A Few Thoughts About Cultural Imperialism and the T-Word
1. With regard to what a previous commenter on Capt. Fogg's thread wrote, I believe it's safe to assert that nationality doesn't determine the value of a human being's life. The poorest he or she from anywhere whatsoever is no less human than the wealthiest person in the United States or Europe or Japan. This is not to deny that differences in opportunity allow some in so-called post-industrial societies to develop their minds and skills more than some of the least advantaged elsewhere. But to allot a greater degree of humanity on that basis would be to go down a dangerous road indeed, placing cultural and economic sophistication (perhaps a troubled phrase, that) in the service of imperial brutality and just plain arrogant dehumanization of our fellows. People are people, and all have the same potential for good or ill, kindness or cruelty. To posit otherwise is to betray one's own utter moral confusion.
2. That torture is even being debated as if it were a legitimate response to threats (even serious ones) betrays a startling degeneration in the moral status of our country. There are just some things one shouldn't do. Period. That's why I'm not interested in utility-based arguments about such a loathsome subject. I don't say this out of fondness for whichever genuinely guilty terrorists have been dealt this fate. But that isn't the point. And I don't give half a thumbscrew whether torture works or not. It places us beyond the pale of civilization even to entertain using it.
I begin with the utility-based argument -- torture has been specifically proven ineffective in all circumstances, as well as counter-productive -- not in opposition to the moral argument, but as complementary to it. A deconstruction of torture reveals not only that it is a fundamental evil, but a fundamental evil that only a fundamentally evil regime would use. Torture can only serve the political ends of tyranny -- which is why only tyrannical regimes would ever use it.
ReplyDeleteI've been at the jail all weekend so I'm just catching up with the comments.
ReplyDeletePamela asked what was wrong with her support of torture and I think Dino has summed up the reasons here pretty well.
There is NEVER a time when torturing another human being should be considered acceptable.
We cannot claim to support human rights worldwide while violating them ourselves.
How can anyone justify and defend that?
Hello Matt,
ReplyDeleteYes, I think it's been convincingly shown that certain practices aren't reliable info-getters. The roots of torture as a practice surely have little to do with rational utility -- where's Foucault when you need him? He's very worthwhile on this sort of thing -- I mean the justice system generally, not torture in particular. Anyhow, it still seems to me that those right-wingers who demand disproof of torture's utility aren't likely to be convinced even by the strongest satisfaction of their demand. The demand itself, I suspect, is more often than not a cover for their desire to exact vengeance on anyone who even "looks like he jes' might be a terrorist." In brief, it is a function of right-wing paranoia, and therefore not curable by rational discourse. I guess all we can do to ensure that they don't prevail is to outvote them consistently.
Well our Pamela is still justifying it because "the terrorists" are the scariest thing ever and she feels afraid.
ReplyDeleteThis is why there is no hope. there is an organization that will prevent a movie director from filming someone stepping on a cockroach. There is an organization that would like to make it illegal to milk a cow but we still get millions who think it's OK to lock some kid in a secret dungeon forever and beat the crap out of him every day because he may be plotting to make Pamela afraid and we can't be totally sure.
Them Vs. Us arguments are the heart of inhumanity - Hutu and Tutsi, Nazi and Jew, Christian and heretic, Muslim and Hindu, Straight and Gay, Liberal and Conservative -- and everyday people like Pam are happy to dehumanize and disenfranchise and outlaw anyone that makes them uncomfortable.
The devil isn't some red guy with a tail, she drives a mini-van, talks on a cell phone, votes Republican, goes to church, takes the kids to school and argues that we're a Christian nation.
Safety, safety, safety - it eats away at our freedom, our morality, our dignity, our decency. Millions die in agony, she doesn't care because it won't scratch the SUV. There is no perspective to irrational fear. There is no understanding that we are a part of terrorism and that terrorism is an act, not an ethnic group. There is no consideration of the actual risk and above all there is no concern that in fighting some little monster we become the big monster -- as long as we feel safe.
So it becomes just fine to kill a hundred thousand or so innocent Iraqi Muslims and destroy the lives of millions because 3000 people were killed by Saudi Muslims. In Pamela's equation, no matter what numbers you plug in, fear always is the predominant factor.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"failed to acknowledge the mistake with a simple, “my bad.”
ReplyDeleteI would expect something more grammatical, if I expected anything at all, but you're very very right to illustrate this with specifics and take it away from gross generalities like "fighting evildoers" "the terrorists" and the other rhetoric designed to make us forget that torture is a very real thing, stinking of sweat and fear and blood and piss, little of which our safety mom could stomach in person.
Captain, corrected version here:
ReplyDelete- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
We have heard the arguments back and forth: The Cheney claim that torture can extract useful information; the rebuttal that says torture yields false and misleading information; those who say torture degrades our national character; those who say the law is unclear on the use of waterboarding; those who want Congress to explicitly outlaw waterboarding; those who consider the issue too divisive to serve the cause of justice or the public interest; and those who call for prosecutions to prevent future abuses.
These are the facts: In its zeal to extract intelligence, the government relied on lawyers to find loopholes in the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. They scoured legal texts for opinions that would give the administration exactly what it wanted. Any scholar will tell you that any work of literature can support any interpretation or conclusion, and it doesn’t matter whether one quotes the Constitution, the Bible, the Qur'an, or Shakespeare. An honest accountant says: “Two and two equals four.” The toady says: “What do you want two and two to equal?” Thus, any argument, no matter how thin, can be made plausible.
When we engage in this kind of debate, we lose sight of simple a truth and what is really at stake. The arguments, the artless legalisms, the words remove us from the reality of naked bodies and broken bones, of windowless cells in extraordinary rendition sites, of years of confinement without the right to prove one’s guilt or innocence. When preoccupied with the argument, we forget the immediacy of a sixteen kid, more victim than terrorist, lost in the gulag of self-indulgent words.
Like the reality of Maher Arar, for instance, a Canadian citizen who was detained at JFK Airport, held in solitary confinement, denied access to legal counsel, and deported to Syria where he endured tortured. Our government violated his constitutional, civil, and international human rights yet, to this day, failed to acknowledge this miscarriage of justice with a simple apology.
Should we pass more laws? What good are more laws when those who break them get a free pass?
Shall we say some human beings and some human rights are more equal than others … and dismiss the immorality of our actions in the name of our national interest?
Why not discuss the merits of lynching, castration, and rape with the same moderation and civility? Of course, there are Republicans out to protect their brand, their image, their cronies, and themselves … as there are accused murderers and rapists who always deny their crimes. Is moral relativism a necessary consequence of political expediency?
I think NOT.
I wasn't actually criticizing your English you know ;-) I just can't resist a set-up like that.
ReplyDelete