I don't typically use this forum to address current events, but I just want to be clear: The United States government is not acting in my name, nor in the name of my family. We believe that torture is never acceptable, and we're ashamed of the recent pro-torture legislation (summarized in Senate Passes Dangerous Bush Military Commissions Bill).
As shown by a long series of events, including the war in Iraq, I feel this country is rapidly slipping down a slope in which our actions are in clear contradiction with our proclaimed values. The rest of the world knows it, but apparently my government and many of my fellow Americans don't see it.
I am ashamed of our actions, and feel powerless in our direction.
Related Links
Additionally, ThrowAwayYourTV.com has a bunch of voices speaking out against torture, including:
Comments
Here's another great
Here's another great article, this one from Garrison Keillor: Congress' shameful retreat from American values.
I'm in the middle of the
I'm in the middle of the first part of this BBC documentary: Power of Nightmares. Watch it if you'd like to get a sense of how torture creates a *lot* more evil and hatred in the world.
Wow, McKinley. Excellent
Wow, McKinley. Excellent points, well written. Thanks very much for your comment.
I found it interesting to
I found it interesting to read these comments about your posting on torture. My views have changed over the course of my life on many subjects. For example, I've moved from being pro-death penalty to anti to seeing that it might be the appropriate course of action in some cases. So it is always interesting and illuminating for me to consider other perspectives to broaden and enlighten my own.
Experts agree that if the desired outcome is reliable information, then torture doesn't work. So an important question to ask is what we will gain from implementing such a policy. Another important aspect to consider is how such a policy will impact our country, our values, and our beliefs. It is our values that have that have lead us to condone countries for human rights violations bringing the censure of the world with us and to change our punishments we deem cruel and unusual. Torture by its very definition is both cruel and unusual.
Originally in establishing a democracy and later in initiating a world oversight organization that lead to the UN, the USA has moved from a position of isolation to one of leadership in the world arena. We have often been viewed as a beacon of hope in the world and our policies serve as role models for others. Yet, we have not dealt with profiling very successfully in the past -- Native Americans, Americans of Japanese descent during WWII, and McCarthy Era ‘communists” to name a few approaches that we now look at with some level of collective embarrassment. Labeling an entire group of people as evil has proved to be an evil itself. Can we learn from our past? Or will our descendants be discomfited by what we legitimize now? Will they be able to site discourse and thoughtful deliberation leading to proactive measures or will they see reactionary immediacy and shortsighted retaliations?
Has the implementation of intensification of airport security made us more safe? Why has it taken so long and why hasn’t more information been disclosed to the citizenry about the events of 9/11? Is our government being thoughtful and effective in pursuing national security?
We must move forward in ways that ensure a safe and secure nation. We have adopted many things in the name of 9/11, some necessary and imperative while others are arbitrarily punitive, questionable, and reactionary. We have forfeited liberties to gain security. Let us hope what we do now is not in vain. Let us hope that we can correct and make adjustments to policies we implement in the name of national security. My hope is that as a country we can move with deliberate speed toward thoughtful and effective ways to deal with the world we live in; I have severe doubts that implementing a policy allowing the torture of those we brand our enemies will do that.
Steve, thank you very much
Steve, thank you very much for your comment. I happen to competely agree. Excellent points.
I find this topic very
I find this topic very interesting. I also see a lot of thought and plenty of opinion in each of these posts.
I recently listened to an interview on NPR about torturing prisoners. A couple crucial points should be stressed:
(BTW, a link to one such interview:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/...?
storyId=5519633)
1) The interview makes clear what we have always known: when someone is tortured, he or she says whatever they think the torturer wants to hear. Thus, information gleaned by torture is UNRELIABLE information.
2) In addition, the FBI has strongly argued that torture is NOT an effective way to gain information from a terroist. Instead, it claims it is far more effective to build a relationship with the prisoner and appeal to his/her humanity, not to his/her fear.
That said, we have always given our lives to protect our freedoms and our values. It is why many of us love our country so dearly. In the past couple years I have seen news of the U.S. setting up secret torture prisons around the world. I have had reports of the U.S. kidnapping young children and threatening to kill them if a prisoner does not talk.
Where does one go from there?
What is the current reason given for toppling Sadam?
I really can't think that anyone believes torture will end The War on Terror. Short term gains and unreliable information will do little to bring about a lasting peace.
In short, how can we stand proud as Americans if we must stoop to the same and most base tactics of a brutal dictator?
By the way, Pete's argument
By the way, Pete's argument that begins, "Look at how they treat non-Muslims in their own countries...." has more to do with politics, and levels of cultural-psychological development than religion. How many historical examples can we find of brutal Christian intolerance? How many Catholics died at the hand of Anglican King Henry VIII? How much blood was shed by Catholic Queen Mary? Are you aware of the torture used by the Spanish Inquisition, who, as you say of Muslims, forced "conversion at the point of a sword" ? Why so many of our ancestors left the "Old World" and ventured to America, where freedom of religion was specifically, politically guaranteed by the Constitution? Are you familiar with the "Old Testament"? It has nothing to do with Christianity being a more tolerant and gentle religion.
Hmmm... I don't think Pete
Hmmm... I don't think Pete or David read my post and we're still bandying about a LOT of unquestioned, convenient assumptions.
To address just one of these: each individual interprets even simple things differently. We need look no farther than our hometown to note the vast array of Christian sects, each with its own particular ideologies. From literal by-the-book "Focus on the Family" to Father Thomas Keating's contemplative experience of the Divine (It's not only Buddhists who meditate. And there are any number of Buddhists who take their authority not from contemplative internal sources, but - like their conventional Christian counterparts - uncritically from traditional scripture) Which Christians are "wrong"? Well, that depends on your particular persuasion. And for all we'd like to think that Jim Jones "pieced together" his religion, he stood staunchly as a Christian preacher in Indiana and won over die-hard fundamentalists with his thorough knowledge of the Bible. (Moreover, it's very problematic to imply that all those who "piece together parts of a religion" are akin to paranoid, psychotic cult-leaders.) Heck, some people even insist that Catholics aren't Christian. Hello? It seems there is a multitude of poorly educated, misguided information within our "own Judeo-Christian, American tradition" - let alone when we start focusing on others, particularly within countries with which we have great incentive to view in a biased, vilified light.
Believe me, I'm no fan of gender politics as interpreted by the Taliban. But, as I pointed out in an earlier post, has America yet been progressive enough to vote in a female President, as the Turkish, MUSLIM population already did in 1993 (OVER TEN YEARS AGO) when Tansu Ciller became Prime Minister?
I think we need to be careful about the biases of our resources and our tendency to lump countries, cultures, traditions, religions into one pot. And - even worse, then to go on to form opinions/make decisions based on such faulty information.
I think we're getting away from the point, anyway. This is about AMERICA, what AMERICA condones as fitting behavior, what we want our collective culture, politics and ethics to stand for. It's not about the cruelty any other country perpetrates. Or is it "right" to be just as brutal? To "sink to 'our enemy's' level"?
Pete, David: Thanks again
Pete, David: Thanks again for your comments, and for the discussion.
MattHere is an interesting
Matt
Here is an interesting article about Islam. Even though it is posted to a conservative site, I think it paints a very close to true picture of Islam. The writer is an Iranian. The Islam Conundrum
Also I think Richard misunderstood what I mean by thanking your government. In this country the government is just an extension of the people. Good or bad, right or wrong, we the people and those before us are responsible for what freedoms we have today. We are also responsible for the freedoms our children and grand children will have in the years to come.
David
Matt, to clarify some of my
Matt, to clarify some of my earlier points: I don't believe that all Muslims will kill/die for their beliefs, but from what I have seen of Islam, this is a core tenet of their faith. Conversion is done however possible and history shows that this is often at the point of a sword.
Look at how they treat non-Muslims in their own countries for a good example. If the Western world (loosely speaking) holds to or emerged from a Judeo-Christian mindset, compare how we treat those of other faiths. In the US, we have the right to practice whatever religion (or lack thereof) we choose. There is little persecution other than the general poking fun at others' beliefs. Freedom of assembly is pretty much guaranteed. To be a non-Muslim (Christian or Jew, especially) in most Muslim countries is not quite a death sentence, but life is really difficult for those practicing another faith (in general).
I would also contend that our Constitution and the founding of our nation came from people with a strong Judeo-Christian worldview. Yes, freedom to practice one's own religion is part of that, but they also saw no problems with a whole State having its own religion (which was common at the time the USA was founded). The idea was to value people and be able to protect them from tyranny, especially without representation. I would not argue that the USA is a Christian nation, though and find it disturbing that we are perceived as such outside of the USA.
I agree that one can be a good, moral person without being religious. No arguments there. I would not treat all religions equally because people are not atheists, though. All religions have a different founding philosophy that affects the behaviour of a person who truly follows the religion. A practicing Wiccan will probably spend a good portion of time working with nature. A practicing Buddhist will probably meditate quite a bit. Those who piece together parts of a religion will pervert it to some extent. You end up with Jonestown or Heavens Gate or the jihad against the Western world by those who don't have a full understanding of their religion.
I want to clarify my point on the Geneva Convention, though. One of your early comments in somewhat poor taste said we should adopt their methods. These combatants are not uniformed and not fighting for a country. They have not signed on to the Geneva Convention. Thus, it follows that they do not have to be treated the same was as prisoners taken under the Geneva Convention. I do not say that we should treat them inhumanely, but I also do not feel that they should be given all of the rights and privileges under that agreement. They are by definition, not covered. The fact that the USA as a country is treating them (even partially) as if they were covered speaks very highly of the country. When compared to the treatment anyone over there gets, it's quite a bit better. We don't point guns at them and tell them to renounce Islam - something their combatants did to some reports. We don't threaten them with death if they or their group don't comply. If anything, we treat these people better than we treat our own criminals. Private conversations between lawyers and the people we are holding - no supervision. The Koran is provided to them and treated with extreme respect. Try finding that for any prisoner in one of our normal prisons, Muslim or not.
Regarding a universal list of freedoms, I'd love to see a world where that is true, but we don't have those at any point. If someone's religion involves kidnapping a young girl and sacrificing her to Cthulhu, should we permit that? If someone's religion says that all non-believers must die and the adherents start practicing that, should that be allowed? If someone is found with a smoking gun standing over dead bodies, should they be let go to appear at a trial of their own free will? Are we men enough to take the consequences if what we say freely offends other people? Freedom brings responsibility. Also, as Jim noted - we don't have to extend the rights of American citizens to those who are not. We often do extend that treatment to others - far more than it seems we should at times.
Our government's main task is supposed to be to keep the country safe right now and we are being attacked by those who have no concern for our freedom. Did we provoke an attach on 9/11 or prior? Can we make concessions so they won't attack again? You've seen how the Islamic world tends to react. When someone says that Islam is a religion that breeds violence - they riot to get the speaker to apologize. To me, that speaks volumes about Islam. I'd love to see more moderate Islamic leaders stepping up and condemning this behaviour, but they are few and far between it seems.
Anyway, this is an interesting debate. I know that we aren't going to agree on much behind this, but there have been some good points made almost across the board.
-Pete
Rainier, as usual, excellent
Rainier, as usual, excellent points and deep questions.
I wonder whether in hindsight you're glad you wrote this post - I was sure it was going to be controversial, and I wanted to speak my mind anyway. I don't naturally gravitate towards disagreement and contention (much the opposite), but as my Canadian reader said, these freedoms didn't just appear from a benign government that said "here, these are good things - use them with gratitude." Instead, people noticed what was wrong, spoke the truth, and got things changed for the better. That seems like a great definition of democracy...
Boy, Matt, it seems your
Boy, Matt, it seems your blog stirred up quite a contraversy! Great! Horrible topic, "fun" debate!
What always surprises me is how so many Americans live at an ethnocentric stage of development. It's OK for us to torture others as long as we and our loved ones are safe. (Like Brent the Australian wrote, "it's called human rights, not yankee rights.") It's OK for us to be Christian fundamentalists, but not OK for those of the Islamic or Buddhist religions (yes, there are Buddhist fundamentalists, too, who have acted violently, in Japan for example, in the name of their religion.)
Though when healthy, fundamentalism can offer some positive structure, I don't support it, in general, since it encourages a herd - even at times mob- rigid mentality. Still, what about the Christian-Judeo "Golden Rule"? And isn't there something about examining the wooden beam in one's own eye before pointing out the splinter in one's neighbor? I'm not saying I do or don't subscribe to those theological concepts, but for true-blue Christians, they may be worth critically considering. Are those notions true? What does it mean if they are? How would Jesus' teachings, if I believe them, apply to this particular topic? And can most of us, Americans, talk with any authority about the Islamic faith, not just from hearsay? The Moslem belief-structure in Turkey, for example, is interpreted - with huge political ramifications - much differently than that in Saudia Arabia.
Moreover, I wonder about integrity. A childish maxim, but one worth rigorous contemplation, is "two wrongs don't make a right". Somebody has to take an adult role. Do we perpetuate the cycle of violence - like a sister biting the brother that slapped her, who then punches her harder, and so on - or do we try to step outside and act from a more rational, more mature, more ethical place? And what would ethical action, as opposed to retaliatory anger and/or self-righteousness, look like in this situation?
I also find it curious whenever I hear people polemically cry that if they want liberal, they'll read the NY Times. Yet these same thoughtful individuals won't question the facts and statistics they pick up from more conservative media sources. Why not question all, if one is going to be critically thinking enough to doubt one side of the argument? (Of course, I understand the reasoning: we all enjoy essays which back our own biases).
Anyway, I wonder whether in hindsight you're glad you wrote this post, Matt. I am. Even those views I don't necessarily agree with gave me some food for thought. And they were very articulately written. This is a very contaversial subject and I believe the "solution" lies somewhere between the stereotyped knee-jerk liberal and stereotyped knee-jerk conservative positions.
Thanks, Matt!
Judeo-Christian-Anonymous: I
Judeo-Christian-Anonymous: I apprecited reading your post; thank you for your perspective. I hear what you're saying about Islam, though I really should educate myself about it - I have trouble believing so many followers (all of them, you're saying?) would be willing to kill/die for their beliefs.
Our freedoms come from a Judeo-Christian worldview - I thought these freedoms, which I think are precious, were ideas separate from religion (although they might have been motivated by the desire to *practice* religion with freedom).
It's only as we get further and further away from this that our value for freedom and human rights deteriorates. - I would strongly disagree. I'm an athiest (born that way, best I can figure), but I think of myself as valuing highly our rights that so many sacrificed to obtain for us. I.e., I'd say one can be moral, but not religious.
I find it sad that you think that all religions are equal in this manner - You've made a good point here - thank you. I think my bias is to treat all religions as equal in the sense that they're theistic (i.e., their members are not athiests). Again, I would like to learn more about it.
I don't think that the people we're holding are subject to the Geneva convention... - I'd be curious to hear what rights you think *all* people should have, regardless of background, color, religion, etc. Do you think we all have the right to free speech? To practice our own religions? To be innocent until proven guilty, etc? Or are these special ones that aren't intrinsic to being human?
That being said, I respect your right to those beliefs and that you came to them after thinking about them. This is also your blog - post what you want. I like your thoughts in general and subscribe to your rss feed. I may disagree with you about this, but appreciate your work overall. - Thank you both for the sane voice, and for reading.
Matt, I think you're missing
Matt, I think you're missing the real differences between Christianity and Islam if you think that our country is truly becoming a place where religious fundamentalism will hurt our freedoms. Our freedoms come from a Judeo-Christian worldview - something even other contries recognize. It's only as we get further and further away from this that our value for freedom and human rights deteriorates. I would also disagree that our Supreme Court leans hard to the right. If anything, it's more balanced now than it's been in a while. 5-4 decisions on almost every major case would seem to indicate that. As for the abortion clinic bombings, I will be one of the first to say that people (not necessarily all fundamentalists) should not be doing that and will condemn it. Do I understand the dislike for abortion clinics? Yes. Do I think that doing away with them is the answer? No (especially not with bombings).
The above sounds very similar to the arguments that bring back cries of the Crusades or the Inquisition - both better examples of people using Christians to accomplish their purposes than anything else. The teachings of the Bible very much indicate that those sorts of actions are not in line with the core beliefs of the faith.
As for being converted or die - it's a core part of Islam. They are not a great peaceful religion that's been hijacked. Conversion comes at the point of a sword for them. For the Jew or Christian - it's between you and God. I am not going to point a gun at your head or hold a knife to your throat because you aren't a believer. That's not my job. I find it sad that you think that all religions are equal in this manner. I don't see Buddhists going into a frenzy over a cartoon poking fun at Buddha. I don't see Christians rioting (I'm not talking getting annoyed/offended/upset - rioting) when Jesus is mocked. Put a cartoon out with Mohammed or otherwise poke fun at Islam - look at the reaction. It just proves the point.
Anyway, I disagree with your thoughts on this matter. I don't think that the people we're holding are subject to the Geneva convention as they aren't uniformed combatants fighting for a country. I am willing to accept the techniques being used IF they get results that lead to putting an end to this war. On a whim or a thought that they could possibly know something more - doubtful.
That being said, I respect your right to those beliefs and that you came to them after thinking about them. This is also your blog - post what you want. I like your thoughts in general and subscribe to your rss feed. I may disagree with you about this, but appreciate your work overall.
-Peter
Hey, Alvin - I appreciate
Hey, Alvin - I appreciate your comment. Thanks for reading, and for writing.
Thanks for your comment,
Thanks for your comment, Brent.
I'm saddened that such a
I'm saddened that such a bill could be passed by what is supposed to be the leading light in human rights in the world :(
And coming from a multi-racial country (Singapore) with Muslim friends I'm constantly shocked by the amount of discrimination wrought on these people.
Millions cannot be judged by the actions of a few extremists, otherwise we go the way of prejudice and bigotry.
I was just watching 'The Pianist' the other day and reeling in horror at how the Germans could have done what they did, and I pray the world never goes down that road again and feel it alright.
I fail to see how granting
I fail to see how granting such rights to United States citizens somehow implies that the the same rights should be granted to foreign nationals.
Speaking as an australian... as in, a country which has had one of its citizens detained by american WITHOUT CHARGE for _5 years_... I find this deeply offensive.
They're called _human_ rights. Not Yankee Rights.
Whitman-Anonymous: Thank you
Whitman-Anonymous: Thank you for your comment - quite a lot about.
It is quite unambiguous - you will be converted or you will die. I think mentioning religious fundamentalism is maybe not the best tack, given the nature of the U.S. right now - we're headed solidly in that direction, with a true believer president, a biased supreme court, abortion clinic bombings, etc. (See Christian Fundamentalism And American Empire and Bush's fundamentalism seen as a decisive, negative factor in his policies.)
What good is being a beacon of freedom, fairness, opportunity and civility, if you let it be extinguished so easily by freedom-hating, fairness-hating, opportunity-hating, civility-hating animals? Wow - sounds like some heavy-duty fear. Actually, I agree in a sense - I'd hate for those in power to erode our freedoms (patriot act), reduce opportunities (cuts in education & child support), and promote unfairness (corporate welfare?)
There are some values worth fighting for I'd say the "value" of torture isn't one of them.
Better to use the tools we have at our disposal to protect what is truly man's greatest hope, freedom. I guess the freedom to torture (including innocents) is right up there with other great hopes.
Thanks very much for your
Thanks very much for your comment, Richard.
In a democracy, the voters are the bosses, not the government ... you should oust them when they lie, cheat, or do things that you, as a society do not approve of. Very well put - thank you.
We'll see if it works after these coming elections. True; however, I'm not optimistic. The political pendulum seems to be not all the way to the right yet.
I really like your blog; I
I really like your blog; I have it in my Favorites - I check it out daily. However, it would be tragic for you to lose you blog because some radical Islamist felt it did not serve the great good of Islam, and therefore Allah.
If you think that can't happen and is poppycock, read the Koran. It is quite unambiguous - you will be converted or you will die. There is no other God but Allah. What you consider freedom is blasphemy to the Muslims chopping off heads and planning the next attack on America.
What good is being a beacon of freedom, fairness, opportunity and civility, if you let it be extinguished so easily by freedom-hating, fairness-hating, opportunity-hating, civility-hating animals?
There are some values worth fighting for. IF you value your family, freedom, fairness, opportunity, civility, you need to understand their protection in the world as it exists in its present state, inhabited by power-hungry clerics waiting for the 12th Imam, Mahdi. Of course, torture is unsavory but the alternative is an abhorrent. Better to use the tools we have at our disposal to protect what is truly man's greatest hope, freedom, than wait like over-civilized milquetoasts waiting for our disposal and freedom's demise at the hands of unmerciful Barbarians.
I'll leave you with the words of Whitman...
Piety and conformity to them that like,
Peace, obesity, allegiance, to them that like,
I am he who tauntingly compels men, women, nations,
Crying, Leap from your seats and contend for your lives!
I am he who walks the States with a barb'd tongue, questioning every
one I meet,
Who are you that wanted only to be told what you knew before?
Who are you that wanted only a book to join you in your nonsense?
(With pangs and cries as thine own O bearer of many children,
These clamors wild to a race of pride I give.)
O lands, would you be freer than all that has ever been before?
If you would be freer than all that has been before, come listen to me.
Fear grace, elegance, civilization, delicatesse,
Fear the mellow sweet, the sucking of honey--juice,
Beware the advancing mortal ripening of Nature,
Beware what precedes the decay of the ruggedness of states and men.
I find it so hard to believe
I find it so hard to believe that a country built on the ideals of fairness, opportunity, civility, and freedom would be so willing to let them fall by the wayside.
Up there in the previous comments someone wrote: "The Taliban and others in the Middle East treat women as if they have no value at all. Now compare that to what you have in this country and really you should be thanking your government instead of denouncing it."
You should be thanking yourselves, not your government. Western society moved ahead in those areas because of democracy and a common will (nevermind millions of women fighting for their rights not so long ago). It sure as heck wasn't some glorius government you should thank for it.
In a democracy, the voters are the bosses, not the government. Do not forget that. You should only be thanking them for doing a good job, not for everything you love about modern western society. (It is after all you, who is paying them). Likewise you should oust them when they lie, cheat, or do things that you, as a society do not approve of. We'll see if it works after these coming elections.
Thank you for the
Thank you for the conversation, David.
What makes this country
What makes this country great is that we can disagree with each other, but both be good citizens and patriots. As opposed to other countries where we disagree and you are in power and then I am dead. You are confusing a civilized world with an uncivilized one. These terrorist are still living in the 6th Century.
"We should be leaders in things like human rights, the environment, education, etc." The enemy we fight does not care about these things. The enemy we fight will not think twice about torturing us to death. This of course is no where the level we are willing to go to. I find it hard to believe that if the limited level of torture we are willing to do, did not work that we would continue it. For that matter who knows the value of threat of torture for it's psychological effect and deterant.
Now people say, well other countries will do the same to us. For one we are not fighting a country. Two if we were at war with a country then we and they would observe the Geneva Conventions. Right?
By the way I hate the term "down the slippery slope". You want to talk about loosing the values this country was founded on. How about the moral values like, God removed from public life, alternate lifestyles, and abortion. That is a much bigger slope.
Don't get me wrong, I am not someone who things that torture is the right solution to our problems, but neither do I think it is a wrong solution. I doubt that either of us will be able to convince the other of changing their point of view. It has been good chatting with you.
David
Anonymous: Thank you for
Anonymous: Thank you for your follow-up.
If I want leftist ranks I go to the NY Times. I understand. I'm not planning on posting off-topic again, but felt the need to speak out.
Sorry about your childhood, but there is a huge difference between child abuse and torture for information. I probably wasn't clear: I brought it up because I think most Americans who calmly condone torture don't think about the cruelty of the act.
So the ends justify the means? I think once we've crossed the line, we've lost something essential, even if we think we're doing it for good reasons. It sounds like you believe otherwise. However, with your approach (torture is warranted), you start down a slope of what's OK. Pretty soon it's hard to tell us from the "bad" guys. You may scoff, but these trends are hard to see when they're a) gradual, and b) happening to you. There are good examples from history.
You are in a room with the man that has kidnapped your family... First, I don't think torture actually works; I included the link to The Torture Myth for this reason, though I suspect you'll question it based on the source. So be it.
But what you're getting at is at what point would I sacrifice my values for expediency. Can anyone honestly answer that? What if you got the wrong person, tortured him, got an answer (made up to stop the pain), then found out. Is that OK?
You should not really compare the values of this country to those of others who do not even value human life. So by supporting state sponsored torture, you're showing how you value human life?
Now compare that to what you have in this country and really you should be thanking your government instead of denouncing it. Actually, it's because I care so much about what has made this country great (in the past) that I *am* so upset. We should be leaders in things like human rights, the environment, education, etc. I don't see our national behavior as being consistent with those values, and I think if you check outside our borders you'll find it's not just me. Of course, due to the way the media works here, Americans *don't* hear much about international "push back." See, for example this classic.
Also, I think you're confusing disagreeing with the government with being a good citizen. They are not incompatible, just out of favor.
Yes it was sarcasim and
Yes it was sarcasim and sorry about being obnoxious. In the past I have read your blog for the value you add to productivity. If I want leftist ranks I go to the NY Times. I understand that this is your blog and you can certianly write whatever you want.
Sorry about your childhood, but there is a huge difference between child abuse and torture for information. This example is not directed at you, especially if you have a family, I would not wish this situation on anyone. You are in a room with the man that has kidnapped your family. They have 12 hours to live and he does not care whether he lives or dies. How far do you go to find out where your family is? What would you do or not do? When you say torture is never acceptable, are you sure about that?
You should not really compare the values of this country to those of others who do not even value human life. The Taliban and others in the Middle East treat women as if they have no value at all. Now compare that to what you have in this country and really you should be thanking your government instead of denouncing it.
I can see where you are
I can see where you are coming from, but I think we have to have both. Everything that I have heard and read indicates that we have received valuable intelligence that has saved hundreds, maybe even thousands, of lives using harsh interrogation tactics. I would not consider these tactics torture (sleep deprivation, even water boarding) and consider their use appropriate given the circumstances.
Certainly the war in Iraq helps terrorist organizations recruit new members, but I'm sure the war in Afghanistan did as well. As would any aggressive response to terrorist activities. I'm sure going into Iraq was a difficult decision to make and only time (perhaps decades) will tell whether the Bush Administration made the right call. But the decision to invade Afghanistan was certainly a good call even though it "created" more terrorists. When you put all the political commentary aside, my guess is that whoever was president during Bushes first term would have felt that they had no choice but to invade Iraq based on the intelligence they had, faulty though it may have been. If, for example, several chemical weapons had been detonated in the NY subway during rush hour a year or two after 9/11/01 and those weapons had been traced back to Iraq the President would have been run out of office for NOT going into Iraq. I'm sure glad I didn't have to make that call :)
Effectively addressing root causes is an extremely difficult thing to do effectively. Poverty and lack of freedom are the primary root causes but the United States is not capable of bringing economic prosperity and freedom to everyone in the world. I find that goal very appealing but fear it is simply unobtainable.
Thank you very much for your
Thank you very much for your comment, Jim. It helps me see where others might be coming from.
In my case, I was on the receiving end of some abuse as a child, and it's given me a perspective that's pretty strongly on the "no one should be tortured" side of things.
I'm sure I'm being naive, but I'd rather see more efforts at prevention, ones that address the underlying motivations behind terrorism. From that perspective (and as the recent intelligence report release indicates), we're creating more terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere, not fewer. To me this seems the wrong direction.
Thanks for reading, and for your comment.
Anonymous IS being sarcastic
Anonymous IS being sarcastic and I see his point, though he expressed it pretty obnoxiously. You are certainly entitled to your political opinions and should be free to express them on your blog.
However, articles like the article you linked imply that the United States should extend the rights of its citizens (due process, habeas corpus, etc) to everyone in the world. I fail to see how granting such rights to United States citizens somehow implies that the the same rights should be granted to foreign nationals.
That article also implies that Geneva Conventions protections should be extended to combatants that do not meet the conditions for the Geneva Conventions. I believe that Geneva Conventions apply to those who wear a uniform and fight for a nation.
I do not think that the United States should torture detainees but I certainly support harsh interrogation techniques for captured terrorists that are not United States citizens and do not meet the conditions for the Geneva Conventions.
Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong :)
Thanks for your comment,
Thanks for your comment, anonymous. I don't get your point. It sounds like you're being sarcastic. Are you saying you think anything up to and including beheading is OK?
You're right this is
You're right this is terrible. I think we should adopt the methods used by those in the Middle East that are our enemies. Why torture when you can just chop off their heads. Your productivity stuff is good, but your politics suck.
how can this be, matt? how
how can this be, matt? how can this have happened? i am horrified, saddened, confused. the past 8 years have been a long series of disillusionment. yes, there are still good things happening. regardless, this kind of legislation blows me away.