What if God's One of Us?
When the president talks to God
Does he ever think that maybe he's not?
That that voice is just inside his head
When he kneels next to the presidential bed
Does he ever think that maybe he's not?
That that voice is just inside his head
When he kneels next to the presidential bed
--When the President Talks to God, Bright Eyes
If the title, taken from a popular song, is true, then Bush and his homies have some 'splainin to do, as Ricky Ricardo would say.
The Pentagon has decided that detainees "could be convicted and perhaps killed" on the basis of coerced and hearsay testimony, reports the AP. Human rights groups say the regulations "would allow evidence that would not be tolerated in civilian or military courtrooms." The article reports that on the basis of a law passed by Congress last September, some abuses of detainees--"including mutilation and rape"--are prohibited (shucks), but the president has leeway to decide which interrogation techniques are permissible.
Now, forgetting the Constitution for a moment, as seems fitting in this Power Ranger post 9-11 America, let's don't talk Constitutional, let's just talk moral law. I know those don't hold sway in the courtroom, but it seems that increasingly, established laws don't, either. So maybe this consideration could get us to some grounding principles...oops, I know principles are outre too, in this new world. But just for old times sake, let's take the Golden Rule, a foundation principle for our religious forbears.
Using that as a touchstone, the new rules are an incredible indictment of an America that likes to stretch tyrant's necks, only to emulate some of their worst qualities. These new rules are right out of a totalitarian leader's handbook. How does America justify attacks upon Saddam, Chavez and Castro, when our policies bear their imprimatur?
Neither the Constitution nor the Golden Rule seem to be shining all that brightly these days.
The Pentagon has decided that detainees "could be convicted and perhaps killed" on the basis of coerced and hearsay testimony, reports the AP. Human rights groups say the regulations "would allow evidence that would not be tolerated in civilian or military courtrooms." The article reports that on the basis of a law passed by Congress last September, some abuses of detainees--"including mutilation and rape"--are prohibited (shucks), but the president has leeway to decide which interrogation techniques are permissible.
Now, forgetting the Constitution for a moment, as seems fitting in this Power Ranger post 9-11 America, let's don't talk Constitutional, let's just talk moral law. I know those don't hold sway in the courtroom, but it seems that increasingly, established laws don't, either. So maybe this consideration could get us to some grounding principles...oops, I know principles are outre too, in this new world. But just for old times sake, let's take the Golden Rule, a foundation principle for our religious forbears.
Using that as a touchstone, the new rules are an incredible indictment of an America that likes to stretch tyrant's necks, only to emulate some of their worst qualities. These new rules are right out of a totalitarian leader's handbook. How does America justify attacks upon Saddam, Chavez and Castro, when our policies bear their imprimatur?
Neither the Constitution nor the Golden Rule seem to be shining all that brightly these days.
posted by rangeragainstwar at 1:34 AM
6 Comments:
Lurch,
I discussed moral law only b/c the Bush administration wraps themselves in the morality of the bible.
I'll rearrange the deck chairs while you're doing the painting.
You forgot Noriega and Reza Pahlavi, as well as the current leadership of several Mideastern nations. Plus of course, those wonderful generals with whom we allied in South Vietnam.
There is no morality in U.S. foreign policy, but one wonders if there should be. There is a school of thought that foreign policy should be entirely self-interested and conducted solely to advance one's own aims. For example, the WW2 alliance with Stalin, who was arguably no better than Hitler.
Having said the above, however, it's one thing to dance with the devil in order to benefit in the Great Game. It's a whole other ballgame when one becomes so delusional that the true nature of the dance partner is lost to the point where he becomes the "moral equivalent of the founding fathers."
IMO, the problem isn't that we're cynical in our overseas dealings and put the best face on this reality for domestic consumption. It's that those cutting the deals are no better than those with whom they're dealing. Plus they are apparently not reality based whatsoever.
The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in the stars, but in ourselves, for entrusting such questionable characters with our national well being.
Lurch,
We are talking both O.T. and N.T., and they will both equally get the short shrift.
The Bright Eyes song you quote from is worth a look and listen. Thanks for the post.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=KIIImiRDnF8
Direct link:
When the president talks to god
Right on, HSA Turtle. Thanks for the You Tube.
Post a Comment
<< Home