A classic philosophical dilemma continually surfaces to challenge leaders and policymakers: whether the “ends” justify the “means” employed to achieve them. Embarking upon that path has proven a difficult and slippery slope. Excessive focus upon some theoretically laudable ends can divert attention from a moral compass that guides or governs the tactics we employ. Losing sight of that moral compass can lead to the abandonment or destruction of the very principles that are the foundation of the “ends” being sought.
There are no doubt instances when aggressive and unpleasant tactics are necessary to achieve a greater good. Yet each decision to employ these undesirable measures should be examined in the context of whether their adoption changes who we are fundamentally, and whether their use undermines the essential values upon which we have built our society. That a tactic can be used or even that it may be effective cannot be the end of the inquiry into whether a tactic or procedure is justifiable. Nor can the immorality of the foe or opponent be used as a valid excuse for resort to fundamentally abhorrent and inhumane measures. To do so is both dishonest and corrupting. The existence of the Geneva Conventions confirm that, despite the horrors and inhumanity of war, there are standards of conduct below which civilized peoples must not stoop.
These fundamental standards of civilized behavior are distilled from experience and from the basic tenets of a wide array of religions and articles of faith throughout the world. It is not determinative whether the standard is incorporated into some self enforcing edict. Theft and murder are inherently wrong because we accept these restrictions on behavior as part of our collective moral compass, not because they are illegal. So passing a law that immunizes someone who commits a murderous or inhumane act does not make the action less wrong, simply because the authority of a court to punish the act is curtailed.
This brings us to the soon to be enacted legislation advanced by the Bush Administration regarding detention, interrogation and trial of persons that the Administration designates as “suspected terrorists” or “enemy combatants.” The Senate has passed legislation, with support from Republicans and some Democrats, which authorizes the practices demanded by President Bush as "essential tools" in his war on terrorism. For decades, by international treaty and domestic law, the American people have accepted that torture and inhumane treatment of detainees or prisoners is illegal. On a societal level, we have generally accepted that such practices are morally wrong. Yet this legislation sidesteps legal and moral standards by “dressing up” the practices with euphemistic labels such as aggressive interrogation or “alternative procedures.” But a rose by any other name is still a rose.
Moreover, law enforcement and military experts with actual knowledge and understanding of armed conflict and battle situations tell us that torture and inhumane coercive tactics are usually counterproductiveat and often useless. The “intelligence” or information that is obtained under such procedures has less than a 50% chance of being accurate or useful because the detainee will say whatever he or she believes the interrogator wants to hear, simply to cause the torture to stop. In addition, use of these tactics provides an invitation to opponents to use equally inhumane or perhaps escalated tactics against detainees of American personnel or allies. As General Colin Powell admonished the Bush Administration recently, the world is beginning to question the moral basis for the actions of the US in its "war on terror."
The extent to which the adoption of the legislation and the tactics it authorizes diminishes the character of the American people themselves is a more direct and fundamental issue. While it is important how the rest of the world views the American people, it is essential that we carefully consider how we view ourselves. The proposed law condones practices and pardons American government agents, including the President and Secretary of Defense, for actions that have historically constituted war crimes under the Geneva Conventions and the US War Crimes Act. The law establishes a new and revised standard of American character and morality. Upon passage, the activities that the Administration has engaged in since 9/11: extraordinary renditions, torture, isolation, water boarding, electroshock, hypothermia, use of threats with attack animals, harsh psychological intimidation, use of religious tenets to coerce prisoners and other “alternative procedures” are all to be declared legal and acceptable behaviors. Officials at the highest levels who authorized such measures are immunized from future prosecution for war crimes.
Individuals, including American citizens, may be arrested and detained indefinitely without being formally charged. They would have no right to a habeas corpus hearing to challenge the legitimacy or basis for their detention, or even to show that they are not the person that the authorities intended to arrest. They simply “disappear” to Guantanamo or some secret prison like the countless individuals lost in the Pinochet and other authoritarian regimes. IF the Bush Administration chooses to charge the detainee and put him or her on trial, there is language in the law that provides some limited due process protections. However, the basic principle of due process that prohibits indefinite imprisonment without formal charges, and a showing that the government has at least a reasonable basis for believing that the detainee has engaged in prohibited conduct, is woefully lacking. So the simple solution for the Bush Administration under the new law is to imprison the person secretly and refuse to formally charge or bring the person to trial.
Add to those measures the legislation moving forward in Congress to authorize domestic wiretapping and search and seizure of private information and communications without warrants. These measures, we are told, are necessary “tools” in the war against terrorism. They would appear to violate the Fourth Amendment protections under the US Constitution against unreasonable search and seizure by government authorities. But the encroachment on freedom and personal liberty is essential, we are told, to protect us from the potential threat of a terrorist attack. We must simply trust the government not to abuse us once we have relinquished these rights.
Thus, in order to “protect” Americans and to secure our safety from “terrorism” in this new and dangerous world, we are instructed that we must now condone torture, kidnapping, and indefinite imprisonment without due process. Anyone who opposes or disagrees with these tactics and measures is "soft on terrorism and national security." These naysayers are presumably a threat to the American "way of life." We must sacrifice these long standing moral principles and fundamental tenets of our democracy in order to protect our “way of life.” Protecting “freedom” and our “way of life” are the “ends” that the Bush Administration and GOP controlled Congress seek. The means they would employ to achieve those ends make each and every one of us complicit in acts that are inhumane and immoral, and they require us to relinquish basic rights of freedom and liberty upon which our “way of life” was established.
That is who YOU, the American citizen will become with the adoption of this legislation. And that is why the White House asserts that it must destroy you in order to protect and save you. It is assumed that you will appreciate all that the Administration is doing for you. And it is also assumed that you are fine with the demise and destruction of character and moral authority that this country once had. After all, your “way of life” is protected.
No comments:
Post a Comment