Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
The experts have spoken
They have claimed they cannot prevent terrorist attacks without torture, warrantless surveillance, indefinite detention and kill lists.
MOYERS: Assume I'm president, and I'm going to say, Professor Firmage, that's all wonderful, but I deal in an ugly world. The United States is a wonderful place, relatively, because of this document, because of the values the founders inculcated in us, but the world beyond these borders is a pretty ugly world. People don't like us, people don't share those values, people are out to get us. And if I don't do the ugly things that are necessary to protect us from an ugly world, you won't be able to exercise the right of free speech out at that university."
PROFESSOR FIRMAGE: I would say poppycock, Mr. President. That is simply nonsense. The whole fight is over means, not ends. Every president with every good intention, and every tyrant, with whatever his intention, has used precisely the same argument. That is, don't constrain me by means, and I will get you there safely and well. And I think any time we accept a reason of state argument to justify means that are totally incongruent with the values of our state, we're on the high road to tyranny and we deserve to be there.
The Shredding of Democracy
PROFESSOR FIRMAGE: I would say poppycock, Mr. President. That is simply nonsense. The whole fight is over means, not ends. Every president with every good intention, and every tyrant, with whatever his intention, has used precisely the same argument. That is, don't constrain me by means, and I will get you there safely and well. And I think any time we accept a reason of state argument to justify means that are totally incongruent with the values of our state, we're on the high road to tyranny and we deserve to be there.
The Shredding of Democracy
It's like a baseball player claiming he can't hit without PED's in his system. Instead of telling him to find another line of work his excuse is accepted and drug testing is disallowed on the grounds that it wouldn't be in the public interest. Or the results are kept secret so both the player and the league can claim everyone complies with the rules. Is this player so special that he should be above the rules? How does it follow that he is so special if he can only hit with PED's in his system?
What does it say about a CIA agent's ability when they tell you people will die if they aren't legally allowed to torture? Or when a government official claims people will die if the NSA can't suck up all the data? Or when we are told that the notion of having trials is too risky and thus it is completely appropriate to hold suspected terrorists for years or even decades? Or forgo any legal effort at all and just decide in secret who needs to be killed.
