Browsed by
Tag: human-rights

turning the page on torture

turning the page on torture

It is sad that it has taken a change in administration to begin to turn the page on torture. A categorical ban on torture is an American value, not a debatable value of one party or another. Perhaps we were in so deep that there was no way out … other than repentance. And repentance doesn’t come easily to politicians.

But it is heartening to watch now as we do turn the page. I applaud the order passed down to all CIA interrogators directing them to comply with the guidelines of the Army Field Manual. And the decision to release the memos authorizing and defending the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” is necessary and healthy if we want to clear the air and move on as a nation. Confession is the first step in repentance!

And it is confession because we must “own” together what we have done to “protect” ourselves, so we may be able to “disown” it now and move on. That’s what I see the Obama administration doing: not releasing the memos to bring shame down on the heads of Bush administration officials, but to bring shame down on all our collective heads for allowing and condoning torture. They are acting against not political rivals or even a rival ideology, but against torture itself.

That is why I can understand the decision not to prosecute officials of the previous administration. It’s not about exacting punishment or discrediting rivals, but about reversing course. It’s not about the swing of the conservative/liberal pendulum. We need to be free of the kind of thinking that allowed us to tolerate or excuse torture. And we need to embrace that commitment (once more) together.

Let’s move on, disown torture, and commit ourselves as a nation once more to an unwavering defense of basic and inalienable human rights … for all people!

A week ago, the bipartisan Senate Armed Services Committee released their report on the Inquiry into the Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody. Doug Muder has a very good summary and analysis of the report on his blog, The Weekly Sift. He reviews the findings of the report which refute “layer by layer” the common arguments used to defend the practices of the past eight years:

It’s not torture …

Even if it is torture, it’s not policy …

Even if it is a policy of torture, it’s legal …

Even if it’s illegal, it’s necessary …

Even if it’s illegal and unnecessary, it only hurts people who deserve it …

Even if it’s illegal, unnecessary, and hurts innocent people, it doesn’t hurt ordinary Americans …

Even if it’s illegal, unnecessary, hurts innocent people, and makes us all less safe, no one should be held accountable …

The article is worth reading in its entirety … if only to be sure we are well-enough informed that we will recognize the truth of what we have done as a nation and be ready to turn the page!

justice stevens disavows the death penalty

justice stevens disavows the death penalty

In an opinion released on Wednesday, United States Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote:

I have relied on my own experience in reaching the conclusion that the imposition of the death penalty represents “the pointless and needless extinction of life with only marginal contributions to any discernible social or public purposes. A penalty with such negligible returns to the state (is) patently excessive and cruel and unusual punishment violative of the Eighth Amendment.”

Absolutely right …

It is difficult for me to discern even a “marginal” contribution to the public good. What does the death penalty accomplish, except to satisfy an unholy desire for retribution or revenge? It does not make people better or society safer. On the contrary, it reinforces a culture of violence and encourages the least helpful — and the least noble — impulses in a victimized society.

As a nation that proclaims itself a defender of liberty and human rights, it would only be right for us to lead the rest of the world toward the total abolition of the death penalty, but we aren’t. We aren’t leading. We’re not even following.

actions speak louder than words

actions speak louder than words

When the government of the United States speaks, we speak, and when it acts, we act, because our government is, as President Lincoln put it, “a government of the people, for the people, and by the people.” It is our duty to take full responsibility for what our government says and does on our behalf …

We must take responsibility for our nation’s advocacy of human rights. We champion the equality of all human beings; equal entitlement to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and equal protection from any violation of these entitlements. But what do we do? We are slow to respond to allegations of prisoner abuse by US military and intelligence personnel in Iraq and Cuba and Afghanistan and eastern Europe, we are reluctant to examine fully the broader leadership environment that permits or tolerates or fails to put a stop to such abuse, and we are opposed to signing on to a declaration banning cruel or inhuman or degrading treatment by any agent of the United States government against any person anywhere in the world.

We must take responsibility for our nation’s stand against the proliferation and use of chemical and biological and nuclear weapons. We ask for international censure of other nations who are suspected of developing and stockpiling such weapons. But what do we do? We use a chemical weapon, white phosphorus, in the war in Iraq. We refuse to eliminate our own stockpile of nuclear armaments and we continue to do biological weapons research. And we are the only nation in history to have used a nuclear weapon against a civilian population.

We must take responsibility for our nation’s commitment to the rule of law. We believe that right makes might, not the contrary, and we demand that nations and heads of state abide by the tenets of international law. But what do we do? We invade a sovereign nation without provocation, justifying the unilateral action as a “preemptive strike.”

We must take responsibility … The problem is not with what we say and not with the results we seek to achieve. The isolation and containment of international terrorism is a worthy end. But a worthy end does not justify the use of any means available. If we will do anything to achieve that goal, if we make expections to the code of human rights to protect our own human rights, if we use chemical weapons to take out people we fear may one day use chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction against us, if we unilaterally decide for ourselves who are the “bad guys” and which nations require “regime change,” then we will have by our actions betrayed everything we stand for.

We will have proved that some people are entitled to basic human rights and some are not, that weapons of mass destruction do have a place in this world, and that the only law that matters is the law that says the biggest and strongest gets to make the rules.