Oh, so now we can't torture people? Tragic!
Note the sarcasm in the title.
Word out of Washington is that our fabulous president has finally agreed with Sen. John McCain's ban on all forms of torture, along with cruel, humane, and degrading treatment of terrorism suspects.
In response, I have two questions:
1. Why was this even an issue in the first place?
2. Since it was an issue, why did it take so long for the Bush administration to agree to the ban?
Seriously, I fail to see why our country -- supposedly a proponent of human rights and the bringer of democracy, capitalism, and all things good to infidels in the dark corners of Iraq, Afghanistan, and other parts of the globe -- should EVER be condoning the torture of detainees.
I'm a realist. I realize that torture will happen. It may be from soldiers/intelligence officers who are under too lax of supervision and who start making mistakes. Or it may come from officers who know a suspect has key information and need to get it out of him/her and cross the line trying to do so. But just because torture at some times is inevitable doesn't mean we should endorse it.
If the Bush administration really believed that "we don't torture," as the President declared recently, then why did it fight tooth and nail to stop this ban?
My strong belief is that if we are going to improve the world, we have to hold ourselves to the highest possible standards. Otherwise, we stoop to the level of those we are trying to defend against and defeat. This torture ban is one important step in that process.
Actually enforcing it, and punishing those who violate it, would be an important second step.
Word out of Washington is that our fabulous president has finally agreed with Sen. John McCain's ban on all forms of torture, along with cruel, humane, and degrading treatment of terrorism suspects.
In response, I have two questions:
1. Why was this even an issue in the first place?
2. Since it was an issue, why did it take so long for the Bush administration to agree to the ban?
Seriously, I fail to see why our country -- supposedly a proponent of human rights and the bringer of democracy, capitalism, and all things good to infidels in the dark corners of Iraq, Afghanistan, and other parts of the globe -- should EVER be condoning the torture of detainees.
I'm a realist. I realize that torture will happen. It may be from soldiers/intelligence officers who are under too lax of supervision and who start making mistakes. Or it may come from officers who know a suspect has key information and need to get it out of him/her and cross the line trying to do so. But just because torture at some times is inevitable doesn't mean we should endorse it.
If the Bush administration really believed that "we don't torture," as the President declared recently, then why did it fight tooth and nail to stop this ban?
My strong belief is that if we are going to improve the world, we have to hold ourselves to the highest possible standards. Otherwise, we stoop to the level of those we are trying to defend against and defeat. This torture ban is one important step in that process.
Actually enforcing it, and punishing those who violate it, would be an important second step.
posted by N at 12:27 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home