Monday, May 29, 2006
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Sunday, May 21, 2006
Saturday, May 20, 2006
Ethics Now and Then: Mistakes, Crimes, and Sedition
What's the difference between a crime and a mistake? Well, here are a couple of differences:
When you commit a crime, you deserve punishment. When you make a mistake, you may or may not be punished for it, but you generally don't deserve to be punished in the same sense. Of course, you may or may not be punished for committing a crime, but if you're not, we say that justice is not done.
Another difference, according to lawyers and judges, is that a criminal has to have criminal intent. Perpetrators must know that what they are doing is wrong. If they don't know what they are doing is wrong, it's not clear that they deserve punishment. If they don't know what they are doing is wrong, they've made a mistake. That covers a lot of human behavior, because a lot of people who make mistakes think they are doing the right thing.
I was talking with someone tonight about whether or not our president is a criminal because he launched a war that's illegal in international law. She responded that it takes a long time for people to come around to that point of view. It took me a long time to come around to that point of view. For a couple of years, I said that the president is incompetent, and that he lacks judgment. That's what you say about someone who makes bad mistakes. Then I began to say that he's an incompetent criminal. Most recently, I've dropped the incompetent part. Do you know why? Because of the torture. Torture follows this president wherever his authority reaches: Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan, secret prisons in Europe, rendition and waterboarding and death after death... That's what transforms this president's actions from mistakes into crimes. He is responsible for the way we conduct the war that started on September 11. He and his team have conducted the war not as incompetents, but as criminals.
One problem with calling the president a criminal is that it's almost impossible to do so without seeming to dishonor the brave soldiers who are fighting now in Iraq and Afghanistan. But I don't see it. Soldiers follow orders and civilian leaders give them. I know we have a whole jursiprudence in military law about not following illegal orders, but that's just not relevant in this case. We have an administration that has overseen the development of torture as a policy in the so-called war against terror. This policy is deliberate and it flows from the top of our government. Blaming our soldiers for the war itself, or for the way it's conducted, is out of the question. They are not to blame for what the government has done. The few soldiers who are blameworthy are already under investigation, and their acts don't diminish the bravery or honor of all the others who fight for us.
For all that, we still don't want to recognize the president's actions for what they are. We think that if Secretary Rumsfeld steps down, we can make things okay again. Well, Bush was right when he said, "I'm the decider." He meant that he supports Rumsfeld and the rest of the team that brought us Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, and all the rest. Bush is responsible for all of it, but no one in government will say it. To say during a war that the president is a criminal sounds like sedition. Sedition is the incitement of rebellion against a lawful state, though, and this state is not lawful. It has shown itself a criminal state. It has destroyed our beloved constitution and our reputation as a democratic country that protects human rights. So we have to ignore its authority and find new leadership, fast.
When you commit a crime, you deserve punishment. When you make a mistake, you may or may not be punished for it, but you generally don't deserve to be punished in the same sense. Of course, you may or may not be punished for committing a crime, but if you're not, we say that justice is not done.
Another difference, according to lawyers and judges, is that a criminal has to have criminal intent. Perpetrators must know that what they are doing is wrong. If they don't know what they are doing is wrong, it's not clear that they deserve punishment. If they don't know what they are doing is wrong, they've made a mistake. That covers a lot of human behavior, because a lot of people who make mistakes think they are doing the right thing.
I was talking with someone tonight about whether or not our president is a criminal because he launched a war that's illegal in international law. She responded that it takes a long time for people to come around to that point of view. It took me a long time to come around to that point of view. For a couple of years, I said that the president is incompetent, and that he lacks judgment. That's what you say about someone who makes bad mistakes. Then I began to say that he's an incompetent criminal. Most recently, I've dropped the incompetent part. Do you know why? Because of the torture. Torture follows this president wherever his authority reaches: Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan, secret prisons in Europe, rendition and waterboarding and death after death... That's what transforms this president's actions from mistakes into crimes. He is responsible for the way we conduct the war that started on September 11. He and his team have conducted the war not as incompetents, but as criminals.
One problem with calling the president a criminal is that it's almost impossible to do so without seeming to dishonor the brave soldiers who are fighting now in Iraq and Afghanistan. But I don't see it. Soldiers follow orders and civilian leaders give them. I know we have a whole jursiprudence in military law about not following illegal orders, but that's just not relevant in this case. We have an administration that has overseen the development of torture as a policy in the so-called war against terror. This policy is deliberate and it flows from the top of our government. Blaming our soldiers for the war itself, or for the way it's conducted, is out of the question. They are not to blame for what the government has done. The few soldiers who are blameworthy are already under investigation, and their acts don't diminish the bravery or honor of all the others who fight for us.
For all that, we still don't want to recognize the president's actions for what they are. We think that if Secretary Rumsfeld steps down, we can make things okay again. Well, Bush was right when he said, "I'm the decider." He meant that he supports Rumsfeld and the rest of the team that brought us Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, and all the rest. Bush is responsible for all of it, but no one in government will say it. To say during a war that the president is a criminal sounds like sedition. Sedition is the incitement of rebellion against a lawful state, though, and this state is not lawful. It has shown itself a criminal state. It has destroyed our beloved constitution and our reputation as a democratic country that protects human rights. So we have to ignore its authority and find new leadership, fast.
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Sunday, May 14, 2006
Our Deepest Fear
Our deepest fear, Marianne Williamson
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It is not just in some of us; it is in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It is not just in some of us; it is in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.
Saturday, May 13, 2006
Friday, May 12, 2006
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Wisdom from Horace
"Dimidium facti, qui coepit, habet; sapere aude, incipe.”
"He who has begun has half done. Dare to be wise (know); begin!"
- Horace, Epistles
"He who has begun has half done. Dare to be wise (know); begin!"
- Horace, Epistles
Saving Iraq: Mission Impossible
Tonight I read an article by Juan Cole called Saving Iraq: Mission Impossible. It's at http://salon.com. He argues that prime minister designate al-Maliki won't be able to make much of a difference in securing Iraq. Cole is pessimistic that anyone could unite the country.
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Remembering Reagan's Big Win in Texas
Remembering Reagan's Big Win in Texas by Gary Hoitsma
Barnhart, who was later elected chairman of the Texas Republican Party and then appointed by Reagan in 1981 as federal highway administrator, recalled that he had learned the true measure of Reagan’s character during one incident in that early first hard-fought campaign in Texas. He said he was stunned when Reagan calmly turned down an extraordinary opportunity Barnhart had arranged for the governor to make a cameo scripture-reading appearance at W.A. Criswell’s Sunday worship service at his Baptist Church in Dallas. Criswell was an icon to more than four million Texas Baptists who Barnhart knew would be mightily impressed by a Reagan appearance.
“We’re not going to it,” Reagan said. “Not do it?” Barnhart replied. “There isn’t a politician in Texas who wouldn’t cut off his arm for this opportunity.”
“You don’t understand, Ray.” Reagan responded. “My relationship with my God is MY relationship, and we’re not going to abuse it.”
Years later Barnhart recalled, “I knew at that moment there’d never be a man in politics more principled and deserving of respect.”
Barnhart, who was later elected chairman of the Texas Republican Party and then appointed by Reagan in 1981 as federal highway administrator, recalled that he had learned the true measure of Reagan’s character during one incident in that early first hard-fought campaign in Texas. He said he was stunned when Reagan calmly turned down an extraordinary opportunity Barnhart had arranged for the governor to make a cameo scripture-reading appearance at W.A. Criswell’s Sunday worship service at his Baptist Church in Dallas. Criswell was an icon to more than four million Texas Baptists who Barnhart knew would be mightily impressed by a Reagan appearance.
“We’re not going to it,” Reagan said. “Not do it?” Barnhart replied. “There isn’t a politician in Texas who wouldn’t cut off his arm for this opportunity.”
“You don’t understand, Ray.” Reagan responded. “My relationship with my God is MY relationship, and we’re not going to abuse it.”
Years later Barnhart recalled, “I knew at that moment there’d never be a man in politics more principled and deserving of respect.”
