1 post tagged “human rights”

Actions of questionable nature undertaken by this nation are often defended--by the common man, if not officially--by the declamation "but we're the good guys."  I hear often of the goodness that America adds to the world, and that if our enemies dislike anything about us, it is that they hate goodness itself--they possess a bitter hatred of liberty, honesty, and happiness.

Taken in a global context, it is immediately obvious the failings of using "we're the good guys" as a justification for any action.  If we agree on this maxim as an international law, that any action undertaken is approved only if you believe you are right when you undertake it, or that it is wrong for others and right only if you have the moral authority...well, then, that would indicate that it is a correct action for the whole world, because even the worst liberty-hater must consider himself right when he uses whatever means possible to further his agenda.

Furthermore, it would seem that the right to punish an offender of this law would belong solely to the side in power, and that they would then be punishing the perpetrator for following--rather than breaking--the law of doing what you believe is right with no other considerations.

For this reason it becomes quickly apparent that for a law to make sense, it should have some element of universality--that it would be wrong for any to violate it.

A nation that says "all are innocent until proven guilty" and follows that with "except..." would be reverting to a law of personal judgment rather than a law that spans humanity.  To say all have a right to a fair trial, unless we've captured you at wartime, is to make nonsense of the very principle that inspired the law.

This country started with a similar contradiction, noted in the written words "liberty and justice for all," and "all men are created equal" and yet containing an unwritten "except for slaves" clause.  The impact of that "except" still resonates today, more than two hundred years later.

My concern today is the recent shift in this country, from being opposed to torture--at least in words--to being opposed to torture "except...."

Now, let's be clear about something.  Waterboarding is torture.  It is the intentional infliction of great pain and discomfort upon somebody who cannot defend himself.  The popular description of it in the press is "simulated drowning."  This makes it sound like a display at a science fair.

Waterboarding is not simulated drowning.  It is killing somebody by drowning him, but stopping just before death actually takes place...only to resume the painful process.  It is no more "simulated drowning" than a back alley stabbing is "simulated surgery."

The leap from saying the we stand for human rights and therefore allow no torture under any circumstances, to saying we allow torture under particular circumstances defies what this nation stands for.

Is the stance now that we believe that all nations have the right to torture captives as they see fit?  I certainly hope not.  Is the stance that we alone can do it because we are the good guys?  Besides the argument I've already made for the impractical--if not nonsensical--nature of such an argument, I wonder how the "good guy" status is expected to remain in light of the fact that we--like so many of our enemies--apply human rights only to those humans we choose.