Between 1915 and 1923, the Ottoman Empire exterminated between 600,000 and a million Armenians, an ethnic group that the declining Turkish rulers regarded as dangerous opposition to Ottoman rule. Many historians, and certainly Armenians all over the world, have labeled the act as genocide. The Turkish government disputes the designation, just as many Americans object to the term being applied to The U.S. government's treatment of Native Americans in the 19^th Century. *

The label means a lot to Armenians, however, and they are a powerful lobby in California. For decades, the group has been calling for a Congressional resolution declaring the massacre by the Turks genocide. This, presumably, will make the descendants of the murdered Armenians feel better, and modern Turks feel worse. This is not what we generally call a rich pay-off. Some believe the Congressional resolution will make it easier for Armenians to press for reparations, a dubious contention. It will certainly embarrass Turkey. Nations making historical judgements on the conduct of other nations almost a century ago is not far removed from gratuitous name-calling. What nation doesn't have such literal skeletons in their closet? What gives the U.S. the authority to make pronouncements about evils that cannot be undone? Why call attention to the 1915 massacre of Armenians and not, to take just one example, the far more recent atrocities committed by the Japanese in the Rape of Nanking? Taking real action to stop the ongoing genocide in Darfur is constructive; underscoring what is the majority historical consensus about the killing of the Armenians is not.

In fact, it is destructive. Turkey is a member of NATO and has been one of the most steadfast of U.S. allies since the days of the Cold War. Its support is especially critical now as we attempt to extricate ourselves from the Iraq War. Meanwhile, there are serious tensions between Turkey and the Kurds in northern Iraq, with the U.S. needing to maintain its influence on Turkey to keep a potentially armed conflict breaking out. This is no time for the United States Congress to be ripping the scabs off old wounds.

A well-intentioned act that has predictable bad consequences far in excess of any benefits is not ethical conduct. It is irresponsible conduct---reckless, careless, and, yes, stupid. Yet that is what the Armenian genocide resolution being relentlessly pushed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is. It is very likely that people will die because of its passage. How can such conduct be defended? In Pelosi's case, the answer is "weakly."

On ABC's "This Week," Pelosi said, "This resolution is one that is consistent with what our government has always said about what happened at that time." Well, to quote Justice Clarence Thomas, "Whoop-de-damned-do!" How does that fact justify poking a finger in a key ally's eye when we need it most? Pelosi's jaw-droppingly fatuous answer: "There's never been a good time" to make this gratuitous pronouncement. I see! So because there's "never been a good time," that means it's reasonable top pick one of the worst times imaginable, eh?

And this is the leader of Congress, remember. This abysmal quality of reasoning may have some bearing on why the approval rating of Congress in now 11%.

Pelosi then capped her unpersuasive explanation by noting that it is important to pass the resolution now "because many of the survivors are very old." Awwww. That's really sweet, Madam Speaker! The problem is that we're not talking about a 75^th high school reunion here. The problem is that your duty as Speaker of the House is to the welfare of the nation as a whole, not to a well-supported group of elderly Armenian-Americans with an axe to grind.

There is, in fact, only one good thing about the timing of Pelosi's resolution, which is likely to pass. It will serve as a wonderful example of how an otherwise admirable act can be unambiguously unethical because of its inevitable results.

* Place the Ethics Scoreboard in the camp of those who believe that once you've killed a million people or so, what one chooses to call it doesn't significantly increase or decrease the heinousness of the act, because you're already at the tippety top…

"Hey, Mom! I just killed a million kids!"

"Naughty boy!"

"It was genocide; they were all Armenians!"

"You monster!"

That's right: Hitler would not be significantly less despicable if he had "merely" engineered the murder of an ethnically and racially diverse six million souls. Less despicable to Jews? Undoubtedly, and understandably. But the logic of "hate crimes" eludes this ethicist. Murder is evidence enough of hatred.