June 8, 2005
Moral equivalence in the torture debates
Eric made a post today titled More Leftist Moral Equivalence, regarding the recent comparisons that leftists have made between the anti-abortion laws in Texas and the Taliban or Ayatollah’s in Iran.
It seems that the left believes that Bush and the other evangelicals are moving this country quickly down the road to theocratic oppression, and that opposition to abortion is as evil as hiding women under burkas. One of Eric’s quotes:
If the American religious politicians were the Taliban that young lady in the Drum’s entry who wanted a miscarriage would have been put in jail, stoned to death, etc. She would be denied an education or any sort of legal representation or individual rights simply on the basis of her gender. And she certainly wouldn’t be talking to male reporters. Her family would do that for her. The same goes for Iran.
I’ve been thinking a lot about the ‘torture’ reports about Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Let me first say that I am unequivocally against torture, whether it is done by the USA or not. If such things are occurring, they should be dealt with, the people involved should be punished, as high up the chain of command as is necessary, and we should make sure that it is known throughout the world that torture is not acceptable in American detention centers.
Thus, I am not one to say that when the left calls out the US government for engaging in nasty practices with detainees, they are somehow engaging in treasonous behavior. There is room in this country for people to question our government, and it is right to question our government when you believe they are acting immorally. Through debate, the truth is found, and nowhere is the truth more important than if American officials are setting a policy of torturing prisoners.
But one thing sticks out at me in all of this. There is a marked deficiency of perspective. Questioning our government is important, accusing them of running a gulag is not. I heard this quote from William Schulz, head of Amnesty International in US, interviewed by Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday.
WALLACE: Mr. Schulz, if I ask you, when you accuse the Bush administration of, in using your words, “atrocious human rights violations,” where do you fit into that equation the liberation of 50 million people from oppressive regimes?
SCHULZ: These are two entirely different questions. You know, someone can do a good thing one day and a bad thing the other and it doesn’t vitiate the bad thing that they have done good things as well. That is not the point.
Amnesty tries to hold one plumb-line universal standard to every government: to Chile, to Cuba, to North Korea, to China — every government.
I completely agree with the idea of holding one line. However, I don’t believe you can equally condemn those who cross that line. America is known for actually respecting that line and trying not to cross it. When our nation’s soldiers and officials cross that line, it is highly frowned upon and punished. And, despite what Mr. Schulz says, I believe that America’s record of good in the world should act as a balance. America should be condemned for actions that cross the line, but we should have some perspective on America’s relation to our enemies.
Let’s look at those other countries that Schulz mentions. Cuba? Where dissidents are thrown in jail. North Korea, where Kim Jong Il rules with an iron fist, starving his people through his socialist policies while maintaining control of his country through fear? China, where the folklore says they’ll shoot you in the back of the head and bill your family for the bullet? These countries make abuse and human rights violation a policy, not an aberration.
Let’s look at our enemies in the war on terror. We take prisoners, feed them, clothe them, give them a Koran, show them the way to Mecca so they can pray, and in rare cases have committed abuses. Our enemies capture a prisoner, videotape them pleading for their lives and put that out to try to extort concessions from coalition governments, and then behead them (also on tape), discarding their bodies somewhere in Iraq, or hanging from a bridge as an “example”.
Some may say that our treatment of prisoners is inhumane. In fact, by comparison the behavior is so mild that it is best described as “abuse” and not “torture”. That being the case, our enemies treat prisoners in a way that can best be described as barbaric, horrific, sickening and evil. I am disappointed every time I hear a story about Americans treating our prisoners inhumanely. But I am outraged when I hear about the way our enemies treat prisoners.
So when the left accuses us of running a “gulag”, I want to know who they’re backing in the war on terror. When the left is morally outraged that there are a few minor abuses in thousands of interrogations in Gitmo, but doesn’t seem to care one bit when Zarqawi gets on tape and beheads our contractors, it bothers me. When the left is horrified that a US bombing of military targets inadvertently kills innocent civilians, but is silent when the “insurgents” in Iraq explode a car bomb in a crowded Baghdad street, killing those same innocent Iraqi civilians, I start wondering.
Why is it that the United States is compared to a standard of perfection in these cases, while our enemies aren’t compared to a standard at all? Yes, there are lines that shouldn’t be crossed. Yes, Americans hanging a toe over that line should be condemned and punished. But let’s remember what we’re up against, which is an enemy that doesn’t respect the existence of that line at all, and exists completely on the other side of it. America doesn’t lose the moral high ground in the war on terror because of a few isolated cases of prisoner abuse. The fact that these cases are isolated, that these cases are investigated and punished, is exactly what gives us that moral high ground. As I’ve said before, when America commits these abuses, it is us failing to live up to our ideals. When our enemies commit these (and much more heinous) abuses, it is them fulfilling their ideals. There is no moral equivalence in that.
4 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Brad, I think the left would do anything to get the Bush administration out of office. I think America is set to a higher standard. It’s ashamed that the abuses in other countries are hardly notice by the news media. I’m with you on this one.
Good stuff, but I disagree with you on certain points.
For myself, I am upset and confused when I hear of how our enemies mistreat their prisoners (American or not). Upset, because of the unnecessary bloodshed, and confused because I don’t understand how these “extremists” could feel justified carrying out such abuses. But I am OUTRAGED when I hear of Americans abusing prisoners. If we are going to stand up in front of the world and declare ourselves the judge and jury of what actions nations, governments, and leaders can take, we have to be beyond reproach on the same issues.
If we plan on continuing to talk the talk, we need to be walking the walk. Otherwise we have no business being over there.
Jim,
I understand where you’re coming from. But honestly, do you expect us to be absolutely perfect before we can judge whether other countries are doing wrong? Is it not at least laudable that we know the difference between right and wrong and try our best to do right?
I think some of our government’s actions to try to sweep this under the rug are disgusting. I really believe that if we are not open and up front about the fact that this is happening and punishing the responsible parties, that chips away at our moral high ground. But I can’t see that we should be considered depraved because we set our sights at perfection and don’t always achieve it.
Brad,
Of course I can’t reasonably expect perfection. However I can still be outraged when any person acting on our nation’s behalf commits despicable acts. And I can further be outraged when it doesn’t seem to bother anybody (outside of a few democrats who probably wouldn’t mind so much if it were Bill Clinton in the White House instead of W.) when these acts occur.