Another nuanced NYT editorial

Outrageously outraged the editors are..

The money graphs:

That hasn’t stopped a familiar group of politicians from cynically trying to use this incident as yet another excuse to weaken the rule of law and this country’s barely recovering reputation.

Lawmakers like Senators John McCain of Arizona and Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Representative Peter King of New York were immediately outraged that Mr. Shahzad — a United States citizen accused of an attempted attack on civilians in an American city — was arrested by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and eventually read his Miranda rights.

They are demanding that Mr. Shahzad be declared an illegal enemy combatant, stripped of any rights and brought before a military tribunal. They have opened another round of sneering at “the law enforcement approach” to terrorism. That is contemptuous, first of all, of the police officers whose quick actions may have saved untold numbers and the other people who identified and tracked Mr. Shahzad with amazing speed.



OK, get over your vapors and try to apply the principle of charity to Msrs. McCain, Lieberman and King. I know it's hard for you but give it a try! Believe me, epistemic closure is not good for you. Try. Just try.



Now suppose that the triumvirate of cynicism has substantive reason to believe that Mr. Shazam..er..Shahzad might have all along, planned to acquire his citizenship for nefarious purposes, and suppose JUST suppose that there is evidence that this is a common tactic for entry into the U.S. by persons of similar nefarious intent. Suppose, indeed that at least one person made efforts to gain citizenship just for the reason of being able to pull off terrorist attacks. What then would be a reasonable action to take if he were apprehended before having done his barbaric deed? Is he morally entitled to the full panoply of protections that citizenship brings? (Note: this is a distinct question from the question 'is he legally entitled..& etc.')



Draw an analogy here. Suppose that I manage to land a job at a prestigious upper west side newspaper, based upon fraud and deception and am later discovered. Am I entitled to claim the full panoply of protections granted to employees against the actions of my employer should he desire to fire my ass?


A case can be made that any status gained via fraud is nullified by the very fact that it was obtained by said deceit. Might the triumvirate of cynicism have had something like this principle in mind?