Values we fight for. [07 Jan 2005|02:09am] OK, I am rather pissed and ranty, but I think I have something to say. A little more than two hundred years ago, the founding fathers of my nation engrossed themselves into a task and came up with, in my opinion, some of the greatest ideas ever written in the English language. They included in their little declaration a phrase not often written... "we hold these truths to be self-evident" as in "This is a fundamental assumption about our universe. It is something we do not have to prove to anyone or argue about." They then went on to list those truths, things like the moral equality of men, and fundamental rights and liberties. All of us in our lives hold some beliefs self-evident. To me, one is this: You shouldn't torture people. Self-evident, right? This is something that has been apparent to me as long as I can remember. At no point did my parents ever confuse this issue. Torture was wrong. Even animals sentenced to the butcher or the exterminator should not be tortured. Something is unsettling about pulling the wings off a fly, or cutting the legs off an ant. I do not think that my upbringing was unique in this way. In my humble opinion, if you support yourself or your government torturing people you are not a good American, a good Christian, a good member of any other moral religious order, nor even a good human being. This is something that deep. It is self-evident. I am amazed that now, in the year 2005, this is not a self-evident matter anymore. I have heard the pundits on Fox news debate the possible merits of torture, I have read memos where my government debate what can technically not be called torture, I have heard legal wrangling on how to not have restrictions on torture apply to certain human beings, and I have even heard my fellow soldiers debate the possible benefits of hypothetical torture. This is not even a debate people of any moral character should be having. Asking how much torture our body of laws and men in uniform should use is like arguing how many times your 6-year-old daughter should be raped. The answer is zero, and anyone who asks how much torture / molesting they can perform in the line of their duties should not be allowed to become an interrogator / babysitter. Self-evident. We can make up hypothetical situations where "what if...there was a ticking time bomb / anthrax lab / imminent threat - and torturing another human being who likely held some knowledge about this was THE ONLY WAY to save the orphanage full of unusually cute and innocent children.... We can just as easily ask - hypothetically - what happens to those who are tortured? Might they become terrorists? Might they have families, fathers, sons, lovers, who might become terrorists? Might torture lead to a false confession that lets the real threat get away? Might the older female suicide bombers who brought down two airliners and killed hundreds in Russia have stayed home if there had not been so much brutality inflicted their sons and husbands? We can ask hypotheticals all day long. However, what you choose to do, or choose to support, is NOT just a hypothetical. Those are solid moral choices that are either defensible or not. I chose to serve my country because I believe there are principles and a way of life worth defending, even worth dying for. My father and my uncle served in a place where their enemies were a certain communist group who had no reservations about torture. I firmly believe they were fighting on the moral side of that conflict. If the principles we are trying to promote in this world do not include "people should not be tortured", then what ARE our principles? What are our self-evident truths? This rant is obviously fueled by the debate over Alberto Gonzales, the Attorney General nominee who is infamous for arguing that we were not legally bound by the Geneva conventions when in regards to non-uniformed personnel (i.e. insurgents, terrorists, and sometimes innocent people who we think are insurgents and terrorists - intelligence isn't always right). This was just one of a series of his legal machinations that made sure that torturing certain people was not illegal, only morally bankrupt. What constituted torture was argued, stretched, and Maneuvered around. These memos (likely) helped contribute to a series of actions that shamed America around the globe. This is the man being ushered into the highest law-enforcement position in our nation. Either you think this is fundamentally wrong - or you are an asshole. I hold that truth to be self-evident. If this comes up in discussion anywhere anytime, and you find yourself advocating torture for any reason - ask yourself - is that what your values are? Do you want to be someone who advocates torturing people? Is this the side of history you want to be on? If we, in the name of safety, are surrendering our right to not be tortured - what freedoms are left? This isn't even something decent people should be discussing. Self-evident. 6 comments|post comment

navigation [ viewing | January 7th, 2005 ] [ go | previous day|next day ]