What bothers me most about the Ayers line of attack

[elfs]

What bothers me most about the Ayers line of attack is that it's an attack on American jurisprudence at its most fundamental. We're not talking about upper-court Constitutional shennanigans; this is the bedrock law-of-the-land kind of thing.

Ayers got off on a technicality. The prosecutors were so go-hung to get him they apparently broke the rules, and he got off with little more than a slap on the wrist. I hate to say this but, that is as it should be. Ayers committed crimes, but pursuit of justice cannot be done with injustice. Michael Kinsley is mostly right that Ayers seems to be an unrepentent jerk whose redemption seems completely insincere. I'm sure his getting off on a technicality only served to make him more of a jerk.

Yet when Sarah Palin goes after Bill Ayers, what she's really telling is what the Republican right has been saying for years: when in your heart you know you're right, you can do no wrong. The prosecutors should not have been prevented from bringing the case forward. There is no "injustice" committed when you have "good intentions." It is this attitude that condones the torture of prisoners and the invasion of countries that are not a clear and present danger to the United States.

The McCain campaign, with all good intentions, holds out its hands and invites us to walk further down the road toward Hell.

Comments

[tagryn]

"...It is this attitude that condones the torture of prisoners and the invasion of countries that are not a clear and present danger to the United States."

I recall that back in June you stated that al-Qaeda was not an existential danger to the U.S. How do you reconcile calling for "finishing the job in Afghanistan" with your position above?

Also, McCain's position against torture has been consistent, according to Politifact. There's a lot to legitimately criticize him for, but this isn't one of them.

[elfs.livejournal.com]

It's interesting to note that politifact states that McCain did not stand in the way of exempting the CIA from the use of "enhanced terrogation techniques." That sort of Orwellian language deserves to be excoriated, as does the the CIA's policy.

And I never said that "existential threats" were the only justification for a "just war." It's quite clear that al-Qaeda in Afghanistan presented a clear and present danger. I don't believe any nation right now, except possibly Russia and China, present "existential threats" to the US. That doesn't mean the US wasn't justified in its invasion of Afghanistan to go after the terrorists who killed 3,000 people.

Iraq, on the other hand, neither presented a criminal case or an existential threat. Statescraft, including warfare, is when your objectives and your means are in agreement: in Iraq, the objectives were murky and our means far short of necessity.