Originally posted by Derek Zeanah
You're making the argument that it's OK to violate someone's rights if the government makes the determination that they might be a threat to national security. Am I right?
No, I am not making that argument. What I am attempting to do is make a distinction between philosophy and practical reality. I am also making a distinction between civil governance and the conduct of war. Finally, I distinguish between citizens and non-citizens.
ALL governments, ours included, sometimes engage in repugnant acts on behalf of their citizens. We hope that this is done only in the conduct of war.
The greatest violation of a person's human rights is to kill them. Whether this is done "up close and personal" or by dropping a bomb from 20,000 feet is immaterial. The effect is the same. War, by it's nature, violates human rights. In that context, all you can do is attempt to minimize it; i.e. is it better to bomb the village or torture the terrorist?
I am exercising a certain degree of trust by not assuming that agents of our government are wandering foreign countries, randomly snatching people off the streets and dragging them off to inquisition torture chambers for their daily amusement. I am exercising a certain degree of trust in assuming that there is strong justification for their action. I know that governments (our included) are capable of horrible things, but I am allowing a certain leeway because we are actively at war.
If "torturing" a Japanese spy in 1941 had prevented Pearl Harbor, would you have objected?
If "coercing" information out of Mousoui on Sept 10th had prevented the Sept 11th attacks, would you have objected?
Country folk have a saying:
Don't watch sausage being made - it ruins your appetite."
OTOH, the government's use of the term "illegal enemy combatants", troubles me - as in the Padilla case. He is a US citizen and the government has effectively eliminated ALL of his rights on the "claim" that he is an enemy and without judicial review. In the context of civil governance I believe it is encumbent upon the government to "prove it's case" in a court of law. I do not extend that requirement to the battle field.