The War on the Moral High Ground
---
Yes, I know, you've been patiently waiting for me to blog about the situation regarding the President's proposed vacating rewriting "modernization" of the Geneva Conventions regarding torture, "torture-lite" [sic!] and other euphemisms.
Well, what would you have me say? If the "compromise" bill is enacted into law, then the United States — the "Shining City on a Hill" — will be the first non-dictatorial nation to knowingly withdraw from the single best thing the world, as a world, ever did...
...because we must "defend the American way of life"...
...like habeas corpus, or not...
...like having courts, rather than presidents, interpret laws and treaties, or not...
...like prosecuting war criminals, or not...
...like allowing accused persons to see the evidence against them, or not...
...like considering, or at least acknowledging, how our allies and other free nations address such issues, or not...
If you want to see the "compromise" bill, then you can find it here (PDF - 94 pages). If you want the highlights, then you can use the New York Times' convenient flow-chart. If you seek deep legal analysis, then Balkinization is your source: start here, and just keep reading all the posts since.
---
A person I have, in other contexts, very little patience with, economist and perennial central planning advocate Robert H. Frank, once wrote a paper, recently turned into a book, called "What Price the Moral High Ground?" In it, he shows, via game theory and behavioral economics, what most people already understand at some level: the concept of "doing well by doing good." See also, Matthew 16:26.
In this context, in our desperate quest to defend the Moral High Ground, upon which is built the Shining City on a Hill, is there no one — George W. Bush, John McCain, Michael V. Hayden, anyone — who will ask, honestly, "What price the moral high ground?"
This price — the end of the Geneva Convention (or at least of its legitimacy in this country) — is too high. How can anyone not see that?
May history forgive us.
Well, what would you have me say? If the "compromise" bill is enacted into law, then the United States — the "Shining City on a Hill" — will be the first non-dictatorial nation to knowingly withdraw from the single best thing the world, as a world, ever did...
...because we must "defend the American way of life"...
...like habeas corpus, or not...
...like having courts, rather than presidents, interpret laws and treaties, or not...
...like prosecuting war criminals, or not...
...like allowing accused persons to see the evidence against them, or not...
...like considering, or at least acknowledging, how our allies and other free nations address such issues, or not...
If you want to see the "compromise" bill, then you can find it here (PDF - 94 pages). If you want the highlights, then you can use the New York Times' convenient flow-chart. If you seek deep legal analysis, then Balkinization is your source: start here, and just keep reading all the posts since.
---
A person I have, in other contexts, very little patience with, economist and perennial central planning advocate Robert H. Frank, once wrote a paper, recently turned into a book, called "What Price the Moral High Ground?" In it, he shows, via game theory and behavioral economics, what most people already understand at some level: the concept of "doing well by doing good." See also, Matthew 16:26.
In this context, in our desperate quest to defend the Moral High Ground, upon which is built the Shining City on a Hill, is there no one — George W. Bush, John McCain, Michael V. Hayden, anyone — who will ask, honestly, "What price the moral high ground?"
This price — the end of the Geneva Convention (or at least of its legitimacy in this country) — is too high. How can anyone not see that?
May history forgive us.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
Posted by Kip on
23 September 2006
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.