Friday, November 10, 2006
IT'S ABOUT TIME
Hat tip this morning goes to Matt Drudge for linking a Time.com exclusive:
“Exclusive: Charges Sought Against Rumsfeld Over Prison Abuse”
“A lawsuit in Germany will seek a criminal prosecution of the former Defense Secretary and other U.S. officials for their alleged role in abuses at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo”
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1557842,00.html
Hand them over, I say.
The American exceptionalist crowd needs to see this happen – for the good of the Republic. Their attitude is just as dead as Nationalism, I posit.
And I ask: If their attitude should be supported, then why not the rest of Nationalism?
Where are my protective tariffs?
It’s clearly an “a” or “not a” argument. We’re either part of the community or we are the exception that seeks to prove the rule. If we are that exception, we shouldn’t expect any of the normal protections of the larger community to apply to any of our property or people – especially those overseas.
Protecting accused lawbreakers like Rumsfeld endangers every other American.
That said, let’s keep in mind he wouldn’t necessarily be prosecuted – the charges might be found to be without merit. And if prosecuted, he wouldn’t necessarily be convicted.
If he and the others were acquitted, it would certainly raise the value of our “moral stock” worldwide - as would submitting to the process itself.
Hand them over.
“Exclusive: Charges Sought Against Rumsfeld Over Prison Abuse”
“A lawsuit in Germany will seek a criminal prosecution of the former Defense Secretary and other U.S. officials for their alleged role in abuses at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo”
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1557842,00.html
Hand them over, I say.
The American exceptionalist crowd needs to see this happen – for the good of the Republic. Their attitude is just as dead as Nationalism, I posit.
And I ask: If their attitude should be supported, then why not the rest of Nationalism?
Where are my protective tariffs?
It’s clearly an “a” or “not a” argument. We’re either part of the community or we are the exception that seeks to prove the rule. If we are that exception, we shouldn’t expect any of the normal protections of the larger community to apply to any of our property or people – especially those overseas.
Protecting accused lawbreakers like Rumsfeld endangers every other American.
That said, let’s keep in mind he wouldn’t necessarily be prosecuted – the charges might be found to be without merit. And if prosecuted, he wouldn’t necessarily be convicted.
If he and the others were acquitted, it would certainly raise the value of our “moral stock” worldwide - as would submitting to the process itself.
Hand them over.
Comments:
<< Home
A classic “a or not a” argument? This is definitely a breakdown in logical theory as it is nothing of the kind. An “a, not a” argument really only applies to an objective truth. Something is either an apple or it isn’t. This is clearly not that. Your argument essentially posits if we do not go along with anything that a member of the world community wants, then we are not a member of the world community. That is not an “a, not a” argument, it is more correctly a false dilemma. We have never recognized the power recent German laws have apparently granted to their courts. 11 Iraqis, a Saudi and a far left organization (The Center for Constitutional Rights) as plaintiffs do not a treaty make. The idea that we are somehow excepting ourselves from the world community, based upon not handing over Rumsfeld is pretty much the only thing sillier than this lawsuit. A, not A this aint.
Post a Comment
<< Home
