Thursday, May 7, 2009

Charles Krauthammer

Charles Krauthammer opined in a column published on Sunday by the StarTribune that:

"Principles are fine, but.."

With the but being that sometimes you have to make hard choices to keep the country safe.

This simpleton jingoism of 'The ends justify the means" logic is pretty well what has been used to carry out most of the more horrific acts in history, not the least of which was our internment of Japanese Americans during WWII. An act roundly repudiated now, including by the likes of people like Krauthammer.

The thing is though, that's not the full reply - the full reply goes on:

First, that torture simply gets us LESS not more, useful information, so that frankly, it compromised national security, it did NOT keep us safe(r), if anything it endangered our safety further.

Second, it wasn't the last act of desperation, it was the first act taken. It was done to show (vicariously) that we could be 'tough.'

Third, it endangers our citizens and soldiers - to no good use or purpose.

Fourth, the ends NEVER, ever justify the means. The word he should have used is 'ethics' are fine, but.. and then we'd all see that the whacked-out right has stood for, and still stands for, ethics of convenience. This wasn't about protecting the country, anything but, it was about hubris, vengeance, ethno-centric arrogance, and plain old mendacity.

In short, Krauthammer couldn't possibly be more wrong. This hurt our security.

7 comments:

  1. I have heard at least one reference that President Obama has indicated the contents of the two pages of memos that Cheney wants declassified are 'inconclusive'.

    Two pages taken out of the middle of many pages - is that suspect, or what?

    Not a lot in exchange for giving up core principles. Makes the whole assertion by Republicans reinventing themselves that they are all about core values a lot less convincing.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Fourth, the ends NEVER, ever justify the means."

    NEVER??!! An absolute to be employed without exception from which no deviation is tolerated because there exist absolute faith in its veracity. In fact, if there exist an existential condition under which one as the sole believer in this principle could only exist by deviating from this principle, then it be better that the principle die with you rather than suffer the breech of this principle and be exposed as imperfect.
    remarkable for untested braggadocio.
    ignorance telling experience what it should/shouldn't do!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Divad,

    Those are the words of Immanuel Khant, and candidly, over time, most historians and philosophers have come to support Khant's assertion that any ends, however, honorable, cannot be honorably achieved by dishonorable means.

    ReplyDelete
  4. And also, Divad, experience is the voice speaking to ignorance, not the other way around.

    Experience says torture begets further, more extreme acts.

    Experience says that cruel acts by our adversaries in WWII lead to cruel acts by our soldiers.

    Experience says that sacrificing principal leads to a ready willingness to sacrifice further - e.g. US v. Hamdan - we were 'ready' to put 'non-citizens' in jail imperpetuity - so it wasn't a stretch to put a US Citizen in jail.

    Experience says that teaching troops that occassional lapses in judgement are acceptable leads to leaders (later) who think lapses in judgement are to be accepted.

    I think perhaps your philopophical rant needs some grounding in fact. Please provide examples where sacrificing basic human rights was, in the long run, something which lead to a far better outcome and which couldn't have been achieved by other, more honorable means, and then, maybe, I'll agree.

    However, if you desire to go down the philosophical path, I suggest you research the term 'higher order ethic.' There is an argument to be made, but that wouldn't be one of 'the ends justify the means' it would be one of - if by sacrificing one principal, I support a more impactful one, such as lying to save a life, then I am acting honorably. Torture, however, isn't such a scenario, instead it is chosing to act to harm, when no such choice is required.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It is refreshing to read a blog that has a foundation in philosophy and ethics (as distinct from morality or religion), and that includes a knowledge and an understanding of history.

    Given Krathammer's background, what he writes is hardly a surprise. He was not only a supporter of the Reagan doctrine which provided support for anti-communist uprisings in places like Afghanistan - by groups like the Taliban. He was closely involved with the Bush administration, an admirer of the so-called Bush Doctrine. His own position and reputation are closely tied to the fortunes of the Bush administration.

    As near as I can figure, from the reading I have done, Krauthammer must be justifying anything the Bush administration did, on the premise that we are fulfilling the US destiny to force democracy on people regardless of their own desires to control their destiny differently. In the pursuit of the Bush Doctrine, anything we do, no matter how illegal or unethical MUST be for their own greater good if it has the intention of promoting democracy around the world.

    Seems to me that in the larger context of history there have always been supposedly noble premises asserted to justify horrible acts. They consistently don't however stand up well under close scrutiny. Like the comprehensive Bush torture program for detainees.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Remember, those same people who thought nothing of placing "non-citizens" in jail without trial, without charges, without counsel, etc... routinely bloody murder when an American citizen is locked up in some hell0hole without trial, without charges, without counsel, etc. They are also the same people who were willing to put an American citizen (Jose Padilla) in jail, again without trial, without charges, without access to a lawyer, in the name of the war on terror.

    The arguments that the Constitution and Bill of Rights only apply to US citizens is specious at best. There can be no argument, however, that the Consitution and Bill of Rights apply to US citizens, and the write of habeus corpor was NEVER and I repeat NEVER lawfully suspended in recent times.

    What's sad is that criminal prosecutions for those who authorized torture are now unlikely. Two of the lawyers who wrote memos authorizing torture will possibly face sanctions from their state bar associations, and I sincerely hope they are disbarred. Let's hope that eventually war crimes charges are filed in Spain or in some other country and that one of these fools decides to travel abroad.

    ReplyDelete
  7. ToE, I am not so sure that there will be no criminal proceedings for those who authorized torture. The present DoJ report originated under Mukasey and the Bush administration. Mukasey apparently didn't like the findings, and sent it back for a re-write. This may not pass muster with those who receive the report. More dubious is that the report was performed while one of the principle participants, Bradbury, is still in a position of authority within the DoJ. Lastly, I doubt that those who receive the DoJ report will be favorably impressed that the principle participants were provided a copy of this report, and the chance to rebutt it, before it was considered complete.

    All of those factors make this report dubious at best. What will matter most in the long run, I hope, is that enough individuals are incensed at this to protest any mere slap on the wrist. All of can and should demand a further investigation with the possibility of criminal prosecution - and request it before the statute of limitations runs. Senator Lahey is just one of the possible individuals that is willing to promote a congressional investigation.

    Personally, I'd love to see an independent prosecutor appointed, preferably Patrick Fitzgerald (when he is done with the former IL governor, that is).

    ReplyDelete