the human rights of our enemies
i did have an unwieldy looking
cut and paste post,
but ... i knew
i could do better than that.
and so, here 'tis.
cut and paste post,
but ... i knew
i could do better than that.
and so, here 'tis.
in 2004, on the UN international day for the victims of torture, dubya stated that "America stands against and will not tolerate torture." he further stated that "The United States also remains steadfastly committed to upholding the Geneva Conventions, which have been the bedrock of protection in armed conflict for more than 50 years."
ok. that's hilarious. a real load of steaming brown poop, considering what's in the CIA's bag of interrogation tricks. torture as an interrogation technique? yes, you will find the cold cell and water boarding among these so called acceptable techniques. interesting - since such interrogation techniques violate the geneva convention of which the president spoke so passionately in the above quotes.
originally uploaded by pantuflaso, in the wake of the absolute horror unveiled in abu ghraib and given dubya's attempts to undermine the geneva convention and challenge the habeas corpus principal, i - josephine public - face some serious realities. at the very least, a betrayal of truth - for, such abuses are beyond my imagination and comprehension, given my social, cultural and geographic setting. but, i must transcend that outrage and focus on the facts presented, on what's said and on what's not said. and most of all, on what it represents in terms of the political tide that's turning here.
it disturbs me. mostly because of my visionary way of looking at people and events. i see behaviours and actions as manifestations of an individual's motivations. motivations being rooted in values and human ethics. and, very telling of any society's values, is the conditions with which it's prepared to live. what do we think we can live with as a society? what does that tell us about the value we collectively attach to life? pride? power? humanity? THINK ON IT.
i don't see occurences in isolation. rather, as a culmination of circumstances, conditions, behaviours and actions. my present results from my past. my interaction can alter its course. my apathy and complacence leaves it unaltered. and so it is for world affairs. we look to dark lesions in human history with disdain and politically correct outrage. we tell ourselves we can't imagine what those german people were thinking, voting for a monster like hitler. really? i think it's quite simple, when you consider the social, political and cultural forces at work in german society at that time.
the horror of it all lies in its insidious nature. they did not vote hitler in based upon a platform of annihilating 6 million jewish people. they voted for him based on his fervor and passion to lift a weak, confused and floundering germany to a strong and proud germany. he spoke so passionately the comforting rhetoric the german public longed to hear, needed to hear. and once hooked into a belief tract, one sees what one wants to see and hears what one wants to hear. and of course, since its dawn as an institution, government has always carefully controlled the flow of information to its citizens, with a carefully crafted spin.
considering the atrocities in our modern information era that went unnoticed as they unfolded - such as bosnia, abu ghraib, etc - it does not seem hard for me to imagine that a majority of the german public remained blissfully unaware of the 'final solution.' and then, consider the social and cultural climate of the time: rigid and intolerant to any deviations - a setting in which hatred and bigotry flourish.
the horror sinks to our own level even further, doesn't it? for, don't a goodly portion of people out there believe that all the abu ghraib torture fell upon deserving victims? 'they're the enemy! they don't deserve human rights!' sound like a familiar rhetoric? sound like the sort of rhetoric that gives rise to hatred and bigotry? it does to me .... chillingly so, in fact. isn't that what underlies the american government's assertion that terrorist will not receive 'due process' under the law?
and so ... do you think america's enemies deserve human rights? think, for a moment, before you answer. recall that hitler perceived the jewish people as his enemy, and, more importantly, as an enemy of the germany nation. whether you or i or the public at large agree or disagree is really beside the point. perception governs the direction of one's action's. that's my point. which leads me to the conclusion that not much separates us, a 21st century society driven by fear, despair and rage, from that floundering and broken german society of 6 decades ago.
frightening, isn't it?
EDIT 28.9.06: comments' section edited ... i've grown up a little and removed the piquant tirade. read the new comment below. i'm learning a great deal about the american psyche here, just by virtue of your silence alone. interesting. how repressive and vengeful it seems from some angles.
if you're going to post a comment, make it related to the content of the post or i will delete. the objective here is to intelligently discuss the issue at hand - read post - not engage in some ideological shit throwing fest.
BTW: in case no one gets cynicism and mockery ... the 'cure for bigotry' image is clearly my attempt at both. its stark stupidity just struck me so much i laughed out loud when i saw it. maybe its that strange canadian sense of humor that not many of you get, i dunno.
thanx /t. ... i'm always up for something more ... ;D ... what did you have in mind?
Posted by
velvet acid tongue |
24/9/06 14:34
I told /t that I would visit your blog, not knowing that I already had!!I've been sick this weekend, so I cannot really comment intelligently on your post, but the image is priceless and all too true.
Posted by
Anonymous |
24/9/06 17:51
All too true! I live in a fairly conservative part of the US. And I believe that a lot of people, at least here, voted for Busch because of their values having to do with Christianity (this area of the country is known as the Bible Belt) and they have conservative social values and Busch does too. A lot of them have a very rudimentary knowlege of what is really going on over there. And I believe a lot of them don't really care as long as they feel that they are safe. I hate to sound so condensending, but I think that it is the truth. They freak me out in a scary sort of way! Of course they are not all that bad but some of them really are. They think that the ends justify the means I guess. They think that these people are monsters! I actually heard on of my bosses say, when the war started that we were right to go over there because Sadam Hussein has no business deciding how much we will pay for gas. How ignorant! And missing the whole point! And proving his self centerdness. Frankly, I think some of us are too, I guess. Monsters isn't the exact word that I want, I don't like to deny their humanity, I guess that their activities and thoughts are monstrous. But Busch, you know, as much as he claims to be an absolutist and to uphold Christian values, has apparently forgotten about a few biggies. He is as bad as the people he hates in the middle east in his own way. I won't say that I am ashamed to be an American because I don't think that I caused any of this in any way. But I am embarassed a lot of the time. BBE
Posted by
Anonymous |
25/9/06 05:19
/bark bark bark
velvey i'll meditate on this along with the dismembered heads of marines, their mouths stuffed with their genitals..its a merry go round of horror and it never stops spinning, in all times, for all of history.
cant wait to see what you and /t cook up, should be a barn burner.
/grrr
Posted by
sparringK9 |
26/9/06 09:28
BBE - i hear you. there's so much ignorance out there. like - did anybody out there REALLy believe that the mideast problems would all go away if sadam was toppled? and ... now that he has been toppled - i think we in the west are getting a hard lesson on they ways of the islamic world.
it seems perhaps he was providing a stability of sorts for the iraqi people. and so, they've removed the stabilizing (albeit cruel) force and they have NOTHING in its place. STUPID!
and in their eyes they are battling the imperialistic, colonialistic west. just look at the history books to see from where they get that impression.
k9 - that sounds like 'well that's the way we've always done things' ... grrrrrr. cop out? or ... could that be a trace opf retribution i hear? still, grrrrr. if you've been cheated in any game in life, does that mean you cheat back?
i guess you've forgotten all about 'love your enemy as yourself?' or does that golden rule only apply when we feel like it and to people we deem 'worthy'?
my compassion for other humans, my desire to see them treated with dignity and respect, does not hinge upon their behaviour or beliefs. that is the philosophy that underlies the golden rule, isn't it?
i'm convinced that freud was right about humans - man has an innate desire to destroy himself and will if left unfettered.
and one final question that begs to be asked. what does the west expect when they reinvigorate and then take sides in a war that was never theirs?
its all about perception. NOT OURS - THEIRS!
Posted by
velvet acid tongue |
26/9/06 10:26
/bark bark bark
i like the solution to bigotry picture. is that the mascot for all the compassion you feel for others?
the true test of compassion is to extend that love out to those who think different from you, like you do christians grrrrrrherherhahaha
...of course kumbaya only works for all ya'll on the same page. get rid of all who oppose you and sure enough amongst yourselves the subdivisions will surface.
you think the dawgs view its a cop out? tell me how the endless round robin of yang yang yanging in outrage and zero action advances your goals?only action can be critiqued. sittin around talking bout how it ought to be requires nothing and does nothing.but it looks good. "oh i care so very much" who can criticise that?
the west. well, cheer up mate. its being destroyed from the inside so hang in there velvey!
/howl
Posted by
sparringK9 |
26/9/06 13:29
there has been a lot of rhetoric flying around this post. i captured and killed most of it.
but, k9 your response is sort of rhetoric. the definition of compassion and how one applies it to life is not what this post is about.
simply, my question here is twofold: (1) do you see the similar processes/dynamics at play in these two societies? and,(2) do you have compassion for your enemy? or is compassion something to which humans are merely entitled, based upon actions and beliefs and association?
compassion for one's enemy - that seems to fit what you have provided as your definition/test of compassion. so ... i ask you again.
do you have compassion for your enemies? do you think they deserve entitlement of human rights?
so far no one but blue eyes has weighed in here on that issue. i wonder why? my guess is the truth has shocked you all into denial. that's my guess.
re: my compassion for christians -- low blow pal. like, you would know anyhow, lol. sure, i have compassion for christians.
i think most of 'em (ie christians, and monothiestic believer, for that matter) are full of shit, but that doesn't negate the basic human compassion i feel for them.
if i disagree with you, does that mean i have no compassion for you? that's a small view on life, ain't it?
Posted by
velvet acid tongue |
28/9/06 23:20
/bark bark bark
this is interesting. you erased the real responses you wrote to me, then respond again in a more reasoned tone and then accuse me of low blow after the private conversation we had. low blow? given the fact you have sanitized your words the charge is heavy with irony and dishonesty.
/gr
Posted by
sparringK9 |
29/9/06 08:57
do you have compassion for your enemies? do you feel they should have entitlement to human rights?
if you are going to attack my character please do it in private.
Posted by
velvet acid tongue |
29/9/06 12:04