Academia, Constitutional Law, International, Politics, Society

The Devil’s Fork

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

223 thoughts on “The Devil’s Fork”

  1. Why is anyone still talking about Ron Paul? It’s like discussing the viability of Herman Cain’s nomination. Paul garnered single digits in FLA and barely crossed that threshhold in wacky SC. He is polling at a whopping 13% nationally in the 4 horse Repub field. On his best showing in NH, Romney doubled his vote count. He’s irrelevant.

  3. Mike let me end this exchange on this, I do agree Sanders is another one I respect. I have also started to respect 7/100 senators who voted against NDAA and some of them I had never liked before, but I am willing to ignore the things that I did not agree with them on before because I totally agree with Jonathan Turley on this, this is undermining the whole foundation of this country and that mind u, that particular portion was at the request of the “lesser of the evil”.

  4. mom swathmore, i had not expected that someone here, on jonathanturley.org will bring the newsletter otherwise I would have preemted that argument, and to actually give a link of those msm or anti ron websites is even more disappointing as i had thought better.If this is all you can say about Ron Paul then great you are in the majority and deserve presidents like Bushobama! Please check this out:

  10. Mike,
    I have a hunch that if I name a person who i believe is honest , you will give me reasons to think otherwise. I do believe that Ron Paul is an honest person, maybe not perfect but honest. Ralph Nader is another i can think of. The MSM and the rationalizers for the dishonest politicians will try to suggest that they are just crazy men. The result is that we cannot elect those people to a higher office as MSM just brainwashes a large segment of the population. Dishonest people tell people that their campaign is fueled by small donations of average donors so they wont be held hostages to the big corporations, remember that stump speech? Whereas Obama’s biggest donors were corporations.

    I am in no way anticipating to changeyour mindset , as people build there beliefs from their life experiences and cannot just one day wake up and based on a post change their mind as that can shake their entire being. In order to keep ourself stable we use all kind of defenses including rationalizations, intellectualizations, but none of those defenses can change the truth. Truth is that this person that you are wanting to defend is not an honest person. Yes every other president may have been dishonest, as you said, but every other president may not be dishonest in the future if people stop rationalizing and supporting people who are dishonest today.
    .

    1. “I do believe that Ron Paul is an honest person, maybe not perfect but honest.”

      Frank,

      Compared to most Ron Paul is refreshingly honest, except about his bigotry, which makes him quite problematic. I think Nader is an honest, yet egotistical man. My idea of political honesty runs to Bernie Sanders and few others.

      “but every other president may not be dishonest in the future if people stop rationalizing and supporting people who are dishonest today.”

      That may happen in the future if money is removed from politics, but until things change, we have to decide on the lesser of two evils.

  12. once people get to know his real character, that will be hard though because of the wonderful mainstream media here, the less will be number of sheeps, however, since Bush won two terms i guess anything is possible. When 93/100 senators can help pass a bill like NDAA anything can happen.

  13. Obama is regarded much more highly than Bush in most of the world. That does not include the southern states of the USA.

  16. Frank,

    One thing’s for sure: Although the Bush/Cheney Administration damaged the reputation of this country immeasurably–Bush was definitely not a smooth talker.

    1. Elaine , I had never expected anything good from bush , but a lot of people had expected better from this guy and that is why in my view he has damaged this country more .

  17. mespo,

    I believe, too, that politicians and government officials who act in unprincipled ways can exact a terrible toll upon those whom they are committed to represent.

    1. I think this administration has damaged the image of politicians much more than any previous administration or president . Majority of People had voted for him not because he was not white but because they had trusted him . He had said we have to do the right thing not only when it is easy but also when it is difficult . However all those were empty words as further proved by the internal memos published in the new Yorker . It will take decades to heal the damage that this president has caused in people ever trusting a smooth talker again .

      1. Frank,
        Is the killingof more than 100,000+ civilians in an unjust war, by a man from who you expected little, preferable to unfulfilled promises from a man from whom you expected a lot?

        1. Mike I just expected honesty , maybe that’s a lot in your world or the world of fork writer

          1. Frank,

            With people I deal with on a personal basis I expect honesty, or I don’t deal with them. When I’m a consumer I expect fakery and many times surprised and pleased by honesty. With politics having watched the Army/McCarthy hearings at ten, I stopped expecting honesty from then on. With politicians and “Statesmen” my expectations are set at a low bar. Nations have always been ruled by spites playing a con game on the people.
            Obama should have been better, but the Reagan years and the Bush years (I&II) represent the nadir of the last 80 years.

            1. I consider your point of view just a rationalization for dishonest people that hey look what is out there . Fact is that there are still honest people out there but because of the msm and rationalizers for the dishonest people, those honest people get marginalized . It’s sad but true .

  18. Thank you all for playing The Devil’s Fork. The point to be made here is the same one I make to my client’s every day: All principles comes with steep price tags and the payment may be exacted over time. It’s nice to see who is willing to pay what and why.

  19. Carol,

    You cant argue with numbers just because you dont like who is presenting them. I dont even know who he is.

    Also yea i guess you could classify the federal government spending more money then is available on the planet a “revenue problem” if you really want to see it that way…

    swarthmore,

    I didnt say he was responsible. I said he was a hypocrite. Its also telling that he nominated a man for treasury secretary who couldnt figure out his own tax returns. But thats ok, apperently if you work for the government you dont have to pay your taxes cause your already working so hard for the country anyway it would just be unfair to ask you to pay more right?

    also this : http://www.1115.org/2009/01/15/geithners-tax-explanation-just-doesnt-wash/

    Elaine,

    Yes thats kind of my point. Although the real horror as pointed out in the video is that relative to TOTAL government expenditures theyre a drop in the bucket. Thats not to say that ending them immediately shouldnt be a top priority, but even if we did, we would still be in a gigantic hole.

  20. ekeyrah,

    “Its not a revenue problem, its a spending problem”

    The Bush Administration spent billions on two wars–one that was preemptive and completely unnecessary–and deferred the payments until a later date.

Comments are closed.