On 2004/06/08, at 12:30, JulieReneB@xxxxxxx wrote: > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3783869.stm > Someone please explain to me how this happened without any American > citizen > even knowing about it. This isn't America anymore. I don't know what > the hell > it is, but it ain't America. I don't for a moment approve of the idea that the President or any other official should be able to authorize torture at will. A return to the Star Chamber and Inquisition is too big a step back for civil liberties for me to stomach. That said, I have some issues with Julie's crie de coeur, "It ain't America." The first is empirical: The trope of using torture to extract information from villains, when said information is desperately needed to save innocent lives, is far from unusual in American popular culture. See, for example, the role played by Denzel Washington in the recent film, Man on Fire. The second, suggested by the first, is a philosophical question: Are we ever justified in torturing human beings who do not belong to our particular moral community? If our answer is that, by definition, all human beings belong to our moral community, the answer is clearly no. Once we allow, however, any division between "us," the members of the moral community whose rules we are bound to follow, and "them," the others who are, by definition, outside our moral community and may, thus, be regarded by us as sub-human, what, if any, limits are imposed upon us? One might note, for example, that the torture of captives from other tribes was the norm for at least some Native American tribes. Members of the otherwise rather civilized-seeming League of the Iroquois are a famous instance. Captured warriors expected to be tortured to death, and stoicism in the face of torture was seen as a manly virtue. One could argue that US citizens, protected by the Constitution, should never be tortured by US authorities, but not see the same protections extended to non-citizens. One could argue, more broadly, that immunity from torture is a right of citizens of all states that adhere to International Law. But what of citizens of states that do not adhere to international law. The usual military argument for the Geneva Conventions is prudential. We treat the soldiers of enemy states well in the expectation that our own soldiers will be treated well if captured. A similar, if more informal convention, has been said (at least in the novels of John Le Carre) to govern the interactions of mutually hostile intelligence agencies, the rule being, in effect, "Do not unto ours what you don't want done unto yours." Pursuing this line of thought, one arrives at the question, "How do we treat international terrorists who are not uniformed soldiers or members of other state-authorized organizations, when, in fact, their behavior seems to put them beyond the human pale?" The tricky bit is, of course, who gets to make the decision that they are beyond the human pale. If, as in the case, of Herbert Padilla, the administration claims that any individual, citizen or not, can be declared beyond the pale by the President, the whole structure of legally guaranteed civil liberties totters. I don't claim to have a resolution to these issues, other than a personal bias in favor of treating every human as a human being until proved otherwise. But the fact that even I, soft-hearted liberal that I am, consider the possibility that some examples of homo sapiens may be, in fact, inhuman and thus fall totally beyond the human pale suggests that this possibility is very much a part of American, as well as other, cultures. John L. McCreery The Word Works, Ltd. 55-13-202 Miyagaya, Nishi-ku Yokohama, Japan 220-0006 Tel 81-45-314-9324 Email mccreery@xxxxxxx "Making Symbols is Our Business" ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html