Brian Tamanaha at Balkinization makes this interesting observation:
To get to the heart of what matters here, an important distinction must be made between an arguable position, and a viable or reasonable position.
That encapsulates something that has struck me about the Gonzales/Yoo/Rumsfeld justifications for torture, Gitmo, and the conduct of America's WOT? in general. The legal "justifications" for all this have been closely argued and, probably, logically flawless, but they have no basis in reality -- there has been a significant disconnect between what has been stated as justifiable and what is actually justifiable.
It's sort of like the old saw about a crazy person being entirely logical, but not at all rational.
(There's actually a whole series of terrific posts over the past couple of days by the guys at Balkinization. Check 'em out.)
No comments:
Post a Comment