First, from her infamous remarks at Stanford last (?) week:
… by definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture.
Next up, from a Q-and-A with some elementary schoolers over the weekend:
… the president was only willing to authorize policies that were legal in order to protect the country.
I’m trying to think of a philosopher’s stock example that shares this structure, but so far I’m stumped. Any takers?
Filed under: government/law, torture
Surely it’s something to do with the Euthyphro question and Divine Command theory, right? This looks straight out of the Euthyphro, substituting the president for the gods, of course! Here Socrates would have an easier time with Rice than with his famously inept conversation partner in that dialogue.
Nice, Joe! And what’s the traditional Christian resolution to the Euthyphro problem? The president’s very essence is the essence of legality itself, perhaps?
Right. And command theory, dubious as it already is, loses just a little of its motivation when it’s no longer a divine command theory.
Well, we could always just deify the President. Which seems to be what we’ve increasingly been doing for quite some time, so maybe Condi’s not so far off base here.
And yes, the Euthyphro analogy seems pretty appropriate here.
“The President is legality.
SocratesThat kid asked a dumb question.”It’s Plato meets Schmitt. Eep.