On 2002-12-28 04:26, jim_mc wrote:
I don’t understand why being opposed to torture makes one a liberal, but if it does, then I guess I must be counted as a liberal.
I am a registered Republican (therefore conservative?), and I must agree with you, jim_mc. Human rights violations are intolerable.
France had dirty underwear on this regard, precisely for torturing alledged Algerian “terrorists” in the early 60’s.
It took nearly 40 years for the laundry. Now that the full stories got finally in the large-circulation papers and in the air, we all feel cleaner.
At that time, militaries were split : the hard ones actually did the Alger putsch. I met many who refused joining this rebellion, precisely on the ground that if you fight for right and democracy, you must abide by your laws and morale even for fighting. Otherwise, you might win a battle, but lose yourself.
Whether or not the above story is true, I just thought that I’d say a few things about rights.
The Founding Fathers said, most particularly in the Declaration of Independence, that certain rights are granted to all men by their Creator. In other words, human beings have certain natural rights. The notion, which has been put forth by certain people in our time, that the P.O.W.'s and such do not have “Constitutional rights,” is, in my understanding, ludicrous. The Constitution does not grant human rights. Any rights delineated there are intended to protect the pre-existent rights, of all people under its realm, from tyrants.
Let civilization march forward on the high road, and not take the low road of petty tyranny.
Anyway, I guess I’ve put in my two bits.
Can torturing people under these
circumstances be condoned? Is there
any limit to ‘what goes’ in the treatment
of other human beings under these
circumstances and is torture
over the line?
Jim, I doubt anyone in here condones torturing people, but all we’ve been presented with is innuendo in this article. The article “rings true” to you but it doesn’t to me. The reason the Post’s left-leaning tendencies are important is that they are starting out with an agenda - no, I don’t think they “hate” George W. Bush but their tendency has been to traditionally support Democrat politicians and policy as opposed to Republicans. Because of that, I have to view their articles in that light, especially an article which is very heavy on supposition and unnamed sources, and very light on facts. Look at their implication that Muslims being interrogated by women is somehow torture; statements such as that should make the reader skeptical.
The subject of rights is raised. Although the constitution and Bill of Rights define rights as they apply to US citizens, they cannot be projected worldwide, especially in times of war. The article implies the POWs should be getting lawyers and due process. I am no expert on the Geneva Convention but I doubt it guarantees lawyers to POWs.
Anyway, thanks again for posting the article and link, as well as your thoughts.
Correct me if I’m wrong. As far as I know, the US government refuses to consider these people to be POWs. They just call them “illegal enemy combatants”. So the Geneva conventions do not apply to them. They are kept prisoners without having access to any court procedure.
On 2002-12-28 07:56, Rando7 wrote:
The subject of rights is raised. Although the constitution and Bill of Rights define rights as they apply to US citizens, they cannot be projected worldwide, especially in times of war.
If rights be considered only a privilege to be granted or withheld by the government, they are not unalienable rights.
No, the suspects are not counted as POWs
by our government, so the Geneva
Conventions don’t apply to them.
Even their names are secret. It seems
to me that our nation is turning
a corner.
I find no implication in the article
that being interrogated by women
is torture.
By the way, the questions
upon which I’ve been trying to focus
are sincere–not rhetorical. In
all honesty, I’m not certain
that torture can never be justified,
though I would bet the ranch that
it isn’t justified in this case.
Also I wonder exactly what it is that’s
immoral about torture? The most persuasive advocate of the death penalty, Kant,
was absolutely opposed to torture.
People may deserve to die for what
they do, but they never deserve to
be tortured–even though that does
them less harm. There is a dignity
that goes with humanity that is
violated by torture. The goal of
torture is to separate the man
from his reason and principles,
so that he will do anything we
say. The purpose of torture is to make him–if only for awhile–less than human. (That’s why it’s important to describe the people we torture as less than
human to begin with: ‘animals.’)
If we believe that there
is a fundamental value to humanity per se,
we won’t use people in that way, whether they are good or evil, no matter how much we despise them.
Behind it all, perhaps,
is Walden’s idea that we are all of
us, good and bad, made
in God’s image, not in flesh but in rationality. To take
a blowtorch to something
made in God’s image to circumvent
its rationality so that it will
talk is a blasphemy
against the Creator.
If that’s right, the problem with torture
isn’t only that it involves severe pain.
Mind altering drugs, sodium penathol say,
used to get information
are objectionable for much the same reason. Best to all
[ This Message was edited by: jim stone on 2002-12-28 10:03 ]
On 2002-12-28 06:55, Walden wrote:
Whether or not the above story is true, I just thought that I’d say a few things about rights.The Founding Fathers said, most particularly in the Declaration of Independence, that certain rights are granted to all men by their Creator. In other words, human beings have certain natural rights. The notion, which has been put forth by certain people in our time, that the P.O.W.'s and such do not have “Constitutional rights,” is, in my understanding, ludicrous. The Constitution does not grant human rights. Any rights delineated there are intended to protect the pre-existent rights, of all people under its realm, from tyrants.
Let civilization march forward on the high road, and not take the low road of petty tyranny.
Anyway, I guess I’ve put in my two bits.
Amen: Every human being has the right to be treated with dignity. Denying this dignity is not an option. It is not in the governments power to deny it to others with our denying it to you. Liberals and Conservatives both stand for individual liberties against those who believe that they are being pragmatic and taking short cuts to achieve their ends. Remember Hitler and Stalin were fond of short cuts around individual liberties. And then there were no liberties!
I’m not sure where I stand on this issue. I marched against our “war” in Viet Nam, but cheered during the Gulf War. Those cowards who attacked the US on 9/11 were nothing but cowards, and they, their “religion” and anyone who supports them or it can all go to hell on a bobsled. The US Constitution was written for exactly that, the US… anyone who thinks it should be extended to mean all peoples in all countries has a distorted view of the world as it is and the written word as it is.
On the other hand, the persons currently in power in the US are dangerous and trying to lead this country down a road which will result in a dead end. Our economy is in the toilet and this Texas hillbilly thinks a war, any war, is the way out.
Whatever happened to “Peace on Earth”?
~Larry
And also that Hitler started out by describing Jewish people as ‘subhuman’ before proceeding to reduce their citizenship rights…
I’m always amazed by the level of support for, and the lack of scepticism about the US government. In Ireland, the automatic response to anything done/said by the incumbent government is to question the underlying motives, both for the party, the individual person, and the department, and then to question why other (usually named) parties/people/departments have gone along with this… People get laughed at in the Dail and in press conferences here. That doesn’t seem to happen at all in the US. Why?
And I also think it’s important to mention that, even today, when some (not all) Irish people think of/talk about the English/British, the atrocities of Cromwell in the 16th? 17th? century are still brought up - and still rankle. National memory is a very long thing. Don’t underestimate it. And never assume that someone you treat badly will not, given the chance, hurt you back.
First, I find it’s never helpful to turn a debate into an “us vs. them” scenario, especially when it involves branding those of a different opinion with broad and sweeping terms such as conservative and liberal. Such branding and categorizing dehumanizes one-another by disrespecting the possibility, and indeed, verity, of individual human thought, idea, feeling and opinion. Intentional polarization of issues, debates, and even conversations is a tried and true method of ensuring the impossibility of any sort of progress or understanding.
That said…
The United States Declaration of Independance clearly states that rights are “unalienable”. I think that’s fairly clear. Yes, we as a country, in our greed, fear and selfishness did twist that declaration so that it would not protect the rights of women and people we had designated as “slaves”, but we did, after much struggle, learn from our mistakes and change the law to include EVERYONE… not just some people, not just US citizens, not just those we agree with, but EVERYONE. Most of us recognize at this point that denying rights on the basis of gender or the color of skin is not only foolish but just plain wrong.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights ( http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html states: “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.”
I’m pretty darn sure that means everyone, not just US citizens.
The American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man states:
“Right to equality before law.
Article II.
All persons are equal before the law and have the rights and duties established in this Declaration, without distinction as to race, sex, language, creed or any other factor.”
I’m pretty darn sure that means all people, not just US citizens.
When we start choosing who is worthy of freedom then it stops being freedom. When we start choosing who is worthy of freedom of speech then it stops being freedom of speech. We can not, as a country, pick and choose who we think should be granted human rights and who should be denied them. Those rights are, by our own declaration, “unalienable”… they belong to everybody.
I’m proud of my country. I love it very much and there’s nowhere I’d rather live, but I know that countries make mistakes. We’ve done it before and we’ll do it again. The US calls itself “the land of the free and the home of the brave” - let us not be the land of the unfree and the home of the cowardly.
http://www.amnesty.org
[ This Message was edited by: ChrisLaughlin on 2002-12-28 11:29 ]
On 2002-12-28 11:02, ChrisLaughlin
When we start choosing who is worthy of freedom then it stops being freedom.
Chris, I agree with most of what you said. But we routinely deny rights to people who have committed crimes, and we keep people, including US citizens, in solitary confinement if we have a reason to suspect that they or their cronies will commit further crimes if they’re allowed to communicate. That’s the rationale behind keeping these people incommunicado – it’s certainly valid in some cases and not in others.
FluterD, I think you’d be surprised at the number of Americans who are suspicious of government actions in general. I may be unusual, but I’m one of them. If the public schools here were a bit more open, we’d all have it ingrained in us, since that’s the way many of our Founding Fathers thought.
I am a liberal, and haven’t voted Republican once in the past 19 years.
I am not fond of the current leadership of the United States, the condition of the economy, or where the country as a whole seems to be headed.
That said, on the subject of 9/11 and its aftermath, it is a very clear-cut issue. We were attacked, brutally, by people acting from a deadly combination of cowardice and malice. The attack was effective, and its greatest measure of its effectiveness was in the sad and predictable changes in our country and our way of life, the erosion of freedom, the needless internal response of curtailing our own rights.
That said, our external response has to be so brutal, so inhuman, and so terrible, that no one ever dares do this again. And it would be the responsibility of whatever party or president that was in power at the time of the attack to make sure that happens.
We have to do terrible things, to prevent worse and more terrible things later. We have to kill, effectively and efficiently, to save more lives later.
Because if 9/11 goes unanswered, no country, no people anywhere will ever be safe again. That’s not rhetoric–it is a sad fact.
I weep for what we must do, but I recognise that it must be done.
Best wishes to all,
–James
http://www.flutesite.com
On 2002-12-28 12:47, peeplj wrote:
We have to do terrible things, to prevent worse and more terrible things later. We have to kill, effectively and efficiently, to save more lives later.
Very liberal point of view. Did you ever consider that the actors of 9/11 are all dead already, and that your effective and efficient killing will probably concern lots of innocent people while Bin Laden & co are still running free. You have been lucky to be born in a rich and mighty country. What if destiny had decided to make you a poor farmer in Iraq? Would you still accept the death of thousands of children whose only fault is to be born in the wrong country?
See what is happening in Israel since they voted for Ariel Sharon. The situation is getting more and more dramatic for all concerned parties. Violence always leads to more violence. This war (in Iraq) will only increase the number of volunteers for the terrorist movement.
I saw a great little quote the other day:
“Why do we kill people who kill people to teach people that killing people is wrong?”
On 2002-12-28 13:18, claudine wrote:
Would you still accept the death of thousands of children whose only fault is to be born in the wrong country?
… Violence always leads to more violence.
A few comments:
If given the choice between my own kids being in danger and some unnamed kids in Iraq being in danger, my choice is clear. Maybe that makes me a bad guy but that’s the way it is. What makes the choice more obvious is that kids in Iraq are ALREADY in danger from their own government. There are eyewitness accounts of children set on fire, poisoned or used as human shields for tanks by Hussein’s government. And don’t even start with the “US embargoes are killing Iraqi children” stuff - there is one guy responsible for the embargoes and that’s Saddam Hussein, who apparently has plenty of money for his palaces while his people starve.
How far should the “violence begets violence” theory be stretched? When you see someone threatened, should they not be protected? Do you continually turn the other cheek? Should Hitler have been left alone to do as he pleased? If Israel is attacked do we stand aside?
The US doesn’t question it’s leaders or government? While there was a consensus towards war with Iraq, it has weakened considerably. Half of what is in the media is questioning one government policy or another. I actually thought (maybe I am wrong) that Europe was much more likely to accept what their governments told them as they tend to be more socialistic. Ireland may be an exception as it seems to have moved away from socialism the past couple of decades. If you want to see discussion of government policies on both sides visit http://www.freerepublic.com or http://www.democraticunderground.com. There are plenty of radicals on both sides.
Finally, to clarify my comments on POWs, etc I believe the US goverment, while classifying the captives as unlawful combatants, has stated they intend to follow the Geneva Convention guidelines towards treatment of POWs in their treatment of the captives. This article implies they are not being treated that way although as I said I have my doubts about the article.
Rando7
“If given the choice between my own kids being in danger and some unnamed kids in Iraq being in danger, my choice is clear. Maybe that makes me a bad guy but that’s the way it is.”
No one else would make any other decision when it came to the kids lives.
The trick is to make sure that not only your children but your grand children are not in danger and not to kill anyone’s children mother brother or father.
Strong, smart, effective leadership can work thru the problem we are facing in the world. When we believe that saber rattling and chest pounding is strong leadership instead of a fools game is when we suffer.
Modern technology is making the world a smaller more interdepended community of beings. We as the strongest and riches county in the world need to provide Leadership and developing avenues of discussion and problem solving. We need to stand by our values instead of propping up petty dictators and military governments as we have over the past 30 years. This will win us the hearts and minds of those who now believe that we are the evil satin.
This is not a religious issue and I gasp when I hear those who use religion to spread hatred on either side.
Have faith in the founding father of this country who provided us with wisdom. If there wisdom of there basic rights of man were observed throughout the world it would be a fairly peaceful and prosperous place for all mankind.
On 2002-12-28 14:44, Rando7 wrote:
If given the choice between my own kids being in danger and some unnamed kids in Iraq being in danger, my choice is clear.
Rando, I bet even the Iraquis give their children names and love them.
If Israel is attacked do we stand aside?
This is at least a very simplified version of the truth.
Don’t you forget that the US had already a war in Iraq in 1990. What was it good for? As George Sr didn’t finish the job, Junior now begins the same story again. How many more people will die this time? Cui prodest?
And why won’t the US begin a war against Saudi-Arabia? Most of the terrorists came from there, including Bin Laden. Members of Saudi-Arabian big business have given financial support to Al Quaida. So why don’t they consider them to be their enemies? Too many economical interests involved?
And I didn’t know that Ireland used to be a socialist republic. I’ve always thought that they were a rather conservative and very catholic country.
[ This Message was edited by: claudine on 2002-12-28 16:15 ]
I agree with those who respond to
FluterD that Americans are as skeptical
of their government as Europeans–and
I’ve lived in Europe. The appearance of
unquestioning unanimity now flows from
the fact that we’ve been wounded
terribly and the country has come
together like an immense family
and rallied round the government.
I’ve been watching terrorism for
decades, sometimes at uncomfortably
close range. Call these people
all the names in the book, but never
forget that they are not crazy,
not quaking in their boots, not
afraid to die and that they are
playing chess with us.
In Manali in 87 I was caught up
in anti-Sikh riots–Sikh separatists
in the Punjab had machine gunned
70 Hindus on a night bus.
The Sikh temple was burned
down, shops were smashed, people
were running through the streets laughing
as if it were a festival. ‘We must
teach the Sikhs a lesson!’ the
manager of my hotel explained to me,
cheerfully.
I realized that the riots were the
point of the terrorist attack. The idea
was to provoke a response from
Hindus that would
persuade moderate Sikhs all over
India that they could never live safely
without a separate state in the Punjab.
There are two stages to a terrorist
attack–what they do to us and what
they hope we will do to them. Often
the second stage is the goal of the
first–the idea being to radicalize
large numbers of moderate people and draw them into a war, or more terrorism, against
us. I think we can be sure that it
is OBL’s hope that our response will
be terrible, brutal and inhumane.
We are, you know, increasingly
seen in the world as denouncers of terrorism who sponsor
state terrorism, champions
of democracy who prop up fascist
regimes in Arab countries, condemners
of torture who are torturers. Whatever
else we need to be now, we had better be
skillful. At the least, it is imprudent to lose our decency.
If anything is worth dying for,
the vision of fundamental human rights
upon which our country is based
qualifies. I’m convinced, though,
that there’s no need to either die
or lose our souls. I’m disturbed that we are doing nothing to address the injustices
that breed these despicable acts
against us. That would be dangerous
politically, which is the principal
reason we’re not doing it, I believe; much less risky to ‘blur the line between humane
and inhumane treatment’ of Al Qaeda
suspects. Best