Its sad, but I find myself needing to re-publish this post yet again. I'm not updating it with current events, because its about principles, moral and otherwise, that in theory are unchangeable.
I simply don't believe that we can win the War on Terror unless it remains a moral war. We need to have a moral victory as well as a tactical one. It may even be a more important goal. There's just no shortage of Terrorists. They can't be defeated with just bullets, they have to defeated by ideas.
The American Soldier works in a realm where few if any laws exist but the ones they bring in with them. Often there is no one to force order and law upon yourself but you. The people you interact with, either civilians or enemy will learn the definition of American honor from your. So thats the seriousness of what happened at Abu Graib and the moral ambiguities encouraged by this Administration. How evil the enemy has been is not as important as how good you are. And it's notable that some of the loudest critics of Gitmo and some of President Bush's policies have been elements of the military's own justice system.
It's a heavy burden for soldiers to bear. Not only do you have to always make the right and just decision, you often have only fractions of a second in which to make that choice. So errors in judgment will happen. I will also point out that it is statistically impossible to send 250 thousand people even to Disneyland without their being a few nuts in the mix. Add to that the pressure of combat and the risk of problems becomes greater. People who would never do things as a civilian can lose it in wartime. It's part of the cost of war. Thats part of why war is an ugly thing. Not just because of what you must do to others, but because of the cost to yourself.
There has been talk of how abusing prisoners doesn't really help gather usable intelligence anyway. But even if it did that wouldn't matter. It wouldn't be worth it. Yes, even at the cost of American lives. We are the guys in the White Hats. Americans purposely choose to live in a risky experiment called a democracy, rather than running a nice efficient and secure tyranny.
In many respects the Iraqis had much more security under Saddam than they do now. But they didn't have freedom. And as Americans we accept that freedom always carries an element of risk. Terrorists will attack America again, and they will quite possibly succeed by taking advantage of our open and free society. But if we choose to curtail freedom in the name of security we lose more than our lives.
This is why I'm against torturing prisoners, or even "stressing" them. This is why I'm against outsourcing prisoners to countries with more lax torture standards. And this is why I'm against holding an American citizen without charge and designating him an "enemy combatant", thereby throwing him into a black hole. Yeah, he's most likely guilty, but these are just not powers I trust any Government to have. Not even mine. Even at the cost of my life.
I can understand the need for Gitmo in the beginning. It's true that terrorists are in a sort of special category of criminals. We do not have the elements in place in our justice system to deal with them. But it's been almost five years since 9-11, we should have those elements in place now. That is what Congress should have been working on instead of their reelection campaigns. That should be remedied and Gitmo should be shut down.
As long as it's open, those terrorists will never really face American justice. What they may get might much better than what they themselves would give to us if the positions were reversed, but still they do not face real and true justice. And that's just not the American way.
In a real sense the movement toward this legislation has been brought forward and pushed by veterans, and active duty members of the military. It's something to be proud of, as are such things as the memos I reference by JAG officers protesting the changes in "torture" policy undertaken by this Administration.
The Senate legislation is not a slap or criticism of the military. It is instead the affirmation of it's values of honor, dignity, basic human decency.
The civilian leadership at the Pentagon and in the White house has let the military down. But if you want to say it's just another tirade against Bush, fine. But I think its extremely difficult to make that case with a 90-9 vote in the Senate.
It does challenge the President, but only because he has threatened to cast the first veto of his presidency over this. And I find that of all things that he could have vetoed, that this is a curious line for him to draw in the sand.
I am loathe to admit this and will type it through gritted teeth, but I'm grateful to the Senate for taking a stand. The Congress is for once actually is exercising true moral leadership. The conscientious hard road instead of the easy one of moral convenience.
Remember this moment, as it's unlikely to occur again in your lifetime.
Comments