-->
Search the ArchivesNavigationContact InformationThe Citizen Newspapers For Advertising Information Email us your news! For technical difficulties |
Reply to Muddle from HackOnce again the Navy pulls the Air Forces chestnuts out of the fire... For Muddle: Muddle, thanks for valuing my opinion enough to ask me this question concerning opposition to torture. Speaking only for myself, my opposition to torture of anyone (US citizens in the penal system, gang members, uniformed and non uniformed combatants, etc) is based on two principles: The inherent since of right and wrong, and the golden rule of "do unto others." First, the fundamental sense of right versus wrong: When we inflict physical pain on someone to attempt to coerce information, to gain retaliation, or to send a "signal" in attempts to intimidate a certain group (as radical Sunni and Shiites have been treating one another in Iraq), we lose our humanity; both the torturer and torturee. We devalue life. It is a very slippery slope that, in other cultures, has devolved into harsher and harsher forms of torture (reference Jeff C's links), torturing of family members or friends if a subject is personally able to withstand extreme amounts of pain, and more less imaginable atrocities. Much of the pride behind my cheesy grin when I hear the National Anthem, Reveille in the morning, or Taps at night, has to do with the fact that I feel the U.S. is a special nation with a love for freedom and life itself that is rare in the world. I believe we have no true idea of how insidiously we can lose these high moral standards. And I fear our national policies in this area may have sacrificed much more of this moral high ground than we are aware of. Gary Michael Hilton is a despicable human being who is not worth the air he consumes. I had thought early on if I personally would torture him to attempt to find out where Miss Emerson was, but there is no way I could justify this. It would be an insult to Meredith's memory. It would make the torturer something that I believe no man truly wants to become. It would only bring satisfaction at a base, primordial level, but, I believe, would cause psychological damage to both subject and executor. Finally, the Golden Rule: Those that make policy are typically never subject to the effects and repercussions of those policies. If our legislators, for example, authorized torture of any enemy combatant for a wide number of reasons, those legislators would never have to concern themselves with quid pro quo. We should value our soldier's lives enough to always, under every circumstance, deem torture illegal. That is the only way we could continue to prosecute those who torture our soldiers long after a conflict ends. There would be no loophole, no statute of limitations, no gray area to hide behind should anyone or any group subject our men and women to torture. The sad news is, the minute we allowed rendition and torture (also known as aggressive interrogation) to become our unofficial policies, we surrendered any ability to cry foul when any of our soldiers or citizens are rendered abroad or aggressively interrogated. I believe the future will enlighten many Americans to the gravity of this dilemma we have created. Cheers, Hack hutch866's blog | login to post comments |