Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. - Samuel Johnson
Extension of the Patriot Act is being 'debated' in Congress. We'll keep this question simple so that even politicians can understand: which provision of the Act would've prevented 9/11? Any other provisions should be removed. I'd bet there'd be little if anything left of the bill.
And here's a handy guide to legislation: if the name of the bill tries to suggest that opponents must be heathens or idiots, the law is probably bad. You can bet that the unintended consequences of the "Motherhood and Apple Pie Act" would make apples unaffordable and send mom to the salt mines.
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Sunday, December 11, 2005
Courage under Fire in DC
The US armed forces are advertising for recruits. They could not hope for a better "poster boy" than General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. His behavior is exactly what the military aspires to: spontaneous courage and morality.
Courage under fire is an abstract concept for most of us, thankfully, but courage to correct your boss? That's something we can all appreciate and admire. It must be especially hard for a military man, who is presumably accustomed to following orders. In this case, the General corrected the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, a boss already shown to punish those who disagree with him. Fortunately, General Pace recognizes that his real boss is the American people and, ultimately, his own soul.
Rumsfeld, the moral dwarf, had said that the responsibility of American military was to report any torture they observed. Pace demurred, stating that "it is the absolute responsibility of every U.S. service member, if they see inhumane treatment being conducted, to intervene, to stop it" (emphasis added). General Pace courageously defended his position in the face of Rumplestiltskin's fierce attempt to "correct" or clarify the serviceman's responsibility.
It's a sad state of affairs when it takes personal courage to be moral. This administration is the most deceitful and vindictive since Nixon's. It will be interesting to see how the Pentagon and administration toadies, who seem to outnumber those with backbones, will respond.
Courage under fire is an abstract concept for most of us, thankfully, but courage to correct your boss? That's something we can all appreciate and admire. It must be especially hard for a military man, who is presumably accustomed to following orders. In this case, the General corrected the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, a boss already shown to punish those who disagree with him. Fortunately, General Pace recognizes that his real boss is the American people and, ultimately, his own soul.
Rumsfeld, the moral dwarf, had said that the responsibility of American military was to report any torture they observed. Pace demurred, stating that "it is the absolute responsibility of every U.S. service member, if they see inhumane treatment being conducted, to intervene, to stop it" (emphasis added). General Pace courageously defended his position in the face of Rumplestiltskin's fierce attempt to "correct" or clarify the serviceman's responsibility.
It's a sad state of affairs when it takes personal courage to be moral. This administration is the most deceitful and vindictive since Nixon's. It will be interesting to see how the Pentagon and administration toadies, who seem to outnumber those with backbones, will respond.
Sunday, December 04, 2005
Buying into an Ownership Society
The Republicans talk about an ‘ownership society’. The concept is that owners take care of their property. When Jack Kemp says it, it means empowering the poor and middle class to invest and build, simultaneously enriching everybody. When the Bush administration says it, they really means the owner’s society: deforming social security and giving more to the super rich.
Why don’t the politicians start with something relatively simple: like implementing the ownership society in government? The federal budget is incomprehensibly big – what’s another $100 million for a bridge or $10 billion for a weapon? To make things understandable, we should know where our tax dollars are going, what exactly we are buying. Someday, we should be able to choose what we want to ‘own’. Do you want your family's taxes to buy 10 minutes operating costs for a submarine or 6 months salary for a border patrol officer? People might soon ask the real questions, like just who is the sub protecting us from?
This is actually an old idea. Rich Athenians bought triremes for their navy and bought art for public places. Those ships were likely built on budget and the art was probably better than the wall coverings that now pass for public art.
Why don’t the politicians start with something relatively simple: like implementing the ownership society in government? The federal budget is incomprehensibly big – what’s another $100 million for a bridge or $10 billion for a weapon? To make things understandable, we should know where our tax dollars are going, what exactly we are buying. Someday, we should be able to choose what we want to ‘own’. Do you want your family's taxes to buy 10 minutes operating costs for a submarine or 6 months salary for a border patrol officer? People might soon ask the real questions, like just who is the sub protecting us from?
This is actually an old idea. Rich Athenians bought triremes for their navy and bought art for public places. Those ships were likely built on budget and the art was probably better than the wall coverings that now pass for public art.
Saturday, December 03, 2005
Tortured Logic
Apologists for torturers are fond of the ‘ticking time bomb’ example. Their favorite scene: your prisoner knows the details about a bomb that is planted somewhere in the city and will explode soon. They contend that the urgent danger justifies using torture to extract information. Let’s examine their case.
The dilemma hinges on knowing the prisoner is guilty. We need to add a few real-world details. Just how exactly do you know there is a bomb?
* Did the prisoner tell you? Maybe the prisoner just wants to cause panic.
* Did one of your own people tell you? How can they be sure?
* Did someone else tell you? Maybe this person is lying. Or maybe they know more than they are telling you. Clearly, their credibility is weak if they were members of the terrorist organization. How likely is it that you know your prisoner is a terrorist and you know that a bomb is ticking but you don't know where or when?
The case for torture fails on another logical point. If torture succeeds in making the prisoner say where the bomb is, then you stop the torture while the information is confirmed. This takes time. A lie is as good as the truth to stop the pain, while (putative) the bomb keeps ticking.
Finally, two brief mentions. First, the experts (Israelis) don’t believe that short-term torture is effective. Second, nobody would prosecute an agent who kills a would-be assassin, so certain exceptions are made. There is no benefit to legalizing torture. Experts recommend drugs and psychology, not torture, to get the truth.
The dilemma hinges on knowing the prisoner is guilty. We need to add a few real-world details. Just how exactly do you know there is a bomb?
* Did the prisoner tell you? Maybe the prisoner just wants to cause panic.
* Did one of your own people tell you? How can they be sure?
* Did someone else tell you? Maybe this person is lying. Or maybe they know more than they are telling you. Clearly, their credibility is weak if they were members of the terrorist organization. How likely is it that you know your prisoner is a terrorist and you know that a bomb is ticking but you don't know where or when?
The case for torture fails on another logical point. If torture succeeds in making the prisoner say where the bomb is, then you stop the torture while the information is confirmed. This takes time. A lie is as good as the truth to stop the pain, while (putative) the bomb keeps ticking.
Finally, two brief mentions. First, the experts (Israelis) don’t believe that short-term torture is effective. Second, nobody would prosecute an agent who kills a would-be assassin, so certain exceptions are made. There is no benefit to legalizing torture. Experts recommend drugs and psychology, not torture, to get the truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
