- “If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country.”
(Of course his country was England so we all feel that way.) Does this way of thinking apply to The United States, Denmark, Mexico or Israel?
Does the abstract feeling of patriotism trump the basic un-abstract feelings of the heart?
Who is the greater traitor the one that betrays his country for a friend or one that betrays his friend to the state?
The poets and the writers of scripture have come down on the side of friendship. Dante places Brutus, Cassius and Judas in the mouth of Satan.
Weren't the Romans just doing what was best for their county and my unfortunately named co-religionist helping to apprehend a known criminal?
In scripture I am more familiar with Jonathan betrayed his father and king because of his love of his friend David. A traitorous act that cost him the throne. why is he is not remembered as a villain?
Of course a State is going to enforce its will through fear as Mr. Forster acknowledges with the word guts. When we fear for our lives and family we tend to make immoral choices immoral governments and immoral agents of those governments make use of this.
I choose my friends carefully and have never had this particular conflict with the state but if I do will I have the guts to make the right choice?
This message is intended as a reply to both posts made after my initial posting here. I'm sorry for not addressing each personally, but I write quite a bit every day, and am loath to write two posts when one will suffice.
A desire for accuracy in the public record has never been evidence of guilt. I do not believe I did the right thing. There was no such concept there.
I understand much better how how we have come to judge some (but by no means all) figures that history holds in contempt for exigent actions where, like here, there was no "right" choice - only the least evil, and the necessary.
Your questions suggest to me that you haven't read my writing on the matter, or some of the statements I've given, I'd be happy to provide them.
I regret it if that seems impersonal, but I'm already being far more personal than most people in my position would be, and I'm very hesitant to retell the same story I've been telling for two years if it can possibly be avoided.
However, if we are to continue this line of discussion, there is an item of reading I would like for you to consider. It's not long, and it's not mandatory, but I believe it to be as helpful as anything that I could say: https://bit.ly/xSf9oZ
Thank you for reading. I hope this message finds you well.
But if you think you did right there is no redemption for you.
You followed me here to "defend" your actions this implies you know that there was no virtue in those actions.
I wish you well.
That is, if you more or less agree with the behavior, then you'll remain loyal to the individual. If you disagree, then you are more likely to see that the best action is guided by the laws of the State, even though personal politics or something else was the deciding factor.
My guess is that Lamo had reasons beyond those given. But that's just a guess.