Human Right and Wrongs

There has been quite a lot of discussion lately about human rights, especially in light of the president's veto of a bill that would have banned the CIA's use of interrogation techniques not in the U.S. Army Field Manual. Specifically, a lot of this discussion has been about techniques such as waterboarding, which simulates drowning. Supporters of the veto have said that the effectiveness of CIA interrogations would be undermined by limiting their approved methods to only the 19 methods listed in the Manual. Those who opposed the veto have said that this is about all human rights, no matter the religious, moral, or political affiliations of the human involved. Dangerous ground, this intelligence agency versus human rights issue. Few things that sprang to mind for me were:

1. When I read the quotes by those who had voted against overturning the veto of what most are calling the Torture Bill, the language is often inflammatory and emotionally charged, answering valid philosophical and sociological questions with questions such as: "What if one of those people killed were your brother/sister/child/etc.?" No real answer is given, just an emotional appeal offered. But, as Aristotle pointed out, the law is meant to be reason, free from passion-including the laws that frame and uphold our government and manage the nation's international relations. By espousing an argument rooted in passion, we undermine the ideas and ideals upon which the nation was built. By arguing the position that makes us feel better or safer or stronger, we ignore reason and fail to act in the best long term interests of the institution we have fought to maintain.

2. Are these questionable interrogation techniques working well enough to justify their continued practice by the CIA? When the amount of information gained by the use of these methods is weighed against the progress made toward ending the daily violence in these hot spots and gains made in the area of locating those famous ringleaders who still avoid capture, the scales just don't balance. Nor do they even tip in the favor of what could be debated as unjust treatment of detainees.

3. By engaging or endorsing interrogation techniques that would neither be appropriate by our constitutional standards nor the human rights protection offered by the Geneva Convention, the CIA-and by extension the U.S. government, as the agency is now using these methods with the approval of the president,-becomes no less reprehensible than those persons they call "monsters" for atrocities committed against Allied personnel. Actions taken against other humans with the attitude of "whatever it takes to get the information" crosses a line from which there is no return. Practices through which the interrogators lose that part of their humanity should never be negotiable. Standards of conduct in the best interests of the country, including the interests of national security and diplomatic relations, must be maintained.

4. Further, why do we as average citizens even have access to the ins-and-outs of the CIA's practices?! Since the Vietnam era, the amount of first-person, on-the-scene coverage of war zones by civilian journalists has given the American public way too much room to criticize rather than objectively assess matters of such a highly sensitive nature. The freedom of the press means that you may write or say what you wish, without fear of reprisal from the government. It does not mean that you have the freedom to travel to those places where we are at war, under the protection of government forces, and misrepresent this country in such a fashion.

5. Shouldn't the interrogation of prisoners in a war of Allied efforts be both performed by an international coalition of intelligence operatives and governed or judged by experienced and educated members of the military hierarchy of those nations? If you have to go all Chuck Norris on someone, do so. But we need to use the right tool for the right job, otherwise it just smells like vendetta.

I am not in any way insinuating that the CIA should discontinue its attempts at thwarting terrorist attacks or the detection of potential threats. Proactive assessment and treatment of situations is essential. But at what cost to humankind? How does it impact the weight of the administration's condemnation of China this week for what it calls human rights abuses? Is the U.S. still the beacon of justice it once aspired to be? Socrates, in Plato's Republic, describes justice as conduct that sustains and perfects the other cardinal virtues of temperance, wisdom, and courage. Just something to think about...