General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Charles P Pierce- The President's worst moment [View all]cheapdate
(3,811 posts)Last edited Mon Aug 4, 2014, 12:25 PM - Edit history (2)
That torture happened is not in dispute. That it's reprehensible is not in dispute. That it is against US and international law is not in dispute. The question I've raised is whether there are practical, and consequential political considerations that justify the president's inaction on war crimes prosecutions -- specifically, what, if any, were the possible consequences of pursuing war crimes prosecutions and do they favor or disfavor that course of action. Justice at what cost? Defeat of health care reform? Electoral defeat and a weakened Democratic Party?
You can't or won't make any attempt to answer, or even recognize, the point I've raised.
You can try to dismiss "pragmatic" concerns and paint them in as ugly a light as you wish. I don't care. You might take it for granted, wrongly I would believe, that the spectacle of an intensely partisan prosecution of US military and security officials for war crimes, even while wars are ongoing, would galvanize widespread support for the Democratic Party. Balderdash. It would be the exact opposite. It would result in immediate and long term electoral catastrophe for voices of sanity and reason in government.
"Fiat justitia, et pereat mundus" -- 'Let justice be done, though the world perish', Eh? No brainer?
There are plenty of others, just like yourself, who love to proclaim loudly "WHY DO YOU LOVE MURDERED CHILDREN!?" during a debate, as if that silences all other questions.
Moral outrage can become self-righteousness. And you refusal to engage in considering opposing positions is nothing more than intellectual cowardice disguised with bluster.