Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pan6467
I have no problem sacrifing anything, if I believe in the cause and it is done legally.
|
Ah, but what is "legal"?
Hitler's extermination of Undesirables was "legal" because he made the laws.
Yet I believe you wouldn't do it because you didn't "believe" in it.
Likewise, I think you would probably fight against it because you believed in the cause even though it was "illegal".
And thus is the problem with saying things are legal/illegal without some consideration to the larger framework of "right" and "wrong".
Individuals are inclined to do what they consider to be "right" if they believe in it strongly enough, regardless of legality. This is true whether it is a French freedom fighter or an abortion clinic bomber. Where the "legal" aspect enters is what the majority ends up believing and deciding to make "legal". Hitler was a charismatic leader who persuaded the masses to make him the "legal" ruler and by extension, rule maker.
This is where I believe the only real comparision between Bush and Hitler can be made. Bush also has a vision of what he believes it "right" and he is trying his hardest to persuade the American public to back him which leads naturally to a Congress that will make his actions "legal". He is also showing that he is trying hard to interpret the existing rules to make his actions "legal".
I don't think anyone would disagree with his larger "good" of making America safe from terrorism, but the devil is in the details. Ultimately, history will tell us who was right and who was wrong.