Why We Can Never Compromise On Principle
One year after the killing of Osama Bin Laden, I have to wonder what America has become?
Once again, CBS TV 60 Minutes was the focus of an American debate one year after the killing of Osama Bin Laden. A CIA interrogator, Puerto Rican American Jose Rodriquez, admitted on the TV show that his unit used torture, claiming it extracted information from al-Qaeda prisoners.
Rodriquez wouldn't call the measures "torture," although most other international agencies would. He insisted the "enhanced interrogation techniques" produced results and asserts information that prevented other acts of terrorism against the United States.
Well, I wonder how many enemies of the United States were watching the same program because it spelled out the American case for when torture can and should be used.
In other words, the next time the United States in involved in a war like the one we fought in Vietnam in the 1960s, our captures could find justification to torture our soldiers.
The justification was the horror of the terrorism al-Qaeda used against Americans, so therefore Americans were justified in using torture against our own prisoners. Al-Qaeda took the lives of 3,000 Americans on Sept. 11, 2001.
Yet what price did America pay to force prisoners to confess to crimes? When a prisoner is denied the right to legal representation, how do we know they are truly guilty of the crimes we suppose?
Palestinians claim Israelis use torture against prisoners, too.
So I wonder, where does righteousness fall in the case of torture used by one nation against another? Is it the issue of who struck first? Or, is it an issue of racial superiority? Is it an issue of anger and animosity? Rodriquez repeated during the interview the horrors of what the terrorists did to Americans, therefore he felt that using the techniques against the prisoners was justified.
I am not sure when the line of principle can be compromised — and I am not sure if principle should ever be compromised.
Rodriquez admits that he doesn't know if the techniques prevented any acts of terrorism. There was no nuclear weapon exploded on the streets of New York. There was no major anthrax massacre. He even admitted that he destroyed the video tapes of the torture to protect himself and his colleagues in the CIA. It sounds familiar, a bit, doesn't it?
What did we really prevent?
I believe that people must live by principle.
A good example is in the battle between Palestinians and Israelis. As a Palestinian, if I believe in principle, I should be able to stand up and speak out against the murder of Israeli civilians by Palestinian guerrillas.
It's not the murder that is the issue but the honesty of the principle of what one believes. I believe it is wrong to murder innocent people.
How can I speak out against the killing of Palestinians by Israeli soldiers or settlers if I cannot speak out against the killing of an Israeli civilian?
How can anyone denounce terrorism if they use the instruments of terrorism as a means of their own defense? It undermines the morality of what good people represent.
We do not need to become the terrorists in order to defeat terrorism. I believe America stands for the essence of human rights and freedom. I believe that, when America violates its principles and uses torture to force our enemies to do what we want, what makes us any different from the terrorists?
I know many Israelis do not support the brutality of the occupation, or even the building of the Wall that Israelis claim may deny rights to Palestinian civilians but is necessary to prevent terrorism.
But I also believe that many Israelis too easily turn away from the injustices of what the Israel government does. Because it is easy to close your eyes when extracting vengeance against someone else, using techniques that, if applied to you, would be denounced as terrorism or torture.
What do we become when we ignore the clarity of the line of principle in our behavior and respond to terrorism with anger, torture and terrorism of our own? It's something I think that Americans, Israelis, Arabs and Palestinians must ask themselves.
One year ago, our American Navy Seals shot and killed Osama Bin Laden as he sat in his home with his wives and children. He had no weapon. He did not respond with aggression.
One man killed. Was it murder? Is murder ever justified? If we can kill one Osama Bin Laden, can we kill 1,000 Osama Bin Ladens? Or 3,000 Osama Bin Ladens?
Many American, Israelis, Arabs and Palestinians may not care about these issues. They would easily and quickly use violence against the other if they thought it would protect themselves, or maybe even extract a measure of vengeance.
But it bothers me to see us walk down a dark path that has been paved by the terrorism of others.
When you define a principle and apply to your actions, deep down, you know the truth.
Ray Hanania is an award-winning Palestinian American columnist. To find out more about Ray Hanania and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM