Submitted by Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
With apologies to Archbishop of Canterbury John Morton, I’m offering this version of his famous “fork”:
You’re a young idealist standing for the highest office in the land. Against many odds you’ve offered a candidacy of hope and change to an electorate tired of both war and the prior Administration that got them into those wars. There are rumors of widespread atrocities committed by that Administration in response to a horrific terrorist attack on American soil where thousands of your countrymen died. In your capacity as an US Senator, you’ve been briefed on several of these and you see a pattern developing. You’re a Constitutionalist; a lawyer; and a principled man, but you recognize the nation faces a real threat of nuclear holocaust at the hands of committed, well-funded terrorists supported and protected by renegade states and even some of our allies. These terrorists have a fanatical zeal and value martyrdom above self-preservation. You believe that if they acquire weapons of mass destruction the question will not be if millions of people will die, but which millions of people will die.
Riding a groundswell of promise and belief in your promises to restore American values, the electorate sends you to the nation’s capitol to change the way things have been done. During the course of the election, it has become clear that the drain on the economy caused by war, corruption, and old-fashioned greed has left the country in dire financial straits.
On January 16th you are briefed by the nation’s intelligence communities. You are told definitively that the intelligence community has engaged in extraordinary measures to fight America’s enemies which you conclude amount to torture, illegal renditions, detaining innocent people, and even Executive Orders approving the killing of persons deemed enemy combatants. You’ve inherited a Gulag within sight of the American coast and during the campaign you’ve vowed to close it. You are told that many senior members of the permanent intelligence community were aware of and approved the illegal measures employed in defense of the country. Losing these people would severely cripple efforts to defend the country as they form a sizable amount of the intelligence community’s institutional knowledge and memory. You’re also told that these senior intelligence officers have been promised immunity for their actions by the earlier Administration.
You convene your economic advisors who explain to you that the emergency measures adopted by your predecessor and designed to prop up the failing economy may well work but it will take time,and any shock to the nation could disturb this fragile trust building process. If the stimulus fails, the resulting shock could send the nation and Europe into a full-blown depression crippling the efforts to fight terrorism.
Moderate governments in the Mideast have come to you seeking aid to fight the fundamentalist movements that are fueling terrorist recruitment and sponsorship. They tell you that to continue the fight means more money and intelligence from the US or their efforts will be severely handicapped.
What do you do?
A. Continue the illegal policies of the past Administration reasoning that this is war and that your primary goal is to defend the nation at all costs. These repugnant policies seemed to have had some effect in curtailing the terrorist threat and your calling off the dogs is a real risk to your viability as a leader if you’re wrong and another deadly attack occurs on US soil. Another successful attack could throw the markets into a death spiral and the recovery might not occur for decades. You continue with the stimulus program and avoid any investigation of earlier illegal acts concluding that any shock to the fragile economy caused by the turmoil will reap more evil than it alleviates. You also avoid any investigation to eliminate the possibility of crippling the intelligence community. You share money and both illegally obtained and legally obtained intelligence with the friendly Arab states.
B. You reason that principle trumps expediency and stop all illegality. You immediately order investigations into the prior Administration’s handling of the war. You make public the results and bring indictments against wrongdoers. You do so even in the face of prior pledges of immunity reasoning they are void ad initio given our treaty obligations and on principles of international law. You make Herculean efforts to replace the intelligence officers lost to the investigations and you build morale by explaining your policies as being in the nation’s long-term best interest. You do what you can to stabilize the economy but you will not compromise in your efforts to prosecute those who have violated the law. You tell friendly states and Europe you understand their concerns about such a policy but you adhere to the adage that “let justice be done though the heavens fall.”
C. You adopt a middle ground approach reasoning it is best for the country that the economic recovery not be affected by criminal investigations of the American intelligence community and the prior Administration. You believe any move otherwise could lead to a weakening of American strength at the worst time and make that nuclear holocaust against an American city more likely. You change the illegal policies of the prior Administration to stop torture, curtail renditions and if absolutely necessary only to countries that will not use torture. You employ death warrants abroad and only against those your intelligence agencies tell you present a clear and present danger to the US. You fully support friendly states abroad against extremists and provide intelligence to them as well as cash.
D. Your Choice.
Now, the tough part: Defend your choice — and no changing facts that you don’t like in our “hypothetical situation.”
~Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
AY:
…. smarter, too. 😀
Revered Dredd,
I see you have spoken and we are all freer because of this….
My choice is “what me worry” … cause the Rev. knows that “God is on our side” … but which god is on our side is a more difficult issue …
Surely that must be known before the devil’s fork is a valid exercise?
… the book Rev. Morton has before him says some things that he probably tends to avoid:
(II Cor 4:4) … and …
(Matthew 4:1-9)… heady stuff … “the kingdoms of the world” …
(II Cor 11:13) … the old bad is good morph is a function of propaganda? See also here …
Indeed some Revs do read these verses to their flock because they believe that human efforts to stave off those things that are beyond their control are vain.
Which God, god, or gods is indeed a prerequisite to the answer. If there be no God, then the Rev has one hell of a fork to bear.
Either way … what, me worry?
Tiredofconman,
If you think about it…in real life we are all conmen or conmomen at sometime in our lives…..For instance…get stopped by a cop….you gonna say give me the ticket and pay for it….no complaints..Most people would try and talk their way out of it….
Mark,
D….Conduct a Nuremberg Trial for all elected officials and folks with any ties to the financial markets….Sometimes you might get two for one….
Roman Berry:
“When you write “you recognize the nation faces a real threat of nuclear holocaust at the hands of committed, well-funded terrorists”, you render your hypothetical beyond the bounds of reason and beg the question to get the answer (C) that you obviously want.”
*************************************
http://www.eurasiareview.com/29012012-terrorist-groups-that-might-pursue-nuclear-terrorism-analysis/
I’ll put you down for “B.”
yeah, sorry, I’m not buying some of the stuff in your hypothetical so I’m not prepared to answer this either.
Yes or no, do you still beat your wife?
Reading the thread though it looks like the GOP is pouring more money into pay-per-post trolls & this site has been visited. I suppose we can expect clowns with clever names like ‘conman’ to pop up here until November.
I do not see a connection between the need for economic stimulis and separate and unequal foreign policy problems and human rights deprivations assocaited with the Bush administration’s Reichstag Fire Decrees.
D. You realize that our “way of life” is absurd in the short run and KILLING us in the long run – as we run out of oil, pollute the biosphere, overfish the oceans (while polluting them continuously with toxic waste and CO2 absorption – making them too acidic for marine life), and continue the short-sighted policies of the past 50 years, and decide it’s time to speak the truth to the people and lead them to a more community centered way of life based on renewable/sustainable energy (like solar) and begin programs to end the wars and re-allocate that much needed money into infrastructure maintenance, school and hospital revitalization, and massive work projects that need to be done to get people back to work and to clean-up, fix-up and establish new permaculture based centers in communities everywhere.
As a result, you’ll be assassinated by the CIA before your term is through.
one actually must question the original assumption, the “young idealist”, as his cabinet was already picked before he entered the White House and was “briefed” and it was already apparent, except to the blind idolatrized populace, that this young “idealist” was but another surrogate for the same ruling elite, but this time a member of the left wing faction of the same party–the Fascist Empire of the United States. Do not be so naive-it turns my stomach to see the brainwashed spout such bull.
B.
Rendition “only when necessary?” When is that?
C is essentially a re-statement of A. It is built on a slipper slope.
Mark’s post is so agenda driven to carry the water for his “hypothetical” president that I can smell the stink of the whole character behind the post !
p.s. Military? Only Generals and Admirals will be indicted. Civilian? Only CEO’s of private contractors.
mespo,
It is your scenario and your rules and I agree to the guidelines you have imposed.
My choice is “D” which would firstly be a complete repudiation of the Gerald Ford legacy (the country and the economy are too weak to handle the rule of law) in that I would hold the top officials responsible and direct the Justice Department to seek indictments against Tenent, Goss, Hayden, Negroponte, McConnell, (maybe Kerr), Bush and Cheney. I would provide total immunity to any personnel who served under these individuals for truthful testimony under oath. Then I would employ the rest of “C”.
My reasoning would be very clear … none of this could have happened on the scale it occurred without the concurrence and orders of the top officials so those same top officials will carry the entire blame. Now, privately, to those who served under these men and followed their orders … career advancement is not something you can look forward to … just thank your lucky stars that this time around the big fish are the only ones who will be looking at four walls in ADX Florence.
When you write “you recognize the nation faces a real threat of nuclear holocaust at the hands of committed, well-funded terrorists”, you render your hypothetical beyond the bounds of reason and beg the question to get the answer (C) that you obviously want. In fact, everything you just constructed here is so obviously begging the question and driving towards the only answer you obviously want so as to render the entire exerciuse moot. Scare tactics. Sorry, but that won’t play. And neither will I.
Only a spineless person will try to rationalize why the right thing could not have been done , ( following the oath/ constitution) . only stupid idiots will defend the attack on constitution or pretend that this hypothetical president was really compromised by all these conflicting forces . There is a simple answer he never meant anything he said . If you don’t believe that’s the case , here is an example :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7FR-RQqe14&feature=youtube_gdata_player
rafflaw:
B suggests that you will continue the stimulus package as best you can but that would be secondary to your goal of pursuing wrongdoing. You can modify this policy by chooing D and giving your solution.
Mark,
Thank you for putting this all into perspective. I choose C., with some caveats, which I will lay out and defend tomorrow. From my perspective. this is a wonderful post which attempts a peek behind the curtain of blame raining in from all sides of our political spectrum. When we let ourselves lose sight of the probable reality you’ve laid out, we see with tunnel vision only our disappointments with possibilities lost.
OK,
I have a question. Are you including the stimulus package in choice B? If so, I think the rule of law that I had hoped we would return to is the only real choice under the Constitution. The intelligence officers that are lost to the investigations aren’t needed since they are war criminals. They and the higher ups who ordered and authorized the crimes should be punished if they are found to be guilty of torture. Of course, including Bush and Cheney and Rice and others may be tough legally, but if you don’t fight for justice, it isn’t a fight at all.
I do believe that when Americans hear the facts of the awful deeds done in our name, that they will not object to following the rule of law. If the very top can be held accountable for crimes, then we really are living under the rule of law. Without the accountability for crimes committed by our top officials, none of us are really free and the government can come after any of us. The NDAA as interpreted by Prof. Turley may be evidence of the government gaining extra constitutional control of the population at the expense of the Constitution. Would a law such as the NDAA have been possible if we had prosecuted any and all torture criminals?
By compromising on the principles on which this country is founded on , you have already started slow poisoning of this nation . A strong leader would explain his tough decisions to people and not go against everything one promised in campaign . What if this hypothetical president never really had any core values of intention to do what he had said in the campaign ?
D. All of the above.
😉