Let me be specific about my complaint, using one of Thompson’s own examples.
If the US president in the 1940s were a madman and a felon who had repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to use the power of the government against his political enemies and his own people without regard for Congress or the rule of law, and a private company had developed nuclear weapons (but the US government had not), would he still prefer for that private company to kowtow to that elected government and provide them with world-ending capabilities?
What if that private company said, “Sure, use them for anything you want, but don’t aim them at your own people”—and the Pentagon refused? Is your answer still, as Thompson writes,
That is the responsibility of the Department of War[1], which ultimately answers to the President, who also is elected.
Or is it possible that being elected shouldn’t give you carte blanche to redefine both law and ethics?
[1]: Calling it “the Department of War” is telling all by itself.
