We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . .
-The Declaration of Independence
What is interesting to note about this statement is where it claims human rights originate. It says that the rights we enjoy come from our Creator and that those rights are "unalienable." It is therefore disturbing when people, both Christian and non-Christian alike, say that it is okay to torture terrorists or to deny them other human rights because they are enemies of America and / or not American citizens. Here is the danger in such thinking: it makes one believe that our rights come by virtue of being American and not by virtue of our Creator endowing us with them. In fact, it was the very argument that these rights do not originate from one's government that made the founding fathers feel justified in rebelling against the sovereign of England. Putting aside, for now, the question of whether, in fact, our Creator has endowed us with certain unalienable Rights or whether the revolutionary war was Biblically justified, if as Americans we stand behind this document and the reasoning behind its arguments, then it is impossible for us to also claim that those captured outside this country should not enjoy the same rights to fair justice as we do. Saying that our rights come by virtue of our Citizenship places the origins and foundations of our rights in the hands of government. If a government can grant rights, it can also take them away. Such a thought is antithetical with the Declaration of Independence. Our justification for setting up our own country is that our rights originate not from the government, but from our Creator. When we begin to lose sight of this understanding, we open the doors to allowing our freedom to be stripped from us, even under the guise of security.
9 comments:
Interesting thought. But, who was first? I'm not condoning torture, if that person is denying me my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, should they still be guaranteed the same rights I was supposed to be guaranteed?
Hey Dave - glad you checked out the blog!
Absolutely I think they should be guaranteed the same rights, without exception. Perpetuating cycles of violence helps nobody. We cannot criticize somebody for doing something (like torture) that we do as well - no matter who "starts" it. Put in a simplistic way, "two wrongs don't make a right."
Looking at it from a Christian standpoint, Jesus didn't give us leeway on how we treat other people. Who is my neighbor? EVERYONE. Not those who haven't already hurt me first. Jesus taught that we show love and compassion to everyone, including our enemies - I just cannot get away from that message in the gospels.
Of course, I go back to the Bible for why we shouldn't torture people, but there are several pragmatic reasons not to do so as well. 1) Because it makes us the "bad guys" - it just gives more reason for terrorists to hate America. Don't get me wrong - I don't think terrorism is ever justified on the basis of things America has done. At the same time, it is good for us to take a look at the way the things we do affect people around the world, and to recognize that we have not always acted in honorable ways - the more we do so, the more we contribute to the problem of terrorism, rather than the solution. 2) It doesn't work. Many generals and intelligence officials are on record saying that intelligence gained by torture is unreliable. Here is a link to an article where this is stated by General Petraeus, the top military official in Iraq: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051001963.html
Still, the most convincing arguments to me go back to what the Bible teaches. And nowhere does it legitimate the use of torture, for any reason. Treating other people in such a way violates the dignity that should be accorded to any human being as a person created in the image of God, regardless of what we think of their actions
Obviously I'm departing a bit from the "Learned Hand's" legal approach. I agree, though, that when we say (in the Declaration) that we believe these rights are given by God, but deny them to certain people, it puts us in a precarious position. Either we don't believe what the Declaration says anymore, or we're willing to violate our beliefs when it serves our purpose.
Jake, great points on all fronts. I really don't condone torture, and I probably didn't word that right in the comment. In my thinking I'm moving away from the torture discussion and more into the handling of the situation as a whole. Hmm...tough subject.
I think the question is which rights a terrorist maintains having committed these crimes.
Obviously we cannot grant them the right of freedom, putting them back into the world to perpetuate violence, free to do things that as Dave said are "denying me (or others) my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
However, when it comes to the issue of torturing these people, we're talking about the issue of making someone less than human. This is where it is important to remember such commands as "love your neighbor," realizing that however mislead or depraved someone's actions might be, they are still human and deserving of our love, or at the very least our respect and the basic comforts of food, shelter, and the dignity of being created in the image of God.
When we take this right away from other people, in essence, we cheapen the image of God by saying that it is possible for us to decide who is and is not worthy of this honor, possibly doing more harm to ourselves than those whose rights we've chosen to take away.
Dave,
I did catch that you said you weren't "condoning torture" - so I didn't think you were, and it was a good question. I'd be curious to know what you mean about the "handling of the subject as a whole" at some point, if you're interested in explaining.
And I agree, Adam - not much to add really. Good point about the fact that torturing people doing harm to ourselves as well (not sure about more harm, but the point is still valid).
Well, handling the situation of terrorist captured. With US citizens who commit crimes, the process is laid out fairly well. But what do you do with terrorists that aren't necessarily US citizens? What rights do / should they have? I guess in my thinking I'm crossing rights as a citizen versus human rights.
I see what you're saying. Its a good question as well. And I'm not sure how to answer it, except to say that rights to the protection that our laws afford, based on the value of human life, I think need to be applied across the board - citizen or not. Certainly on the issue of torture this is true. But I think they should have rights as far as how long they are held without being charged, fair trial, etc. - many of which we seem to be violating. I don't think its right, in any sense of the word, to lock people up for months or years without accusing them of something and ensuring whether or not the accusation can be proven.
But maybe that's not where you were going with your questions . . . :)
On the human rights v. rights of citizen topic: One of the major criticisms the US faces from the world is that we have failed to follow internationally recognized human rights standards or even the Geneva convention in regards to our handling of many of these alleged terrorists. While I'm not in a position of knowledge to comment on what I think of the human rights standards which other countries have adopted (and which the US has never signed on to), I would say that there are some rights which would seem to stem from our "inalienable" rights and others which stem from our citizenship.
For instance, I don't think foreign detainees should be voting in US elections, should have access to the US social security system, or should be eligible for higher education scholarships. However, such basic rights as the right to fair representation at trial, the right to a fair trial, the right to a presumption of innocence, the right to be treated with dignity, and the right to basic needs such as food, shelter, and medical care seem to stem from our belief, as Americans (and obviously as Christians) that humans are entitled to a particular level of treatment simply because of their status as created human beings.
As for the issue of "who was first," agree with what has already been said on the issue by Adam and Jake, especially noting the difference between denying one his freedom versus denying one his humanity.
Post a Comment