So Rumsfeld figured there were situations where the Geneva Conventions might be evaded.
And the White House counsel opined that torture might sometimes be OK.
Justice Department lawyers, too.
Everybody says they were wrong.
I agree, but what interests me are the dynamics - how did bright, educated leaders arrive at these idiocies?
I think that– in the aftermath of 9/11 – they were trying to be hard-nosed, practical. It happens all the time. Folks get tired of unresolved problems, tired of "half-way measures" that haven’t worked, tired of the "wooly-minded," of the "bleeding hearts," of the "sissies" not man enough to step up to the plate.
So they take the bull by the horns. And every time they do, they get impaled on those horns. Or we get impaled.
In my experience, hard-nosed, practical actions turn out badly. The results are the opposite of "practical."
Contrast those dynamics with rationality. I am not sure what rationality is, but I know it involves examining one’s own feelings and interests before acting..
Also, I believe in the existence of insoluble problems. I figure Rumsfeld, the President's laweyer and the Justice Department lawyers don't agree.