4 ms·
> Why should a private actor be burdened for the perceived misdoings of government? But why does this have to be ensured through the action of the Congress? If
by weland 13y ago
> Why should a private actor be burdened for the perceived misdoings of government?
But why does this have to be ensured through the action of the Congress? If the misdoing was the Government's, it is up to the courts of law to absolve the private actor of guilt.
Granting immunity of private actors for government illegalities is a very dangerous precedent. Imagine if the same was to be done if a private security company fires on civilians on behalf of state orders, and is then absolved of responsibility through an act like this one.
When a private authority does something on behalf of state authority, the state effectively gives away some of its responsibility; when it decriminalizes it later, the part of responsibility that it has given away is now vanished. In some cases, of course, the state can still be sued over the initiative, but such a measure ensures that companies are sheltered in case the whole thing goes awry, so there's little incentive in not collaborating.
What does suck about this in terms of ethics is that it's hard to draw a line between when retroactive decriminalization is beneficial and when it isn't. After abolishing slavery, it obviously makes sense to decriminalize slaves' attempted escapes. But does it also make sense to decriminalize racist behaviour?
Edit: just to be sure, I'm arguing over principles here, and all I have to bring is historical arguments, not judiciary ones, since I neither am a lawyer, nor do I reside in the US. If I missed something due to unfamiliarity with the US law, I apologize in advance :-).
- anigbrowl 13y agoWell, the things you mention do happen; that's been a long-standing problem with hiring mercenaries throughout history. I should have made it clearer that I'm looking at this from a strictly legal perspective, insofar as I don't think Congress is actually overreaching under the US Constitution. On general principle, I agree with you that it's far too easy for government to employ private entities as a cat's paw, but those kinds of compromises are unfortunately a common side-effect of war.
- DigitalJack 13y ago"But why does this have to be ensured through the action of the Congress? If the misdoing was the Government's, it is up to the courts of law to absolve the private actor of guilt." Courts don't absolve anyone of guilt. They merely determine if a law has been broken. It is congress that makes law, so it is up to congress to construe the law such that the private actor has not broken anything.
- weland 13y agoBut does this not open the way for arbitrariness? At this rate, given enough support in the congress, the executive power can pretty much do anything -- the congress will just decriminalize it afterwards. Edit: What I meant in previous post was that a court of law has the possibility of absolving private actors or responsibility, the same way they do with someone who has committed an illegal action under blackmail: they are still guilty of having broken a law, but there are obvious reasons why they should not suffer the full penalty of it (or any penalty at all), and legal action moves against the blackmailer.
- btilly 13y agoGranting immunity of private actors for government illegalities is a very dangerous precedent. That ship sailed a long time ago, and the Constitution grants a broad power of pardons to the President. My favorite example of this being used block something being Bush Sr's pardon of everyone involved in the Iran-Contra affair. A matter which seems likely to, if further pursued, lead to wrongdoing by Bush himself. Or possibly worse, if you subscribe to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise_conspiracy_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise_conspiracy_the....