I am not responsible for what the other side does. I am responsible for what my country does.
I've never understood this, so I'm asking for help. What does being "responsible" (in this sense) have to do with making a moral judgment? Just because I'm not "responsible" for what the other side does, how does it follow that I can't make a moral judgment about what the other side does (but only about what "my country does")? I'm not "responsible" for the political and sexual shenanigans committed by Italian President Silvio Berlusconi, but I can still judge them immoral, right? I'm not "responsible" for the faked studies on stem cell research concocted by Korean scientist Hwan Woo-suk, but I can still tell my students that it is decidedly wrong to do so, can't I? The implication seems to be that I can only make moral judgments about things that are, in some sense, under my immediate control. That can't be right.
Tom Pearson
I don't think this statement is intended to say we cannot judge the actions of others; but rather that we cannot use the actions of others to excuse actions we might do.
I have heard argued that any of these "interrogaction tactics" are permissiable because these our enemies want to destroy us and themselves engage in brutality and savagery as we have seen exemplified in 9/11 and by ISIS and the like.
Thus: the distinction, quite simply, is that the heinous acts committed by another cannot be justification for acts I might otherwise regard as heinous, especially when I go out of my way to characterize those acts as heinous by others.
This is textbook hypocrisy.
Perhpas a tweaking of the proposed axiom will help.
I am not accountable (before God) for what others (my enemies) do or permit. That is to say, there sins are their own.
I am accountable (before God) for what I do/permit my country to do. That is to say, my sins are my own.