structured in classes from slaves to kings. The laws supported that structure, maintaining the status quo as you say. But this was the structure society accepted at that time and under the morals and ethics of that time and culture and so society could function under those laws. Never the less there were rebellions, enlightened jurists, and progressive kings, there were parliaments etc. and as society’s social and ethical norms evolved so did the laws.
For me for example, if in Afghanistan society in general accepts Shariah law, although I may disagree with some of the tenets and punishments I cannot say that the law is un-just as it is applied there because it has to be taken within the context of that place and time and that society. For Americans to feel justified in bombing these people because they have a different religion, ethics, and laws, because they don’t allow their women to become economic slaves to capitalist consumerism is to me not only unjust but outright criminal.
Also when we see a cop being protected by the law when he’s bashing the head of a demonstrator, as in America or Tibet we cannot respect the cop, or the application of that law, but in our society, a representative democracy (supposedly), we choose our law makers and we can change the laws to laws that the cop must respect and apply too. In Tibet or China where there is no democracy there are different ways to change the laws.
But what Bush and Cheney did and what you suggest is OK to do is to cherry and re-interpret according to their or your convenience or criteria. No, law is the entire body of the law, including all its development through precedence. There are no good laws or bad laws, they are just laws. There are however, good and bad applications of laws, and laws that need to be modified because by their application they do not serve justice. But, that development is done through the legal system, adversaries arguing a case, and new judgments being made, not by ignoring or transgressing the laws.
Of course law must be the epitome of authority but evolves. It defines king and slave alike. It is equally your law, not just the nation’s law, or state’s law, or the cop’s law, or the municipality’s law and where it is unjust you have to change it, but where people contravene it, it is your responsibility to protect it. Law and the legal system is where our values meet as a society it is not and should not be (or will not last long as) a system of coercion but the codification of our accepted behavioral norms. Doing it within the law is the right way to do it in a civilized society.
Respect of people is earned, but of laws, I’m sorry, it is obliged. I therefore have every right to demand that the laws of the land and of the treaties to which the nation is committed internationally be applied to Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush etc. You cannot pick and choose and neither can they. It’s the law.
“But this was the structure society accepted at that time and under the morals and ethics of that time and culture and so society could function under those laws.”
The laws were imposed and society accepted them because all governments get their way by force. My guess is that even at that time, as in our own time, society could function just as well if not better under more humane and just laws than they, and we, have.
“For Americans to feel justified in bombing these people because they have a different religion, ethics, and laws, because they don’t allow their women to become economic slaves to capitalist consumerism is to me not only unjust but outright criminal.”
I don’t believe for a minute that that’s why we are bombing Afghanistan or anybody else. We don’t bomb Saudi Arabia and they have essentially the same religion, ethics, and laws as in Afghanistan.
“But what Bush and Cheney did and what you suggest is OK to do is to cherry and re-interpret according to their or your convenience or criteria.”
Not at all if you closely read what I wrote. I would argue that Bush and Cheney did not exercise ethicality by ignoring the laws they did, but uncivilized banditry. The outrage obvious by participants to this discussion suggests that the Bush-Cheney team unjustly violated what most of us would consider 'just' laws. Otherwise what's the problem and why the anger here? The laws they ignored I would consider some of our ‘just’ laws, laws that protect people from the excesses of the powerful. There is a difference between ignoring any law with which you disagree (what you seem to suggest I mean) and resisting arbitrary and unjust laws. I don’t equate the two. I know this presents problems with what is the difference between ‘just’ and ‘unjust’ laws, but for the average individual with an ethical compass, a moment’s consideration in each circumstance should be enough to clarify the issue.
There are laws and there are ‘laws’. Some laws have ethical underpinnings, some are merely constraints – sometimes reasonable constraints, sometimes not. The laws with ethical underpinnings I agree, and comply, with. If you ever drove over the speed limit, or took illegal drugs, gambled, or had a beer before the age of majority in your state, you’ve cherry-picked, re-interpreted, or broken the law. If you think all laws should be obeyed then turn yourself in and take your punishment. But these laws are not what I would consider laws with ethical underpinnings – only ones by which governments arbitrarily constrain behavior. Flaunting those laws may sometimes have unfortunate consequences, but they don’t damage one’s ethical foundation.
“There are no good laws or bad laws, they are just laws.”
I don’t agree. There are good laws and bad laws. I would generally consider laws against murder, rape, theft, arson, and assault 'good' laws. They are necessary constraints if you wish to live in a ‘civilized’ society with other people. I do not necessarily consider laws as ‘good’ that, for example, decide what, or who, you put into your body, whether you can gamble or not, or dance, or sing publically, or celebrate Christmas, what beliefs you have, or what you think - all examples of laws we have and have had here in the homeland at one time or another.
“Doing it within the law is the right way to do it in a civilized society.”
Only when there is a functioning mechanism within the law to weed out unjust laws.
“Law and the legal system is where our values meet as a society it is not and should not be (or will not last long as) a system of coercion but the codification of our accepted behavioral norms. Doing it within the law is the right way to do it in a civilized society. Respect of people is earned, but of laws, I’m sorry, it is obliged.”
In a perfect world I might agree, but we live in a less than perfect world. I would argue that the law is as much a system of coercion as justice. And suggesting that laws are merely a codification of our accepted behavioral norms assumes we all have the same behavioral norms – which we don’t. It’s what they used to call the ‘tyranny of the majority’ where something that 50% plus 1 want something but 50% minus 1 don’t. The former may be happy with an unjust law, but the latter may not be. What do you do with their ethics? Or should they just obey an unjust law and just shut up?
“Of course law must be the epitome of authority…It’s the law.”
What you suggest sounds like what Plato preached – that you owe the ‘state’ everything and should always do what it says – right or wrong. No disrespect meant, but what you argue for seems an authoritarian view of the world, a view to which I do not subscribe. Just and ethical laws should be obeyed, unjust or unethical laws resisted. In my book, blind obedience to all laws –just and unjust alike - only leads to totalitarianism.
Sioux Rose
LUCITANIAN: Once again elegant commentary to which I would only add that I do believe we human beings have embedded--as conscience--a general sense of right and wrong. The marines have to go to great lengths to break down the personality structures of young men to prep them for the "kill work" ahead. As an advocate of the continuity of the soul, I believe the deeds done remain with us as karmic scar tissue and determine our future fates. Having interpreted birth blueprints (a/k/a astrological charts) for almost 40 years and seen such compelling evidence in support of this statement, I am convinced that JUSTICE follows us, particularly if it is not satisfied in a given incarnation.
My favorite book on the evolution of the soul, from life to life, is entitled, "The Wheel of Rebirth" by H.L. Chaloner, originally published in the 19th century, and then redone by Quest Books (I believe). Each chapter describes a previous life of the same "individual" and at its conclusion explains where the individual advanced, and in many cases fell backwards. A twin flame incarnated with this individual and as was explained when he sank so low (in moral behavior) that he was a drunk in the gutter, the twin flame shared that experience to ensure that the tiny Divine light (planted in each of us as a gift from Creative Intelligence) would not go out.
I bring this example up in relation to persons such as Cheney and Bush, and those who were all too willing to man the controls at the various and sundry torture centers that our dear power elite found so necessary to deploy. There comes a time when a soul's light IS extinguished. Its sins against fellow beings so severe, no further chance is given in the form of rehabilitation through promised good works in future lifetimes. Someone such as Mother Theresa who spent her life seeking to alleviate poverty (some would argue she had ulterior motives and liked the press) was in my view paying for another life where perhaps as warrior, she destroyed an entire village.
I received an email from an author who has done some chart work linking OBama with earlier political luminaries of our land. IF anyone is interested in reading it, email me: Rousingthunder55@aol.com
There is one very sad truth here: the Democrats and the Republicans, like the MSM, do not want to publicly admit that the government of this nation has ever, is now, or will be, run by criminals, sociopaths and gangsters. They will never make such a public admission. To pursue Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, not to mention the Neocon authors of America's disgrace, is to make such an admission. Not even Obama will do it. The invasion and occupation of Iraq, the failed war in Afghanistan, are "unfortunate incidents", "lapses in judgment" or at worst, "blunders" but NOT criminal acts. The best anyone can hope for is that one of these murdering MoFo's goes overseas, is picked up and despite vigorous protestations from the U.S. government is not summarily released and allowed to return here.
Not prosecuting American instigators of policies directly authorizing War Crimes and Torture has two detrimental effects:
- The US will have no hope to protect from torture, or to demand respect of Geneva conventions for their own military or government agents if captured in hostile situations.
- The US will have made a hypocritical travesty and thereby compromised present and future attempts by civilized governments and international authorities to bring War Criminals and Torturers to justice in national and international courts.
Turning the page is one thing but, without putting Bush, Cheney Rumsfeld, etc. in front of national or international criminal courts, the US will have successfully set a new low in world standards, in which we go back to the jungle where might is right and it becomes not only a joke but supreme irony to put on trial the likes of Saddam Hussein, or Slobodan Milosevic, or any number of Serbian generals. The words war crimes and crimes against humanity have already lost their meaning, which also has a profound effect in undermining the aims of the UN and its future.
Sioux Rose
LUCITANIA: Excellent and helpful postings. The only thing I'd like to ad is that many believe in blood covenants and codes of vengeance. NOT seeing the U.S. do anything to remediate Bush's actions will probably mean that one day, some how, an outside group will manage to effect the justice they see gone missing.
And that, of course, brings me to the Law of Karma which will not be mocked. It must be unbelievably frustrating when Truth lines up so easily with Just principles, and yet none appear to have any bearing on current U.S. events. This is why when human agencies of justice fail, it's empowering to recognize that forces beyond our cognition come into play. The scales eventually balance; sometimes the eye for an eye acts of revenge become its facilitator.
Maybe the events of the past eight years in the USA are the beginning of the Karma for all the evil which Algo's did to the Native American population. Maybe white man is getting his just due.
The Trickster must be laughing at us now.
Sioux Rose
HOYT: The astrological patterns support your comment, and unfortunately worsen at the end of 2009 into 2010, though the first part of 2009 looks auspicious and does favor new & novel forms of coalition-building. Too bad Obama invited back all the old players now offered new uniforms!
Until the Bush/Cheney Gang is brought to justice our boys and girls will continue
to go mad and kill themselves over the war crimes they were forced to commit.
I am one of the many who want the truth and justice. There are many authors who have done good work on this issue: Philippe Sands, physicians who have formed groups, all the groups that fight for the rights of individuals:from Center for Constitutional Rights, ACLU to Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. If the U.S. government won't do it, many individuals from the Bush administration will not be "free" to travel as countries with universal jurisdiction for crimes against humanity will investigate and question them, and possibly try them, such as Spain, Germany and Belgium. Sweep all under the rug and this new administration will fail.