[lit-ideas] Re: lawyers approve torture
- From: Judy Evans <judithevans001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: John McCreery <mccreery@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 07:12:10 +0100
Tuesday, June 8, 2004, 5:04:46 AM, John McCreery wrote:
JM> moral community, the answer is clearly no. Once we allow, however,
JM> any division between "us," the members of the moral community
JM> whose rules we are bound to follow, and "them," the others who
JM> are, by definition, outside our moral community and may, thus, be
JM> regarded by us as sub-human, what, if any, limits are imposed
JM> upon us?
JM> One might note, for example, that the torture of captives from other
JM> tribes was the norm for at least some Native American tribes.
This is an illustrative example, it justifies nothing.
JM> One could argue that US citizens, protected by the Constitution, should
JM> never be tortured by US authorities, but not see the same protections
JM> extended to non-citizens.
One could. It would not be a civilized argument, but, one could. And,
one does: the US/UK Extradition Treaty is non-reciprocal. The US may
gain extradition of a UK subject (or other person living in or
visiting the UK) without presenting proof of the charges it says it
will bring. But if the UK applies for extradition of a US subject, it
will have to make a case in the usual way.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,991042,00.html
JM> One could argue, more broadly, that immunity from torture is a right of
JM> citizens of all states that adhere to International Law. But what of
JM> citizens of states that do not adhere to international law.
One treats them as though their states adhered to international law.
(One should.)
JM> The usual military argument for the Geneva Conventions is prudential.
JM> We treat the soldiers of enemy states well in the expectation that our
JM> own soldiers will be treated well if captured.
JM> A similar, if more informal convention, has been said (at least in the
JM> novels of John Le Carre) to govern the interactions of mutually hostile
JM> intelligence agencies, the rule being, in effect, "Do not unto ours
JM> what you don't want done unto yours."
JM> Pursuing this line of thought, one arrives at the question, "How do we
JM> treat international terrorists who are not uniformed soldiers or
JM> members of other state-authorized organizations, when, in fact, their
JM> behavior seems to put them beyond the human pale?"
We give them the due process of law we trumpet as showing the
superiority of our system over theirs.
JM> I don't claim to have a resolution to these issues, other than a
JM> personal bias in favor of treating every human as a human being
JM> until proved otherwise. But the fact that even I, soft-hearted
JM> liberal that I am, consider the possibility that some examples of
JM> homo sapiens may be, in fact, inhuman and thus fall totally beyond
JM> the human pale suggests that this possibility is very much a part
JM> of American, as well as other, cultures.
Cannibals seem to be beyond the pale. But we do not eat them, we
convict them of murder.
--
Best regards,
Judy mailto:judithevans001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
