North Korea to be punished for nukes: Who decides punishment?

North Korea has tested another nuclear weapon – this one seemingly more effective than the first – and the rest of the world cries for punishment.

Well, maybe not the whole world. The countries crying most loudly for sanctions on North Korea are the countries that already have nuclear weapons. If the United Nations called for sanctions on China, France, the United States, or Great Britain, each would respond arrogantly that nuclear weapons were their sovereign right, and that no amount of sanctions (never going to happen, but play along anyway) will force [insert country with nukes here] to give up needed tools for defense.

So my question is what gives the United States and others the sovereign right to nuclear weapons, but denies that right to other sovereign nations?

I don't think nuclear weapons are a good idea no matter which country has them, but for states that have them to sanction states that develop them seems more than a little self-serving. The argument against "rogue" states such as North Korea getting nuclear weapons is that the more nukes that exist, the better the chance they will be used. GOOD POINT!

Why then, don't the United States and other nuclear powers get rid of their nukes?

Mutually assured destruction? There's got to be a better way.

Smells like hypocrisy to me.

More later,
Russ

Logic is as logic does

Seeing the new Star Trek* movie this weekend reminded me of a definition of logic I employ often:

Logic is the set of assumptions you embrace to get the result you want.

I seriously doubt that this is original with me, but I haven't found a source for this beyond myself... so far. I will keep looking.

I also know that scholars of formal logic and reasoned thought may find this unpalatable, but in my experience this is how most people use logic.

More later,
Russ

*Logic, Vulcans, and all that, etc.

The rule of law is the ONLY way to fight terrorism

Torture: From left or right, nobody gets it
Two columnists, both distributed by Tribune Media Services, one identifying himself in the column as a northern liberal, and the other clearly conservative, had columns on the torture memos/controversy in my local paper recently.

Garrison Keillor and Cal Thomas each wrote about torture of "enemy combatants," the release of information about torture, and what should be done about it. Each had a good point or two, but both got it exactly wrong for the same reason.

The Liberal
Keillor wants a Truth Commission or Congressional investigation, but says no one should be held accountable:

The free play of sadism on the helpless in the name of national service is not to be ignored. What's needed is a fair and thorough congressional investigation. Subpoena witnesses and lay the whole wretched business out on the public record. Look into the heart of darkness and meditate on it. But don't round up a few symbolic suspects and throw the book at them and let all the others go free. Which is what would happen if we launch a criminal prosecution.

I'm all for the unvarnished truth, but "Look into the heart of darkness and meditate on it?" This is the kind of fuzzy-headed, pseudo-self-esteem building psychobabble that characterizes the worst of American liberalism. If all we do is gaze at our collective navel, our national self-esteem will be damaged even more than it has been by the "alleged" criminals in the Bush administration.

There's nothing wrong with feeling good about ourselves as a nation, but we also should feel bad about being Americans when the United States does things that are wrong — like torture.

The Conservative
Thomas, of course, says that there's nothing wrong with these "enhanced interrogation techniques" because getting information that will save American lives requires using any means necessary. These are bad guys so torturing them is OK.

Most of Thomas' column isn't about whether or not using torture should be allowed. That America should torture terrorists is a given for him. One of his arguments is that information about torture or "enhanced interrogation techniques" should not be released because it helps America's enemies. He quotes a former director of the CIA saying essentially that Loose Lips Sink Ships:

Porter Goss, the former director of the CIA and former chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, wrote an op-ed column for The Washington Post recently in which he said, “I feel our government has crossed the red line between properly protecting our national security and trying to gain partisan political advantage. We can’t have a secret intelligence service if we keep giving away all the secrets.”

Goss is not a wishful thinker: “The suggestion that we are safer now because information about interrogation techniques is in the public domain conjures up images of unicorns and fairy dust. We have given our enemy invaluable information about the rules by which we operate.”

"The rules by which we operate" are the heart of the matter
What Keillor and Thomas fail to grasp, and what Goss accidentally pointed out, is that while Americans may not be able to come to agreement on the definition of torture, or whether or not information gathered using torture is reliable, or even the morality of using torture to possibly save lives, the United States was founded on the principle of the rule of law. We make rules (laws) and everyone in this country is obliged to follow them or face punishment.

Torture is banned by United States law. Prosecution must take place, even if it makes us uncomfortable. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Even if it were, the release of so-called "torture memos" make it clear that no one involved was ignorant of the law against torture. Following orders, good intentions (how someone can torture another human being with good intentions is beyond me), or even saving lives are not viable excuses. They might mitigate punishment, but unless the rule of law is enforced, we are no better than terrorists.

More later,
Russ