The League of Ordinary Nations

So I'm watching the West Wing.

(This is probably a good time to point out that A.) The West Wing is perhaps the best thing to ever appear on television ever and B.) It's one of the best sources for discussion outside of a classroom. Wait, who am I kidding; it's one of the best sources for discussion including the classroom.)

The episode I'm watching brings up an interesting moral/socio-political question. The U.S. intelligence community discovers that the Defense Minister of the (fictional) country of Kumar is responsible for the planning of a foiled terrorist attack on the Golden Gate Bridge. The minister, unaware that the U.S. knows of his activities, plans to come to visit the White House. President Bartlett decides that this is the oppourtunity to arrest him and bring him to justice.

Unfortunately, it turns out that the information tying the minister to the plot was elicited under torture. (The Russians did it in the episode, but it illustrates just one of the many ways that torture never ends well.) President Bartlett faces pressure from his advisers to order his assassination.

Keep in mind, assassination of such a figure is illegal based on international law. It's also of questionable morality.

But the man is responsible for a grevious action.


You're the President. What do you do?

I don't know what'd I do off the top of my head. There are many people who would say "This man is evil. He wants to kill us. We should kill him. Period."

But it's far more complicated. International laws exist for a reason. No state should be allowed to assassinate leaders of other sovereign states without trial - doing so compromises the sovereignty of the state and allows stronger nations to execute officials without legal justification.

And no, "We are the U.S., and we are right," doesn't cut it. American exeptionalism as a form of blanket moral high ground regardless of circumstance is a dangerous and meglomaniacal way to view the world.

This isn't to say that there's nothing exceptional about America. Far from it. In fact, if we are to believe that America and her allies are somehow above other nations that pursue tyranny and strong-arm tactics, it is precisely because we obey the rule of law and allow justice to be served rationally, fairly, and publicly.

As President Bartlett puts it in the episode, simply assassinating a dangerous target because we can't find legitimate evidence to convict him would put America in the "league of ordinary nations."

If America (or any other nation) is to be exceptional, it must abide by the rule of law.

Always. Even when it's hard, which means when it's infuriating and dangerous.

But perhaps there is a line when it becomes too difficult, or too dangerous. This is the argument the fictional President's military advisors and chief of staff make, and it's the argument made repeatedly by former real-life Vice President Cheney and other Bush Administration officials in response to tortue accusations.

I've often fought this assertion vehemently. Perhaps I'm just a starry-eyed college student who hasn't been exposed to the harsh realities of life, but it seems to me that compromising the very ideals we fight for makes the fight meaningless.

But then again, I'm not the one responsible for soldiers in harm's way. I'm not the husband of a wife killed by terrorists, and I'm not a general who's seen the brutal reality of a world that really wants to see us dead.

It's a tough question to answer. And I really wish more people who addressed it acknowledged the issue like it was.