Saturday, January 24, 2009
Friday, January 23, 2009
The Jack Bauer Exception
What Atrios said.
I've been arguing for a few years now that the problem with the Bush approach to the issue of torture is not the question of whether it is a good idea to do whatever is necessary to save lives but is instead the enshrining of "extra-legal" procedures through formal authorization. In other words, torture should never be the official policy of the United States. We should denounce its practice as an official policy of any nation, including our own.
But, as Atrios points out, a mythical "Jack Bauer" type, even in a rule-of-law/we-don't-torture society, would most likely not be prosecuted and would never be convicted if his actions demonstrably lead to the saving of lives.
There is no need to make an official "Jack Bauer Exception" because such an exception already has a de facto existence.
(To site another example of this in popular culture, there was a "Boston Legal" episode a few years back in which a cop was being prosecuted for torturing a witness to a child-kidnapping case. The torture was awful, but it did produce information that allowed the police to find and rescue the child. The jury in that case refused to convict the cop who tortured the witness even though it was clear that he was technically guilty.)
I've been arguing for a few years now that the problem with the Bush approach to the issue of torture is not the question of whether it is a good idea to do whatever is necessary to save lives but is instead the enshrining of "extra-legal" procedures through formal authorization. In other words, torture should never be the official policy of the United States. We should denounce its practice as an official policy of any nation, including our own.
But, as Atrios points out, a mythical "Jack Bauer" type, even in a rule-of-law/we-don't-torture society, would most likely not be prosecuted and would never be convicted if his actions demonstrably lead to the saving of lives.
There is no need to make an official "Jack Bauer Exception" because such an exception already has a de facto existence.
(To site another example of this in popular culture, there was a "Boston Legal" episode a few years back in which a cop was being prosecuted for torturing a witness to a child-kidnapping case. The torture was awful, but it did produce information that allowed the police to find and rescue the child. The jury in that case refused to convict the cop who tortured the witness even though it was clear that he was technically guilty.)
We've seen this before
Democrats compromise before the negotiations even begin. Republicans stomp their feet. Democrats compromise even more. Republicans still stomp their feet. After several iterations the result is a mess guaranteed to be hated by everyone and to solve nothing.
Now, I understand the desire for comity. I understand the desire to get as many people on board, especially on the big things like a near $900 billion stimulus bill. I don't even think a pre-negotiation compromise is necessarily a bad thing if it is designed to show good will towards a significant opposition.
What I don't like is the Democrats failure to understand the next step they should take in the negotiation process: when the Republicans stomp their feet, take back the initial compromise. Republicans drag their feet in these things because they know the Democrats will never make them pay a price for it (e.g., Harry Reid never forcing the Republican Minority to actually filibuster a bill).
Obama gave me an inkling of hope on the stimulus bill when, against character, he actually shifted the bill to the left after his initial proposal came out. My hope is that he understands the principle described above and will get the Democrats in Congress to go along with it.
Now, I understand the desire for comity. I understand the desire to get as many people on board, especially on the big things like a near $900 billion stimulus bill. I don't even think a pre-negotiation compromise is necessarily a bad thing if it is designed to show good will towards a significant opposition.
What I don't like is the Democrats failure to understand the next step they should take in the negotiation process: when the Republicans stomp their feet, take back the initial compromise. Republicans drag their feet in these things because they know the Democrats will never make them pay a price for it (e.g., Harry Reid never forcing the Republican Minority to actually filibuster a bill).
Obama gave me an inkling of hope on the stimulus bill when, against character, he actually shifted the bill to the left after his initial proposal came out. My hope is that he understands the principle described above and will get the Democrats in Congress to go along with it.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
I was wrong
I was telling people yesterday that Obama became President precisely at noon yesterday by statutory law. I was wrong. Someone in another forum pointed out that this is actually mandated by the 20th amendment which states that "The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the
20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at
noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would
have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of
their successors shall then begin."
So, Obama became President by CONSTITUTIONAL law at noon yesterday. The oath is a formality that is arguably reduced to a ceremonial event by the 20th amendment.
So, Obama became President by CONSTITUTIONAL law at noon yesterday. The oath is a formality that is arguably reduced to a ceremonial event by the 20th amendment.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Give it a rest
You know people don't have anything serious to complain about when they spend time talking about how the oath was flubbed.
Praying For Failure
Seriously
I honestly can't remember many people, on Bush's elevation, hoping and praying for his failure. Certainly a lot of people didn't want it. Certainly a lot of people expected him to fail. But WANTING him to fail? PRAYING for it?
And they accused US of being deranged?
I honestly can't remember many people, on Bush's elevation, hoping and praying for his failure. Certainly a lot of people didn't want it. Certainly a lot of people expected him to fail. But WANTING him to fail? PRAYING for it?
And they accused US of being deranged?
Hoping For Failure
As much as I disagreed with Bush in 2000, and as much as I thought he shouldn't have been installed as President, I can honestly say I never said that I hoped that he failed. Because I knew that a Bush failure would cause harm to the country I love and I would never wish harm on the United States.
I guess others don't feel as generous.
I guess others don't feel as generous.