tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9045565.post112676725518117431..comments2023-09-30T03:57:11.799-05:00Comments on ahistoricality: I'd like to thank my co-stars....Ahistoricalityhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04004964192885891003noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9045565.post-1126821752279279072005-09-15T17:02:00.000-05:002005-09-15T17:02:00.000-05:00When I sent him my link, I figured he'd include yo...When I sent him my link, I figured he'd include yours as well. Next time I'll be clearer. Anyway, both my original post and this one point the way, so I think you'll get the traffic.<BR/><BR/>You're right that the abuses were disgraceful, immoral. But they were not, by and large illegal. That's a minor point, in terms of historical judgement, but a major one in terms of political judgement: when Lincoln's Order 100 is cited it's because he went beyond existing law to set a high standard. <BR/><BR/>When the Bush administration argues that torture isn't, that the conventions don't apply, that the constitution doesn't follow the flag, it is lowering our standards. <BR/><BR/>There is a pragmatic argument against too-rigid standards to which I'm sympathetic, but only with the best possible justifications and in the light of the best possible results. Convenience is not an excuse.Ahistoricalityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04004964192885891003noreply@blogger.com