Do you guys ever re-read what we’ve written here? I mean really page back a couple of months and see where we were then, as compared to now?
I have been going back tonight (this morning) and looking over old threads, and I see something that seems to apply to recent discussions.
In the debates we’ve had over the need and expediency of a “wall” between Mexico and the US, Ryan (and James, to a degree) seem to think that it is necessary based on its basis as the “law of the land” first, and as a factor in national security second. Isn’t that a mantra of Ryan’s? “Enforcement first”?
In our debates of the question of “aggressive interrogation”, Ryan (and James) seem to think that it is expedient to do what is needed to achieve greater national security, regardless of established American law, while I advocate adherence to the “law” as a primary basis for conducting the interrogations, even at the cost of potential (if not actual) applicable intelligence.
In short, YOU say that the wall should be built because it is the LAW to have it built. I say that water-boarding is ILLEGAL because the current Code of Federal Regulations defines it as such, and has since 1949.
How can one be right in one instance, but not both? How did Ryan say it? “So, you are either pro-law enforcement or pro-anarchy ... there's no in between.”
So, are you pro-law enforcement or not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but not all laws are created equal. Mississippi just outlawed slavery a couple of years ago (I know federal law takes precedence) but the point is that just because it's law doesn't make it right and just because you don't like the law doesn't make it wrong. Laws are written to maintain some sense of order in soceity and without them there would be anarchy but they can also be rewritten, changed or omitted to meet the needs of soceity. I know that waterboarding as the law is written is illegal in the US but necessity may have played a role in the use of it anyways. At the same time we all know that protection of our borders has become paramount for whatever reason you would like to choose ie. terrorism or illegal aliens crossing the unprotected border.
glad I could set that straight for ya
Baddboy
I think I see your point, Baddboy... and it is a valid one. I, myself, have admitted that there are instances where the suspension of some laws is justified in specific instances.
My problem is with illegal action becoming standing policy of the US Government. Not even so much existing laws that I might have issues with, because the system itself has built-in safety measures (i.e. the Supreme Court can over-turn a law that it feels is un-Constitutional), but policy that is based on illegal action not only voids our efforts and intentions, but calls into question our integrity and reliability as a nation.
In this specific post, however, I am focusing on a percieved inconsistancy with Ryan's logic. If it's good for the goose, surely it must be good for the gander, right?
I have admitted that as long as the wall is the law, then it has to be given the coutry's full attention and effort, as does existing laws concerning border enforcement. Ryan is right, and it is the LAW.
How then, does one rationalize the ignoring of one set laws while griping about OTHERS that ignore some other set of laws?
In this instance, if Ryan is going to ask me if I am pro-law enforcement or anti-law enforcement, then I feel justified in asking the same of him. The law that he is defending has been in place since 2001, and must be enforced. The law I am defending has been in place since 1949, and he doesn't seem to think it is necessary to enforce it.
Why?
Post a Comment