"Yes. And that which is taking place in Minneapolis-and not simply in Minneapolis, but most pointedly in Minneapolis-ought not be framed as: "Is that lawful?" It ought to be framed as: "Is that right?" Are we going to allow a masked, heavily armed secret police force to march through the city all but unchecked, and checked only by the voluntary surveillance-to the extent they are checked-by plain citizens at their peril? A secret police force that, at least it appears at this point, enjoys absolute impunity? Those are profoundly moral questions. Those are moral judgements."
"In an essay for theBoston Review headlined " The Moral Stupefaction of the American Public," professor Joseph Margulies argues that if conduct is deemed permissible simply because a mediocre law student can pen a mediocre legal memo justifying it, the country is in far deeper trouble than it presently comprehends."
"I think your point is that the law-disaggregated from morality-becomes an endless series of hollow CYA memos to be deployed by any given administration to justify absolutely anything from torture at Gitmo to blowing up fishing vessels in the Caribbean?"
A cultural tendency elevates legal permissibility above moral judgment, producing a reliance on legal memos as sufficient justification for state conduct. Lawyers often avoid moral language, framing questions in narrow legal terms that permit defensive, cautionary legal reasoning. That legalism can sanitize or authorize actions that would be morally unacceptable, from torture to violent state interventions. The privileging of legality encourages institutional impunity and weakens civilian checks, especially when force operates covertly or with surveillance-based oversight. Profound moral questions arise about whether actions are right, not merely whether they can be legally justified.
Read at Slate Magazine
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]