|
|
|
|
|
by maxerickson
4071 days ago
|
|
Just some realism? What harm is done by asking people to accurately describe the program? If OP had bothered to understand the actual nature of the rendition programs and understand why the legal distinction matters, they would have an answer to their question about no one being in jail. That is, under current US law, it is not illegal for the CIA to kidnap people in other countries. So the interesting discussion, the one about whether the US should be engaging in these activities (it should not), ends up getting overshadowed by the stupid sideshow about accuracy. But pushing back on the inaccuracy is necessary, imagine if we had to respectfully discuss the coming Martian invasion every time someone managed to stick that into the top comment in a thread. |
|
Re: realism. Some outrage is a nice way to temper realism with civility. If we temper it instead with only a pragmatic calculus or some Randian or Social Darwinism there's a chance we can delude ourselves into a fascism, jingoism or militarism. I prefer to play tit-for-tat - lead with the pillow, reply to sticks with hammers. But if in pursuit of the pragmatic we abandon the ideals, we're going to optimize the 'wrong' objective. In other words - the outrage is a way to call for the US to recognize inalienable rights (which mean that no nationality, nor any government, gives them to you), to pursue fair trails, and to be accountable for mistakes, and to perform justice through a court system where it can be seen for the good thing it is. It is not outrage for outrage's sake.