soldiers_of_satan

approximation of the appropriate distinctions amongthose three components of a popular “fishbowl” syndrome,should be regarded as the area of leading concernfor constitutional law. The emphasis must be, as I haveadhered to that precept in this report, on constitutionallaw in its aspects as natural law, rather than being drawninto the moral swamp of the pathological effects of obsessivebelief in positive law (e.g., “common law”), as by ourtypical populists. 26In the following, concluding portion of the report nowbefore you, our attention is focussed on two distinguishablekinds of implicitly constitutional consequences of the situationwhich the Bush-Cheney case represents now. I explain.In the New Venetian Party’s Anglo-Dutch Liberal practiceof what they call, curiously, political-economy, it isthe same notion of the “magic” governing the circulationof money which is resonant in the crap-shooter’s cry,“Baby needs shoes!” that the desirable determination ofthe price of everything, including money itself, must occurin that magical, spoon benders’ way argued by Mandeville,Smith, Jeremy Bentham, et al. Every believer in such doctrinesof economy, therefore should be recognized asclearly just another variety of true-believing admirer of thespoon bender’s magical art.The same, spoon bender’s quality of lunacy, is functionallyimplicit in all varieties of what I have described as a “fishbowlsyndrome.” However, common opinion rightly suspectsthat there are qualitative distinctions to be madeamong differing varieties of those who share belief in lunaciesof the type familiar to us from the Physiocratic andother doctrines of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal types. One mightsay, that one variety belongs to the department of “whitemagic,” and another includes the “black magic” of “Enron”and “Halliburton” economics, or those who fall into thesame general category as Mrs. Lynne Cheney’s creature.That distinction between “white” and “black” magic isdebatable, but only in respect to the common practice ofdistinguishing the hardened criminal from the rest of thepractitioners of sundry vices. Cheney fits within the bracketof the “hardened criminal” mentality, as more or less distinguishablefrom the relevance of the usual “true believer” inMandeville’s dedication to the proliferation of private vice.So, in proceeding now to the concluding portions ofthis report, I divide the treatment of the constitutional relevanceof that broad distinction. First, I concentrate onthe “hardened felon” characteristics of types such as Vice-President Cheney, and, after that, focus on the constitutionalchallenge presented by the way in which Liberalismin general creates the opportunity for the ruin of societyby creatures who fall into the more extremist categorywhich Cheney may be meaningfully said to typify.Cheney, or Dostoevsky’sGrand Inquisitor?Recently, there was a discussion among my immediatecircles, in which the pivot of the deliberations was a focusupon the matter of: How much did Cheney himself fullyrecognize the sheer criminality of that of which he wasinvolved, in the way he participated in concocting the fraudulentpretexts for bringing off the launching of the presentlycontinuing, worsening war in Iraq? The crucial role ofCheney’s office in coordinating the involuntary public“outing” of CIA secret operative Valerie Plame was a pointof concentration in our discussion on this matter ofdegree of “wittingness” on Cheney’s part.It is not necessary, in such a case as that, to set out todetermine whether or not what Cheney et al. did shouldbe prosecuted as a crime. It is sufficient to determine,first of all, whether the role of the relevant parties wasintentionally wrongful. Was the intended action wrongful?Was it intentionally wrongful, not only by virtue ofthe action intended, but also by the foreseeable consequencesof that intended action in the mind of the relevantperson, or persons? Or, is his role in the concertedoperations of Cheney’s office, the White House, and others,in that far-flung conspiracy, to be seen as associatedefforts in a fully conscious intention to craft a vast effortat obstruction of justice, in instances such as the ValeriePlame case?Does his case mimic, at least, the pure evil ofDostoevsky’s image of the Grand Inquisitor?In probing those questions, our intention, at thatpoint, does not permit us to cloud the investigation’scharacter as a scientific investigation, by complicatingthe scientific investigation with decisions as to lawfulcriminality of the intentions of the relevant subjects: it isthe fact of his state of mind as expressed by his behaviorwhich must shape our intention in this initial phase ofthe inquiry and assessment. The act is an action, but theintention motivating that action is a matter which mustnot be clouded by reckless use of deductive argument. Wemust consider this matter as a study in dynamics, not psycho-mechanics.We must never be so impelled to escape from our presentdangers, that we plunge carelessly into unforeseen consequences.Meet no appointments in Samara! That is thegreat principle of constitutional law which must not be violated.When the impassioned desire to punish outranks considerationof the deadly changes in constitutional principlefor the future, which the lust for revenge usually tends toengender, future civilization is put in danger as a consequenceof our lust to punish the past.Putting aside, for the moment, all issues of criminallaw as such, were Cheney et al. proceeding with a consciousnessof their actively malicious intent to attempt tocarry through an action whose consequences should beprevented in the vital interest of our nation, or others?Prevention of what must urgently be prevented, not punishment,must be our sole concern at that point. From thestandpoint of our team, prevention, not punishment, isthe only allowed motive for our work. If what some wouldwish to consider punishment were required as a measureof prevention, so be it; but, my concern, especially at thispoint, is not to punish, but to prevent. Our sole concernmust be remedies and justice, never revenge. Our missionis to assure the offender of the virtual certainty of detectionand prevention, not to terrify society with the diversionarynocturnal screams of the convict and his family.20