All humans have inherent, unalienable rights.
Most people who have lived and died on this planet knew freedom only in the privacy of their own minds. Even today, relatively few of us actually live in a country where those rights are protected from assault by the greatest abuser of humanity in history, governments.
The United States—its Constitution and Bill of Rights, its independent judiciary and system of checks and balances—has successfully created a state wherein the rights of individuals are for the most part protected. We must be the envy of the world.
I think it’s safe to say, most Americans wish for a world where all governments are limited, where all governments are bound to protect the rights of their citizenry. Some Americans, most notably President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney, think we can spread the virtues of our great system around the world by force. The war in Iraq is just such an effort. While the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights makes bold, empty pronouncements about the rights of man, our president has gone so far as to say we have a moral duty to extend the protection of these rights to all people around the globe. Our president and his war are very unpopular in America today. It seems most Americans don’t have the belly for making our words stick.
When a tsunami strikes, Americans are among the first people in the world to arrive at the disaster zone with blankets and MREs for the poor victims of the natural disaster; but when it comes to removing a brutal, genocidal maniac from the seat of some poor country’s government, more than half of us stand down... “It’s not my problem.”
When our government was preparing to invade Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein, like most Americans, I supported the effort. I don’t believe we have a duty to police the world, but I predicted the war would be short, “weeks, rather than months or years.” I thought, like most Americans, that we were that good, that our military was that superior. I was right. Saddam was hiding in a hole in the ground, out of power, weeks into the war. Removing dictators is easy. I have come to realize since, however, spreading the virtues of our great system of government is not. Removing a brutal dictator can be accomplished by force: Setting up a rational, constitutional republic for people who have no concept of what it means to be free cannot be.
Clearly, we can not wish free states into existence. It is also clear we can not force free states into existence. How then can we accomplish our goal of a world wherein all governments are limited? The answer is simple: We must live by the values we hope to spread. We must demonstrate the virtue of our values in all of our dealings with other people around the globe. We must refuse to act in ways contrary to our values. We must never support a regime that denies the rights of its citizenry. We must stipulate to all of the world’s governments, if you wish to do business with the United States, you must recognize and work to protect the rights of all individuals. We must exercise moral certainty in all of our international dealings. Herein lies the dilemma: In order to exercise moral certainty we must be morally certain.
The fact that we are even debating the issue of torture in this country is most disconcerting. Do Americans believe the Bill of Rights’ protections exist only for citizens of the United States or non-citizens who happen be living or traveling within our borders?
“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
The Eighth Amendment prohibits our government from using cruel and unusual punishments, period. Like all of our protections listed in the Bill of Rights, it is a statement of our commonly held values. Values are not subjective. What is moral and what is immoral does not change from one setting to the next. If it is immoral to torture American humans, than it is immoral to torture al-Qaida humans.
If Americans persist in going out into the world to promote the existence of just governments we can do business with, we must take our values with us and demonstrate unequivocally their rightness.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
I own my life and my liberty. Through this blog, I am pursuing my happiness.
6 comments:
"I think it’s safe to say, most Americans wish for a world where all governments are limited, where all governments are bound to protect the rights of their citizenry. Some Americans, most notably President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney, think we can spread the virtues of our great system around the world by force. The war in Iraq is just such an effort. While the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights makes bold, empty pronouncements about the rights of man, our president has gone so far as to say we have a moral duty to extend the protection of these rights to all people around the globe. Our president and his war are very unpopular in America today. It seems most Americans don’t have the belly for making our words stick."
You say Bush was wrong in extending a hand b/c its a moral value to free them? Yet, President Obama is doing the exact same thing? Don't believe me, take a look at his video to Iran? I'd appreciate more critism of Obama, but do to some persecuting defenders I understand why you cannot.
However I shall not get off topic like you advised me. My question; Do you in mental torture? or Do you believe in prohibiting pyshical toture, and last these terrorist and other extreme religionist make it very clear that they want to destroy our freedom, very clear, so you don't believe we have a duty to protect our freedom from these determined extremist? That the rights of humans are above all, especially the right of freedom, of free speech, of free religious practice, or free choice to do as you please?
Chris
I think I've made myself pretty clear here, Chris. I have no problem defending our freedom and killing terrorists. I believe in killing people who want to kill me. I'm arguing against killing them by deliberately slow and painful means, i.e. torture.
Am I against "mental torture?" You must define this. In my opinion, if it "doesn't leave a mark," it's not torture.
If you read carefully you'll see that what I say about the Bush Administration is not criticism. I criticize Americans for turning against the liberation of Iraq because things got tough. One criticism I do have with Bush is his failure to force a legitimate constitution on Iraq in exchange for our work and investment "liberating" them. According to the Iraqi constitution, "Islam is the official religion" of the state. This is ABOMINATION. Iraq will not be a free country. We've waisted out time, our soldiers' lives, and a trillion dollars.
"I think I've made myself pretty clear here, Chris. I have no problem defending our freedom and killing terrorists. I believe in killing people who want to kill me. I'm arguing against killing them by deliberately slow and painful means, i.e. torture."
You say you have no problem in killing terrorist, yet you resist the fact that we could get information out of these terrorist to, for example, lets say save one of you family members? I think it is absurd the no one would want to do everything in their power to protect this country and innocent lives of their fellow countrymen, or even they're family. This is my argument to you, for instance you we have a terrorist in our custody and you don't want to torture them, then by some grace, they get pardon. So they are released then they go right back to their terrorist schemes, and blow up another building, and perhaps one of your family members was in the building? Would you not live with the regret that you did not do all you could do to save your family member and other innocent Americans? I completely understand if you believe that denying a humans inherent rights is the worst thing you can do in the world, and you therefore would not torture them, I understand. Its not that I do not understand the inherent rights, and that specific arguement, I do completely? I would just like a response to the previous example?
I will do "everything in my power to protect Americans from terrorists" EXCEPT compromise my values. I am not an American if I engage in "cruel and unusual punishment." I'm no better than the terrorists if I do. Furthermore, there are better ways to gather intelligence that don't involve torture. People who are being tortured will say anything to stop the tortute.
You will get nowhere in your debate with me by making emotional appeals like "what if your family" or "what if it were you." My values do not change with circumstances. Morality is not subjective! That's my whole point: If it's wrong to torture an American, it's wrong to torture an al-queada terrorist. Torturing humans is wrong in every instance...no matter how evil the enemy is.
We are better than them. We must act in ways consistent with our correct values.
I figure the emotional appeal wouldn't get anywhere. I just threw that one in there for kicks and giggles. But I see your justification in your answers now.
Post a Comment