I think this is really breathtaking every time I read something like it.
"The fact that an act is undertaken to prevent a threatened terrorist attack, rather than for the purpose of humiliation or abuse, would be relevant to a reasonable observer in measuring the outrageousness of the act," said Brian A. Benczkowski, a deputy assistant attorney general.The Bush Administration is just cynically playing on their supporter's distrust of government, a distrust they keep reinforcing by being untrustworthy. How many acts are taken for the purpose of humiliation or abuse? Pick your favorite atrocity producer. Hitler, Pol Pot, anyone you like. I'll give you a minute.
Now, do you seriously think the stated goals of their atrocities were to cause humiliation or abuse? Don't you imagine they had some other stated goal? DAAG Benczkowski's implication is that one function of government is to just arbitrarily hurt people, and they're choosing not to do that. It's one again hard to pick out exactly where in the uninformed-dishonest-evil-crazy phase space this assertion lies.
No comments:
Post a Comment