Politics As Usual

[Not Me]

Originally posted by baltassoc
If you don't have the resources to fix everything, you have to make choices, and this is difficult to reconcile with absolute morality.

I don't agree that it is difficult to reconcile with absolute morality. It may make for a difficult choice, but if you don't have the ability to do something, it is not immoral not to do it.

If there are two people drowning and you have the ability to save them but refuse to save them, that is immoral. If you only have the physical ability to save one, that makes for a difficult choice as to which one to save, but it is not immoral to only save one since you don't have the ability to save two.

In the case of the US ability to save the world, we don't have the resources to do it. Moreover, trying to save certain oppressed people by military intervention, like the North Koreans or Chinese, would run such a great risk that far more people would be killed than would be saved that it would be immoral to try to do it by military intervention.

Originally posted by baltassoc
The second problem (and Atticus's point, if I may speak for him) is that it leads one to believe one is above the law. I have no doubt that those responsible for selling arms to Iran and then diverting the proceeds to support the Contras believe that they acted with absolute moral authority. This disturbs me, because by doing so that acted in direct contravention not just to general laws, but specific laws drawn to specifically prohibit such actions. It apparently disturbs many Republicans less.

It does disturb me less than it disturbs you. If those laws were malum in se laws, that would disturb me if they were violated by an administration. Violating malum prohibitum laws for the purpose of the greater good disturbs me less. I would even go so far as to say it is an act of moral courage, although not something I want a president to do since separation of powers is a good thing. Violating those laws was illegal, but not immoral.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Let me see if I understand you...your point is that young black men and an Islamic people cannot be allowed to take care of themselves.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
It does disturb me less than it disturbs you. If those laws were malum in se laws, that would disturb me if they were violated by an administration. Violating malum prohibitum laws for the purpose of the greater good disturbs me less. I would even go so far as to say it is an act of moral courage, although not something I want a president to do since separation of powers is a good thing. Violating those laws was illegal, but not immoral.

Agreed, but we are, first, a country of laws. The fact that our laws and morality often times align does not mean anything more than that. Iran-contra was legally wrong, whether or not it can be justified morally. Frankly, I think that a strong argument can be made that it was morally wrong as well, as it circumvented the rights of congress under the constitution.

That said, I have read a ton on the subject and I highly doubt Reagan was involved in this.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
... we are, first, a country of laws. The fact that our laws and morality often times align does not mean anything more than that. Iran-contra was legally wrong, whether or not it can be justified morally. Frankly, I think that a strong argument can be made that it was morally wrong as well, as it circumvented the rights of congress under the constitution.

Yup. Well said, club.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Agreed, but we are, first, a country of laws.

We have an interesting dichotomy in our thinking about law and morality. Walden Pond rarely evokes an image of a craven lawbreaker picking and choosing what to obey for personal advantage. Jury nullification most often sounds of the courageous triumph of the moral over the procedural. People get arrested for paying on other people's parking meters and we don't generally cheer on the police.

I think stances on this subject, like many others, depend on whose ox is being Gored.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

According to a shrill critic of the administration, we may be are losing the war against terrorism:

• "The United States and its allies are winning some battles in the terrorism war but may be losing the broader struggle against Islamic extremism that is terrorism's source, ________ said Saturday. The troubling unknown, he said, is whether the extremists -- whom he termed ''zealots and despots'' bent on destroying the global system of nation-states -- are turning out newly trained terrorists faster than the United States can capture or kill them. ''It's quite clear to me that we do not have a coherent approach to this,'' _____ said at an international security conference."

Who is this shrill critic? Guesses?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Frankly, I think that a strong argument can be made that it was morally wrong as well, as it circumvented the rights of congress under the constitution.

Why is circumventing the constitution an immoral act? I see why it is illegal, but not why it is immoral.

You know, at one time the Constitution said blacks were only 3/5's of a person. If you counted them as a full person in your census, that would be circumventing the constitution. But would it be immoral? No.

At one time our Constitution said selling alcohol was illegal. Is selling alcohol an immoral act? No.

Originally posted by sgtclub
That said, I have read a ton on the subject and I highly doubt Reagan was involved in this.

I didn't say he was. I said administration. There were people in his administration who were involved.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
According to a shrill critic of the administration, we may be are losing the war against terrorism:

In your next post, I'm sure you'll be back to proclaiming him a one-dimensional True Believer Who Neither Wavers Nor Thinks. Myself, I prefer someone in his spot who doesn't stop consideration. Like, him.

(Please note that the concern he was speaking of was, to what level is worldwide Islam prepared to police its own - is it willing to continue pumping out adherents of the militant wings?)

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Who is this shrill critic? Guesses?

I have heard some Reps say similar things, so it wouldn't surprise me if it was a Rep. Reps aren't afraid to criticize each other if they think the criticism is valid and even more so if they think the criticism will help to get things on the right track.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
In your next post, I'm sure you'll be back to proclaiming him a one-dimensional True Believer Who Neither Wavers Nor Thinks. Myself, I prefer someone in his spot who doesn't stop consideration. Like, him.

(Please note that the concern he was speaking of was, to what level is worldwide Islam prepared to police its own - is it willing to continue pumping out adherents of the militant wings?)

I think rather more of Rumsfeld (the author of the above, for anyone else who doesn't know this already) than the people who are closer to Bush. I would be much happier if Rumsfeld were VP and Cheney were Sec'y of Defense than vice versa.

As to your second paragraph, Richard Clarke has suggested that there is a civil war going in Islam. I'm not suggesting that this idea started with him, or that he's it's leading proponent, but I think this is the argument that moved him to write his book, and that he's probably disappointed that the media focused on the pre-9/11 events more than everything he had to say in that regard.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
Jury nullification most often sounds of the courageous triumph of the moral over the procedural.

Like when a predominantly black jury let a black double murderer go free to get back at white cops for perceived abuses.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
As to your second paragraph, Richard Clarke has suggested that there is a civil war going in Islam.

I wish - hope, maybe - that that were true. It's more my perception that there has already been a surrender.

(ETA - that was unclear - I don't mean a surrender where everyone joins one side, but one in which the mainstream makes no effort to rein in the militants, or to criticize them, or to interfere with them in any way, almost treating it as "well, we understand why they're that way, and can't/won't complain . . .")

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
According to a shrill critic of the administration, we may be are losing the war against terrorism:

Who is this shrill critic? Guesses?

Chalabi?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
I wish - hope, maybe - that that were true. It's more my perception that there has already been a surrender.

(ETA - that was unclear - I don't mean a surrender where everyone joins one side, but one in which the mainstream makes no effort to rein in the militants, or to criticize them, or to interfere with them in any way, almost treating it as "well, we understand why they're that way, and can't/won't complain . . .")

It is even beyond that. The purported mainstream gives money to fund these islamic charities knowing full well where a good amount of the money goes.