I went home for the weekend and when I return to the land of the wired, I learn that the US is considering returning to death squads. (or at least returning publicly). I don't have the capacity to address the actual horror that this represents, I'm just going to focus on the words.
A question I've asked before, only to be disappointed with teh answer: Has the Admin finally gone too far? Again, in this case, I'd love to believe that Ameican's have no stomach for death squads, but I'm not sure. In thinking about the groups, I hope that Democrats only ever refer to these groups as Death Squads. Newsweek uses the term The Salvador Option. The Salvador Option makes it seem like an entree, at a fancy restaurant.
Death Squad. That's what it is. We are promoting teams of people who go around and torture and terrorize others. Death squad. The inclination is to call it by it's other name...terrorist, as the proposed actions fall well within most definitions of the term. But I'd really be wary of the term "terrorist death squad." My sense is that terrorist no longer describes a set of actions but rather a perceived race, ethnicity, religious affiliation. So describing Americans leading terrorist death squads only makes the left look hysterical and the cognitive dissonance will get the message lost. So death squads it is. Thoughts....
UPDATED.
This applies to something I've been thinking for a while now. I think that the calculus being used by a lot of people goes something like this. What is the harm (real or perceived) that our enemies (whomever they are) wish us? The answer pushed by this administration is death and the destruction of our way of life. So what measures are morally justified in the attempt to thwart this? Answer: Anything short of "their" level of evil is morally appropriate. But because all our actions are taken in prevention of some evil X they are imbued with noble intention and therefore can never be so evil as the actions they seek to prevent. Therefore no matter what we do it is more moral than the actions we seek to prevent. So Abu Ghraib is fine because it's not as bad as a rape room, or September 11th. And death squads are fine because:
"Their aim is to establish a fascist theocracy. Our aim is free elections. If we need to kill them to do so, it is a righteous fight." (From Lucianne.com, a right wing site)
Any thoughts on how we get out of this moral do loop.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
How to get out of the loop: One has to change moral justification systems.
As long as one uses utilitarian ethics (actions are right or wrong based on their effects) then we'll keep saying that the lesser of two evils is a good.
If we switch to principle driven ethics, then we have to admit that what we're doing is wrong. Assasination squads are wrong. So is blowing up cars to kill people. So is stealing bubble gum. This failure to act based on princple is the largest criticism of US government action and policy. Supporting a non-democratic Saudi government because it gets us cheap and reliable oil shows that the US government, despite its rhetoric about freedom, democracy, human rights, really just cares about money. When self interested benficial outcomes are placed ahead of uphlding core principles (torturing prisoners is wrong, people are entitled to due process...), one loses moral authority.
So get people to operate on principle. That'll change the debate.
Right, but how does one counteract the prevailing notion that if I do something slightly less bad in the prevention of a greater evil that it's justified.
Leavy, I don't agree with your formulation. There really aren't that many people who use that as their operating logic for justifying these activities. Sadly, a pretty sizable percentage of people - here, or anywhere - have a built-in suspicion of the Other which can be ratcheted up to fear or hatred pretty quickly.
What repurcussions did the Death Squads' use in Central America have, politically, in this country? Answer: none. It was the extra-legal funding procedures, combined with being in cahoots with a truly hated Other (Iran) that ended up as a political liability. But other than some appointees who lost their jobs - who were later pardoned, by the way, and mostly have achieved even GREATER prominence since (see North, Oliver, also filed under Great American Treasonists Beloved by the Right Wing) - even Iran-Contra didn't have as severe political ramifications as one might assume it should've.
So the answer, sadly, is that since Death Squads are yet another remove from direct American action - and people are surprisingly nonplussed about torture, even by Americans - this is not a bridge too far for this Administration.
Post a Comment