The most law abiding are always penalized the most

I had seen this post over at the Belmont Club last week and it just wouldn’t let go.  No, it wasn’t the subject matter: WTO and the case of Antigua vs the US.  Stuff of international trade, while of more interest as I better understand how the world actually works, is not stirring stuff – at least not to this blogger.

However, there were a couple of sections that did grab my attention as they made a lot of sense.  Wrongly, but made sense:

Where have we seen this before? Pretty much everywhere. While not exactly the same, the Antigua decision has structural similarities to the way some international lawyers think about the Geneva Convention and human rights legislation. The US is "bound" by the letter of the law, and if a terrorist mass murderer can find a legal loophole to escape then he is "entitled" to use it. But the Convention is not obeyed by weaker parties because it is impractical to enforce it. Just as pirated DVDs can be found being openly sold in many street corners in Asia without being similarly available in places like Australia, countries with well-functioning legal systems find themselves at a disadvantage compared to countries with no enforcement. In the area of human rights, for example, America has courts before which lawyers can appear. Al-Qaeda has a cave in Pakistan where accommodations are notoriously poor. The US will obey a legal judgment. Legal judgments against al-Qaeda are an exercise in futility. Who will lawyers sue? Under these conditions the full weight of international law will always come down hardest on the most law-abiding.

[snip]

The power disparity between countries like the United States and other countries is offset by the disparity in expectations of compliance. It would be considered natural for Khalid Sheik Mohammed to ask for his "rights" under international law, but an American soldier captured by al-Qaeda can hardly make the same request — unless he wants to kill his captors with laughter — which might be a violation of the Geneva Conventions itself.

I taught my kids (at least I tried) that taking the "high road" was the right thing to do; the better morality.  Sure, it is hard and often not as profitable in the way that many account for profit.  I try (though not always attain) that ideal.  For me, the higher road is its higher reward.  But I also know that many do not share this sentiment.  But as with most things, when folks who try to take that high road fail, ridicule and scorn are soon to follow.

However we play it, we have to remember one thing – morality is for humans – not countries.  Countries have self-interests and self-inflicted manners of behavior (or, as it seems, none at all).  

I guess the moral of the story here is that perhaps expectations need to rise for those that choose to not follow the high road….