The problem is that we have forgotten some lessons from early on. We have had the good fortune of living in a democracy for so long that we have forgotten that democracy can't be established democratically. You have to be willing to abide by the majority's decision to have the right to take part in majority rule. People that aren't willing to do that, like the minorities that are attacking the provisional government in Iraq don't have the right to vote and have to be paid out in thier own coin--force.
We have also had the good fortune to live in a civilized society that can afford elaborate protections for the accused. These are luxury that only comes with a high degree of consensus and safety. The specific arrangements we have for protecting the rights of the accused are not moral absolutes to be abided by at all times and all places but arrangements specific to a particular time and place. In another time and place they may make no sense and make a society worse off. Our system of criminal law is predicated on the notion that it is better to let a hundred guilty go free rather than to punish one innocent. That may make sense when you are worried about the occassional highway man or thief. It may not when the guilty you are letting go are mass murderers intent on destroying democracy itself.
The whole idea of judging the intentions of people in a war by the methods they use to fight the war is unreliable. For the most part there was little to recommend our methods in WWII over those of the Nazi's when it came to fighting. In the civil war I think most would judge that the South behaved better--did that make their cause any less unjust?
No comments:
Post a Comment