interesting NPR today on prosecuting bush for torture.
Debate went something like this:
guy#1: We should prosecute administration officials for torture. Waterboarding is defined as a crime. People have admitted to water boarding. A crime has been committed and those in power need to be held to the law because no one is supposed to be above the law.
Guy#2: We shouldn't prosecute because we probably wouldn't win and it'd probably be a waste of time and I doubt people are interested when they care about food on their tables so we probably shouldn't do it.
Guy#2: You would suffer political capital and couldn't get anything done.
Guy#1: That's true. Ethics can be inconvienient but this is a slippery slope here. A crime was admitted to and committed.
Guy#2: They had a shiny piece of paper that said they were okay.
Guy#1: They did have a shiny piece of paper and that amounts to the "but i was told to" defense. Also, the people issuing orders are not above the law just because they have shiny pieces of paper that they issued particularly when shiny pieces of paper have no bearing on what the law actually is.
Guy#2: They had a shiny piece of paper that said it was okay. Now I'm going to talk long and slow over you and bring up irrelevant pieces of argument that have no real bearing of anything for the rest of this conversation because clearly you can't see logic and reason. They should not prosecute.
Guy#1: Crime was committed, they should.
Guy#2 Then Star was right in prosecuting.
Guy#1: YES, Clinton broke the law and leaders should be held to a higher stander than anyone else.
Guy#2: People will look over shoulders!
Guy#1: Good! They SHOULD look over their shoulders when the crime is black and white!!!
I went inside at that point. The talking over strategy was amusing.
guy#1: We should prosecute administration officials for torture. Waterboarding is defined as a crime. People have admitted to water boarding. A crime has been committed and those in power need to be held to the law because no one is supposed to be above the law.
Guy#2: We shouldn't prosecute because we probably wouldn't win and it'd probably be a waste of time and I doubt people are interested when they care about food on their tables so we probably shouldn't do it.
Guy#2: You would suffer political capital and couldn't get anything done.
Guy#1: That's true. Ethics can be inconvienient but this is a slippery slope here. A crime was admitted to and committed.
Guy#2: They had a shiny piece of paper that said they were okay.
Guy#1: They did have a shiny piece of paper and that amounts to the "but i was told to" defense. Also, the people issuing orders are not above the law just because they have shiny pieces of paper that they issued particularly when shiny pieces of paper have no bearing on what the law actually is.
Guy#2: They had a shiny piece of paper that said it was okay. Now I'm going to talk long and slow over you and bring up irrelevant pieces of argument that have no real bearing of anything for the rest of this conversation because clearly you can't see logic and reason. They should not prosecute.
Guy#1: Crime was committed, they should.
Guy#2 Then Star was right in prosecuting.
Guy#1: YES, Clinton broke the law and leaders should be held to a higher stander than anyone else.
Guy#2: People will look over shoulders!
Guy#1: Good! They SHOULD look over their shoulders when the crime is black and white!!!
I went inside at that point. The talking over strategy was amusing.