I thinkthe reason you don't find so many classic liberals voicing their views is because people are starting to realize there isn't just 2 trains of political thought. More and more people don't think of themselves as liberal or conservative. Most people of the thought that you can only be one or the other would probably label myself as a liberal, but I still like my tobacco, my guns, and my big loud cars. I think people just see what they want to see when they look at the other side of that fence.
As for Gonzales' authorization of torture, that's a touchy one. One could make the argument that it has the potential to save lives, I suppose. The flipside of that would be that it's a slippery downhill slope. I mean...who do we decide to torture? Is there a criteria? Surely most of the people in Guantanimo Bay don't have detailed information of future actions or current hierarchy (many may not even be part of a group...simply fighting for ideological reasons). But then it becomes a challenge to identify who knows what and when such tactics are justified. Taken from Article 3, part 2 of the General Provisions:
Quote:
|
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
|
Now to me that would define most (though not all) terrorists as POWs and thus entitled to rights under the Geneva Convention. If they're not a militia, they're usually part of an organized resistance movement. I suppose the next question becomes whether or not we want to violate those protocols (although I'm sure others will differ from my interpretation of that) in order to protect innocent lives should we ever be struck again. There's really almost too many factors to consider here...but in principle I would say any torture of a detainee would violate what I see as part of the Geneva Convention. Then again...we're the U.S. government. It's not like anyone knows what we're
really doing at any given time. I don't think anyone's looking to protect hatred, per say. I think any logical human being would be against hatred. That's like saying you're for creating jobs. Who's going to argue with that? I think it's more about, as Chris pointed out, maintaining a legitimacy within the world community. With great power comes great responsibility and since we're leading the charge to be in the moral right, it's up to us to maintain a higher standard. It's about sticking to the letter and the spirit of the rules, not trying to find loopholes in them.
Edit: Since Chris posted as I was typing, some of this has been edited for brevity to not duplicate stuff he already said. Woot.