Ouch

In this post, Federalist No. 84 presents his critique of Congress and really misses the boat, in my opinion. In response to the Gonzales confirmation hearing, during which the now-infamous torture memos were brought up, F84 questions the "moral authority" of Congress:

There's nothing that says the Geneva Convention is the sole law of war. Indeed, the Uniform Code of Military Justice already governs the conduct of all soldiers, sailors, and airmen and many other federal criminal laws apply overseas. Why doesn't (didn't) Congress enact an OLC-proof federal law against torture? Since the President and other executive officials (supposedly) want torture, but Congress is serious about fighting the issue, then Congress won't have any difficulty overriding his veto.

Of course, Congress has not redrafted the anti-torture statute, has it? It kinda makes you wonder if anyone in Congress has the moral standing to attack Mr. Gonzales.

Here's the part that falls down: There's somehow an implication there that this somehow relieves Gonzales of responsibility, or makes his behavior less serious or (dare I say it?) culpable.

I am very disappointed that Congress hasn't taken more affirmative steps to put some limits on this president and on some of these policies. That doesn't mean that Gonzales should get off without criticism (or, in a perfect world, denied confirmation).

If two children are in a store and one starts shoplifting, does the fact that the friend doesn't blow the whistle somehow mean that if he criticizes the shoplifter that he's lost the moral authority to do so legitimately? I think that the shoplifiting would be considered wrong regardless.

So let's get to the two separate issues that are going on here: 1) Gonzales is not fit to be our Attorney General; and 2) If there were such a thing as congressional malpractice, we'd be knee-deep.

Oh, and that's true across all political boundaries, as far as I can see.