The Daily Dish: The British Hostages: "They were blindfolded and experienced a 'mock execution.' This interrogation tactic is disgusting, unlawful and in violation of the Geneva Accords. It has also been practiced in several recorded incidents by the United States military under the command of George W. Bush, after he signed a memo allowing suspension of baseline Geneva Protections in the war on terror. Unlike detainees held by the U.S.., however, the Brits were not apparently subjected to other 'coercive interrogation.' In that respect, Ahmadinejad in this case has upheld a higher moral standard than the American president with respect to detainees. Those are the facts. The moral bright line between them and us has been horribly blurred - by president George W. Bush and his enablers in the torture regime. Advantage: the enemy."Truly unbelievable. One of the Axis of Evil treated their captives better than we do.
April 6, 2007
Our moral standing--or lack of it
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Yeah, but they're evil. Duh!
Iran somehow has moral standing? The same Iran that arrests people without warrants? The same Iran that holds people without trial? The same Iran that executes children? As bad as we are, they are evil.
According to the captives, they were told they had to confess or face prison. How is that not coercive? Again, I am not excusing our treatment of prisoners.
Steve, I agree. We are better. Why are we not acting like it? Why does the Iranian approach in this instance fall into a situation where we have to make excuses? Why does the statement, "they were told they had to confess or face prison," sound mild compared to the sleep deprivation, waterboarding, etc., that our President has authorized.
I think my broader point stands--that we have lost moral standing. Blame this directly on Bush and Cheney. They have taken us through the looking glass where we emulate Soviet Gulags and worse.
I would like my America back. I would like to be able to soundly denounce Iranian tactics.
I think we can soundly denounce Iranian tactics and push for cleaning up Guantanamo.
From a historical perspective, having imprisoned Japanese-American citizens during WWII, does not give the axis powers any leg up in their treatment of prisoners.
All due respect, but in this case, the Iranians supposedly treated their captives better than us. This is not a blanket approval of Iranian civil rights--but simply a realization that we have lost ground, and much of it since World War II. When, I might add, we prosecuted Japanese war criminals for water boarding prisoners. Now we have a President who approves of it (even though he says we don't do it) and a Vice President who calls the treatment a "no brainer."
I disagree that we are "better." Are we "better" because of our ideology, because of our high national self-esteem or some such bullshit? Does it even matter whether they have "moral standing?"
We are known through our actions -- right here, right now -- not our slogans. How others behave, or not, is irrelevant to whether our own actions are righteous/noble/adjective of your choice. Our government justifies our actions based on how "evil" they are, but, again, it's not about who they are or how they are. It's about who we are and how we are.
I'm going to throw in here with ubub. I think the discussion of "better" or "worse" or "good" or "evil" is unproductive in discussing these kinds of events. Using terminology like "evil" or "better than/worse than" when referring to an entire nation is kind of rediculous. I'm sure someone will quickly counter with "I mean their/our govenments". In reality, though, we are too comfortable with saying that we're basically good but our government has screwed up on occasion and they're basically evil even though their govnernment showed some restraint. Once the evil label is attached it's pretty easy to read about air strikes into their neighborhoods, turn out the lights, and roll over into a nice guilt-free sleep. We have to accept that the situation in Iran has some elements of blowback, just as our disregard for Geneva guidelines (with or without soldier uniforms) will probably haunt us for some time to come. I'm not defending terrible actions (call them "evil" if you want) on the part of Iranian political leaders. At the same time I wonder if we really are "better"- I wonder what a George Bush, Dick Cheney, Bill Clinton, or you or me would act like if they had the power that sits in the hands of Iran's government. Our system is protective of extreme abuses, but I'm not sure that makes any people "better" than anyone else. Later-BB
BB, good point. I agree that describing an entire nation as good or evil does not work. Nations, and people, should be evaluated by their actions. In addition, people can still be good, though the nation do bad things and the same holds true for nations doing good, while people do bad. Hmm, I am not sure if that is clear or not.
I guess my point is that, like ubub said, it is irrelevant how we treat others vs. how they treat others. We should do better, not because they treat prisoners good or bad, but because we said we would.
Steve-
I'm all for discussing how we can do better. If our deeds are evil, then we need to take responsibilty. We are a Republic after all. We will impeach over purgery, which we should, but don't seem to have the moral backbone to hold our leadership responsible for recent abuses of power. Right and wrong, moral and immoral, good and evil- all of these are secondary to partisanship and maintenance of power stuctures. I still believe the system works when we work it but lately (last 20 years) we the people have grown too complacent. If we're going to demand goodness from our leadership, we're going to have to have some popular mobilization that will get attention over the volume of dollars currently calling the shots. Too many of us (myself included) have put limits on the lengths to which we'll go to demand justice and morality. Sharp turns in public policy have historically required great sacrifice and blood on the pavement. I think we're in a time where "Hail Caesar" is more appealing than "We Shall Overcome". I don't mean to sound cynical. This war and the abuses of this administration may stimulate some of the needed response. The recent change in congressional majorities is not really what I'm referring to. I see that as a degreee of shift in ideology within the existing system. If we want truly "moral" leadership we need a destablization of the current system that will not come from within the institutions themselves. Later-BB
Post a Comment