Are words and phrases in the Geneva Conventions murky? Yes. It is a worthwhile and needed exercise to try to clarify those sections that are unclear? Again, yes. Are our freedoms and way of life threatened by islamic terrorists? Once more; yes.
Nevertheless, I find it impossible not to agree with the points made by columnist Stanley Crouch. No matter how difficult it may be to avoid using the tactics of the enemy in such times, the high road must be followed.
So what should our policy toward prisoners be in a time as serious as this one? There seems to only be the choice of sticking with our fundamental vision of individual rights that almost always runs aground in the governments of the Third World and in the thoughts of Islamic extremists. Those who believe, regardless of what they publicly say, that we would recover from the guilt and outrage felt about allowing suspected terrorists and real ones to be tortured, are probably right. Human beings can recover from almost anything, especially if it's done at a distance.
But it seems to me that democratic morality and ethics always demand a willingness to gamble. We have to believe that the people can make good decisions - if not now, eventually.
We have to believe that morality and ethics transcend the context and should always govern our behavior.
One runs a great risk when the methods of the bad guy are used to stop him in his tracks and are justified by our desperation. Because history shows that human beings can ascend quite slowly but are quite capable of descending at express speeds, it seems to me that we should stick to our most enduring principles for better or worse. It's truly a gamble, but one I know is well worth taking.
And my thanks to the estimable Shay at Booker Rising for the link.
Comments