I think you are about to hear a lot about "moral authority" over the next few weeks....even months. The release of the report condemning the American CIA for its behaviour and tactics over a decade ago in relation to treatment of terror suspects has unleashed a torrent of angry commentary in US media.
How can America assert its moral authority if it uses methods of torture that it blatantly opposes in other places in the world? Where do these rules of engagement come from?
Over the last few years I have described the way in which liberal democracies are structured so that they can answer these questions but the release of the report allows me to contextualize this argument and to wonder aloud who we blame for the decline of moral authority.
The United States is a bold experiment. It is built upon an idea and no ethereal authority. If you wonder what I mean, think of the Monty Python sketch in which Arthur, King of the Britons, explains to a peasant woman (who is actually a man) from where he deems his authority.
"King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king.
The peasant replies:
Dennis: [interrupting] Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony."
You might say that the U.S. accepted Dennis' premise. America's supreme authority derives from the Constitution. In other words, the moral authority to govern, to determine "the good" and the way people should live together are upheld through the moral authority of a document constructed among men. The Constitution outlines what can and cannot be done by the state in relation to its citizens or to others in the context of international law that outlines how the U.S. will engage in the world.
In this context where moral authority is derived from an idea, the weight of the constitution is enormous.
But then there is politics. And here is where the constitution's moral authority is put to the test.
A political theorist named Michael Walzer once asked about what kind of people we want to rule on our behalf. He asks us to consider the idea that politics is a dirty game. And, I will add to this that some believe that the rules of that dirty game have changed. When the U.S. realized and was confronted by those who not only despise American values but also would like to destroy the American way of life, things changed.
I hate to once again turn to an episode of the West Wing to make my point but it's hard to resist. In most of the fourth season the show's central question is: "How far the state can go to stop terror?" The fictitious Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Fitzwallace, pleads his case with the Chief of Staff, Leo McGary that he must convince President Bartlett to make the decision to assassinate a foreign dignitary who, without doubt, was heading up terror plots. The Admiral
makes the case that the rules of war have changed. He says that he used to know who he was fighting and on which battlefield but the new terrorism brings such randomness to the fight that there is no known enemy.
Later in the episode the President is incredulous that he is being asked to contemplate such a tactic. Why is there no way he can hold the individual accountable without resorting to murder? "There are no moral absolutes," says Leo, as he tries to convince Bartlett that the world is different now. Resolute in his own convictions the President says, "There are moral absolutes" and yet he chooses the assassination.
Now, none of the claims of the CIA report are suggesting that anyone was assassinated but the report does outline what looks like torture. Former Vice President Dick Cheney disputes this classification and instead uses the term or "enhanced interrogation." In an interview he gave Cheney says, and I paraphrase, that the rule of law, international or domestic, does not apply in the same way to those who are "unlawful combatants." Just like the fictitious Admiral, Cheney is claiming that the rules don't apply in this case and that "ends justify the means" when the "intelligence" gained from "enhanced interrogation" leads to greater security for Americans.
The argument seems to be that moral authority only holds when everyone is playing by the same rules.
