Manson Prosecutor Outlines Case Against Bush?
I can't believe I am reading what is in this link. Vincent Bugliosi, the famous prosecutor of Charles Manson and writer of "Helter Skelter" is actually laying a case for prosecuting President Bush for murder. Since this is only a snippet of his apparently forthcoming book and is posted on the Huffington Post, I do not know if this is a "going through the motions" kind of thing to sell the book or if he is actually serious, so I suppose I'll reserve judgement on his sanity.
This does not mean there are no laws whatsoever (though that is a debateable subject depending on how you conceive of the world, Kantian vs. Hobbesian), but that they are clearly different. Conclusive proof of guilt, which we prize, rightfully so, in our legal system is not necessarily something we have the ability to embrace in foreign relations. In the cases of a domestic crime, the worst that happens if we fail to prosecute because of a lack of substantial and overwhelming evidence is that a criminal may be free to committ a series of additional criminal acts prior to being stopped. This is bad and can lead to shocking incidents but the damage is likely to be relatively limited while offering protection to those that are in fact innocent.
However, I just have to say, foreign policy is NOT domestic policy. The same rules don't apply. We can debate about those that do, but it seems to me asinine to claim we can use anything remotely approximating our domestic legal system to deal with international issues up to and including war.
This does not mean there are no laws whatsoever (though that is a debateable subject depending on how you conceive of the world, Kantian vs. Hobbesian), but that they are clearly different. Conclusive proof of guilt, which we prize, rightfully so, in our legal system is not necessarily something we have the ability to embrace in foreign relations. In the cases of a domestic crime, the worst that happens if we fail to prosecute because of a lack of substantial and overwhelming evidence is that a criminal may be free to committ a series of additional criminal acts prior to being stopped. This is bad and can lead to shocking incidents but the damage is likely to be relatively limited while offering protection to those that are in fact innocent.
In foreign policy, waiting for proof could mean thousands of lives lost if an "incident" or a conflict is taken to its ultimate extremity. This modifies the calculus immeasurably as to when and if an action, particularly military action is justifiable.
Domestic policy and foreign policy are related through the medium of politics, but the consequences are of such an order of magnitude greater in foreign relations that we must look to flexibility as a prime mode of operation. Tying our hands by applying domestic standards is just foolish.
Comments