The recent release of a report on the CIA’s interrogation of suspected terrorists has brought quite a spectacle to the political blogosphere. The report, its obvious political purpose notwithstanding, has served a useful unintended purpose: it has exposed to the clear light of day the degree of disregard that both conservatives and liberals have for their fellow humans.
On the left, they decry torture but support, without reservation or oversight, drone strikes that kill a target plus anyone unlucky enough to be nearby (even some kid delivering kababs). They support the president (excuse me, this president, or their president) having the unsupervised and unchecked authority to call a strike on anyone his people have deemed a terror target. The collateral damage, the euphemism for dead civilians, is swept under the rug by writing rules that declare any adult male close enough to be killed is presumed a terrorist until someone (e.g. his grieving family) proves otherwise.
On the right, they proclaim distrust of government when it comes to taxation, surveillance, spending, regulation and countless other areas, but support giving government unsupervised carte blanche to torture, with arguments of “they do it to us,” “we’re in a war,” and “kill or be killed.” A photo of someone plunging to his death from the World Trade Center has been turned into a meme that says “this is why I don’t care what we do to terrorists.” Torture gets retitled “enhanced interrogation techniques,” a euphemism that recalls George Carlin’s diatribe against soft language.
Killing people unlucky enough to be standing near other people our politicians have decided need to be killed. Torturing people our politicians suspect of terrorism because other terrorists committed barbarous acts. Reports of the CIA violating the rules it’s supposed to abide by and hiding its activities from those elected to supervise it. All dismissed with “we’re at war, I don’t care.” Outrage and high moral dudgeon over a beheading video used to justify going, yet again, to war in the Middle East, no matter the mess that previous wars became and created. Not an iota of respect for the intent of our fundamental laws – just a convoluted justification of “we’ve made it legal so it’s OK.”
Where are our principles? Where is the basic rectitude embodied in the Bill of Rights and in our legal system? We afford even the worst serial killers and chid rapists – people who have committed acts far more atrocious than the beheaders – a presumption of innocence and due process. Is the moral outrage over certain actions and atrocities so great that it justifies and calls for torture and civilian deaths? If there’s a bar that, once reached, switches to “off” the basic tenets and respect for our fellow men that are bastions of our free society, can anyone codify or quantify it? What of the past times when that bar was reached, when we did nothing? What of, for example, the 800,000 Tutsis slaughtered by Hutus in Rwanda just a couple decades ago? Or of the mass slaughter in the Sudan? Are atrocities relevant only when action on some other interest needs the moral outrage they create as justification?
I’ve seen people dismiss those civilians killed by drone strikes with “probably not innocent” and “pretty sure they’re not bystanders,” as if such flippant and casual guesses are sufficient to justify killing people. I’ve seen people dismiss torture with “we water board our own soldiers,” “being deprived of a little sleep is not torture,” and the aforementioned person plunging to his death on 9/11. I’ve been called a “bleeding heart,” a “liberal” (with derogatory intent), a “conservative” (with derogatory intent) and “detached from reality,” all in response to my even raising questions about principles.
Some consider water boarding, sleep deprivation, forced enemas, mock executions and various forms of humiliation to be torture. Others do not. Some consider them torture, but of a lesser sort than beatings, floggings and other forms of physical pain and injury. I suppose, to some, if our side stops short of shoving bamboo under fingernails, then we’re OK, since they’re bad people. But, if they’re bad people, how about putting them on trial? As I noted earlier, we afford even the worst of our society certain basic presumptions and protections, and our system is intended to maintain visibility and accountability.
Yes, yes, I know, we’re at war with an amoral, unrooted and hard-to-find enemy. Yes, yes, I know, (some of) these people aren’t citizens or residents. Yes, yes, I know, some would welcome trials as soapboxes for putting America on trial. None of this is justification for throwing our basic principles and beliefs, our humanity, out the window. Emotional outrage is not a justification for committing atrocities of our own, even if they produce results (a whole other debate). We can and should defend our nation and our way of life without abandoning the principles upon which they stand.
Loading ...
Active Comment Threads
Most Commented Posts
Universal Background Checks – A Back Door to Universal Registration
COVID Mask Follies
When Everything Is Illegal…
An Anti-Vax Inflection Point?
“Not In My Name”
The Great Social Media Crackup
War Comes Through The Overton Window
The First Rule of Italian Driving
Most Active Commenters