An interesting bit of a blog at Globalclashes that calls my blog on Common Article 3 unconvincing since I appear to be a relativist on the morality of torture.
But I suppose I'll admit that I'm a relativist with respect to torture. Let's look at an extreme example. If someone has kidnapped a freind of mine or their child (or my family for that matter) and I know this with unpeachable evidence, do you really think that a blow torch and a ball-peen hammer wouldn't be included in any conversation I had with them? Please, be realistic. I don't believe in fair fights when death is possible, I don't believe my opponent has any right greater than my own in any forum. Once you've decided that violating my rights is okey dokey, I'll get really unpleasant. Relativism just popped up there didn't it? I'm willing to damage an agressor far more than a bystander and relatively speaking, I find that something I can live with.
That said, I do understand that governments must take some moral ground in their dealings with the world. My original blog on CA3 was trying to get to the point that the congress has a huge oppurtunity to take that ground unambiguously right now. I don't doubt that there will be people and countries that believe that we are toturing people when we play loud music at them. I feel that way every time I go to the gym. But by drawing the line that we are willing to go too clearly in the sand should make it completely understandable to any enemy or friend where the US will go to protect themselves and their interests. If McCain and his ilk don't like what the present Administration is doing at this time, then they have an obligation to define the limits legeslatively.
What makes the arguments of this article unconvincing is that they don't even acknowledge that torture is immoral, but suggest that torture is the eye of the beholder and that what matters more than anything is to break hardened and dangerous terrorists such Khalid Sheikh Mohammad. I strongly disagree. The United States and its allies have rightly chosen to fight terrorism by arguing that it is wrong because there are such things are universal principles and values, which apply to all of humanity. The fight against terrorism is not just about winning a war or breaking or killing terrorists.That is an interesting strawman, since that isn't what the topic was on at all, and in fact I take no stand on the morality of torture at all. The topic was the political games that are being played and how the congress should themselves define and clarify how our country understands CA3, including torture.
But I suppose I'll admit that I'm a relativist with respect to torture. Let's look at an extreme example. If someone has kidnapped a freind of mine or their child (or my family for that matter) and I know this with unpeachable evidence, do you really think that a blow torch and a ball-peen hammer wouldn't be included in any conversation I had with them? Please, be realistic. I don't believe in fair fights when death is possible, I don't believe my opponent has any right greater than my own in any forum. Once you've decided that violating my rights is okey dokey, I'll get really unpleasant. Relativism just popped up there didn't it? I'm willing to damage an agressor far more than a bystander and relatively speaking, I find that something I can live with.
That said, I do understand that governments must take some moral ground in their dealings with the world. My original blog on CA3 was trying to get to the point that the congress has a huge oppurtunity to take that ground unambiguously right now. I don't doubt that there will be people and countries that believe that we are toturing people when we play loud music at them. I feel that way every time I go to the gym. But by drawing the line that we are willing to go too clearly in the sand should make it completely understandable to any enemy or friend where the US will go to protect themselves and their interests. If McCain and his ilk don't like what the present Administration is doing at this time, then they have an obligation to define the limits legeslatively.
No comments:
Post a Comment