Clarifying torture
Writing blog entries are great ways for me to sort out my thoughts. Though recently time has not permitted me the opportunity to write. But today, I feel I need to blog regarding the Military Commissions Act just signed by President Bush this morning.
To dig right into the heart of the matter: a law was just signed and now will be enforced that legalizes torture in the U.S. of anyone that the President or committee in government turns in? Yikes? Before I run and hide all of the politically incorrect things I own so as not to upset anyone working for the federal government, why would such a law be voted in? The answer boils down to a Utilitarian rhetorical question that I'm sure we're very familiar with: would you prefer harsh interrogation of a few or the possible deaths of many? So, as far as those who passed the bill are concerned, it is justified to lay aside a commonly held moral if that moral hinders the benefits of humankind (Americans in this case) generally? Well, which is it folks...torture as a preventative means as a reality or the chance of a terrorist attack just as large or larger than September 11, 2001? Most opposing democrates would not consider the ultimatum in this case, but merely the fact that the American federal government has indirectly legalized torture, period. Neither one of these points of view sound appealing. Both ignore the potential repercussions of the situation. On the one hand, the democrats fail to suggest better policy that would prevent further large scale terrorist attacks and in so doing fall under this question: does a clear conscience with regards to torture after a massive terrorist attack on the U.S. mean more than the lives of thousands? And on the other, conservatives fail to understand America globally. Sanctioning torture in America only suggests to the rest of the world that each nation's governing body has the right to torture when it votes it necessary. Thus, in retrospect the Utilitarian notion on the part of the conservative party is two-fold: it applies only to Americans in one sense -- Bush is concerned with preventing further attacks in America, and so torture is okay to do so -- and it applies universally -- in that torture is okay to save as many lives as possible. This is where President Bush is perhaps confused because he seems to think globally on one level and American on the other with a gap somewhere in between. However, in Bush's defense, democrats have failed to propose any kind of effective terrorist preventative policy and have only offered criticism since 9-11. "Anti-Bush" is only legitimate if one can propose better policy. In other words democrats have missed the big picture, which Bush rightly criticizes them for.
Let's ask a broader, more general question: Is violence merely a reality in nature, is it a necessary reality that can be sanctioned in certain circumstances, or is it a reality that one should always strive to avoid? In partial answer to this I would suggest that we usually do our best to keep violence at bay and under control...but do we do this using violence? After September 11, 2001 Violence was re-introduced in a new and real way to the American people who thought they had this sort of violence under control. And when one realizes that they are not in control of potential destruction they turn to new ways or old ways of controlling violence until they ritualize that method... and then that method of control paradigmatically works until other forms/waves of violence realistically become evident... [disregard everything after the question since I haven't work through this sociological pattern yet...it's merely my conjecture]
To dig right into the heart of the matter: a law was just signed and now will be enforced that legalizes torture in the U.S. of anyone that the President or committee in government turns in? Yikes? Before I run and hide all of the politically incorrect things I own so as not to upset anyone working for the federal government, why would such a law be voted in? The answer boils down to a Utilitarian rhetorical question that I'm sure we're very familiar with: would you prefer harsh interrogation of a few or the possible deaths of many? So, as far as those who passed the bill are concerned, it is justified to lay aside a commonly held moral if that moral hinders the benefits of humankind (Americans in this case) generally? Well, which is it folks...torture as a preventative means as a reality or the chance of a terrorist attack just as large or larger than September 11, 2001? Most opposing democrates would not consider the ultimatum in this case, but merely the fact that the American federal government has indirectly legalized torture, period. Neither one of these points of view sound appealing. Both ignore the potential repercussions of the situation. On the one hand, the democrats fail to suggest better policy that would prevent further large scale terrorist attacks and in so doing fall under this question: does a clear conscience with regards to torture after a massive terrorist attack on the U.S. mean more than the lives of thousands? And on the other, conservatives fail to understand America globally. Sanctioning torture in America only suggests to the rest of the world that each nation's governing body has the right to torture when it votes it necessary. Thus, in retrospect the Utilitarian notion on the part of the conservative party is two-fold: it applies only to Americans in one sense -- Bush is concerned with preventing further attacks in America, and so torture is okay to do so -- and it applies universally -- in that torture is okay to save as many lives as possible. This is where President Bush is perhaps confused because he seems to think globally on one level and American on the other with a gap somewhere in between. However, in Bush's defense, democrats have failed to propose any kind of effective terrorist preventative policy and have only offered criticism since 9-11. "Anti-Bush" is only legitimate if one can propose better policy. In other words democrats have missed the big picture, which Bush rightly criticizes them for.
Let's ask a broader, more general question: Is violence merely a reality in nature, is it a necessary reality that can be sanctioned in certain circumstances, or is it a reality that one should always strive to avoid? In partial answer to this I would suggest that we usually do our best to keep violence at bay and under control...but do we do this using violence? After September 11, 2001 Violence was re-introduced in a new and real way to the American people who thought they had this sort of violence under control. And when one realizes that they are not in control of potential destruction they turn to new ways or old ways of controlling violence until they ritualize that method... and then that method of control paradigmatically works until other forms/waves of violence realistically become evident... [disregard everything after the question since I haven't work through this sociological pattern yet...it's merely my conjecture]
posted by Timcom at 11:14 AM
1 Comments:
Great to see you online Tim...I can't imagine how busy you are, but it is always good to just put things out there...trust me, I started my blog again at http://timharrisportfolio.com. Plug aside, let's get down to the meat and potatoes of torture, shall we.
I'm not going to give you a history lesson, because you are probably more suitable for the task. However, we all know that torture has been a crucial part of information gathering during wartime since time began. Democrats (liberals ?) proclaim torture as a device that yields unpredictable results. But does the smart man ever wonder what happens to the enemy who gives 'good' information and lives to tell the story ? Noooooo...The smart man gets to sit on his lazy ass and watch television till his eyes pop out of his socket. All at the expense of counter-intelligence forces located in Brazil, making sure your cup of coffee stays under 3 dollars a pop.
Bush can take all the credit for the success of the defense department. After all, there has been no terrorist attack since 9-11. But then again, we should thank every other city,state, and federal employee that had to take on the task, as well. All of which have probably used some sort of torture in their career, leading me to my point.
It is easy to talk about torture. More easy making a law that says it is legal when most acts of torture happen covertly, is labeled black, and is put out of site out of mind by our United States congress. So where is the debate ? The democrats seem to be throwing the bill up on CNN's list of todos just to rack in extra points for election time. But the truth is, the bill passed. IT passed by a bipartisan congress. Like it or not, somebody had to vote these people into office. People that probably think torture is ok. And those people, my friend, are the ones that need to be explaining themselves...not their elected representives.
Post a Comment
<< Home