Torture, combatants, and a universal law
The idea of enemy combatant has always been rather slippery to grab hold. History teaches us that soldiers slaughter and maim civilians, and civilians slaughter and maim soldiers. The honor codes of warriors are easily broken. Trying to make fine distinctions and classifications about those who feel compelled to kill another human being seems a waste of time when it comes to punishing and interrogating a prisoner.
Torturing a person should be universally condemned and punished. It seemed at one point that humanity had derived this universal law from a reasoned categorical imperative. Now certain parts of humanity want to take a step back into barbarism. Classifying a person whose intent is to kill does not count when it comes to torturing that person because the law is a universal law. A person forfeits the right to have their moral claims taken seriously when they claim the right to torture someone
President Bush in a recent speech said Americans do not torture people. So, why does he have a problem with signing a bill that condemns torturing prisoners, and why does he still claim the right of selected individuals to torture people? What am I missing while immersed in my grand stupidity?
The debate over torture by Congress and the President is a disgusting sight to behold. Could we display a more corrupt and morally hypocritical face to the world?
posted by Lynn @ 1:13 PM
2 comments
2 Comments:
No not really, Lynn. Rather sad that.
I never could get my mind around the idea that the army of one country could fly a third of the way around the planet, invade another country, capture indigenous people fighting that invasion, and claim they are unlawful combatants.
Is there an American (or red-blooded Canadian, for that matter) alive who wouldn't fight foreign invaders with every fibre of their being and not concern themselves with the the appropriatenes of their tactics or attire?
I've said it before: This administration (and many of its civilian supporters) does not believe in human rights, they believe in the end justifying the means.
The fact that Cinton was debating what the definition of "is" is, was a joke. The fact that we are debating what the definition of torture is, well that's just tragically frightening.
Post a Comment
<< Home