According to William Fisher, Gen. Myers is referring to the, “87 ” ”new” photos and four videotapes taken at Abu Ghraib … those turned over to Army investigators last year by Specialist Joseph M. Darby, a reservist who was posted at the prison.” Gen. Myers is certain that these new photos will increase the already abundant insurgency strikes, create new riots and a host of other misfeasance.
Moreover, he views the unveiling of these photos as dangerous and may have the result, “that Al Qaeda and other groups will seize upon these images and videos as grist for their propaganda mill, which will result in, besides violent attacks, increased terrorist recruitment, continued financial support and exacerbation of tensions between Iraqi and Afghani populaces and U.S. and coalition forces.” Additionally, he sees riots and violence escalating in the wake of “new” photos and videos. This is a very shrewd move by the Pentagon, first if the photos are available for the public at large and violence increases (a direct correlation not needed) then blame the ACLU and its cohorts for bringing the photos to light. If U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein agrees with Pentagon logic then the photos will never see the light of day and the military as well as others will again dodge another truth bullet. Specifically as “Michael Ratner, president of the Centre for Constitutional Rights, note(s) … (the White House does not want to) prosecute the real culprits: Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, Attorney-General Alberto Gonzales, Generals Miller and Sanchez, and others.” Thus, as Mr. Ratner points out, it is time to “kill the messenger.”
Granted are the views of Gen. Myers, The Pentagon, The White House, and State Department, on one side and the ACLU, the Centre for Constitutional Rights, Physicians for Human Rights, Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans for Peace on the other. However, there are deeper issues. Violence will surely rise and insurgency attacks will escalate, however to what cost? Is truth fungible in a time of war? Is it necessary for the American public to view such atrocities? Is it important for the military to be held accountable for human rights violations? Or does the end justify the means? If one US solider is saved due to torture and humiliation, does that create an ethical vacuum where actions can be ‘deemed’ reasonable? Does the American public truly care about the atrocities of some far off prison filled with Iraqi’s, when our own soldiers are being killed?
We must take the moral high ground. Societies are not equal in such classifications. This may seem like liberal heresy; however ethics and morals are not subject to situational relevance. Ethical and moral capital are the underpinning of an intellectual government configuration and more significantly the rule of law. Ethics are needed the most when no one else is looking.
In the hellish pits of Abu Ghraib to the Federal penitentiaries of America; if human life is in our care then our ethical standards must be uniform. This is the character of a civilized and enlightened culture, for terrorism is not the end all be all of evil in this world, thus we must not retrogress back into the age of strappado’s and the “Spanish Chair”.
It is the greatness of America which has brought us to a point where when we see beheadings and torture of civilians, the likes of which would make Torquemada recoil, we cry out, “This can not be! We can not let this happen!”
Consequently, in the act of repulsion we actively call out for higher ethical treatment, a treatment which we are accustomed. This is evidence of moral capital, some societies lack moral capital while others are rich beyond measure. With each “new” photo and video, publicly displayed or not, we auction our moral capital in favor of a bankrupt ideology we are so desperately trying to change.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home