I have recently recieved an email from someone I used to respect supporting the torture
of the Iraqi POW
s, as they would be torturing us if the situation was reversed. I sent the following message as a response:
We are supposed to be the good guys. We expect them to be barbaric, we are supposed to be better than they are because we are not barbarians.
If we simply say "they do it, so we do it" means that we are no different than they are. If that is the case, why are we there? If we are really there to "liberate" Iraq, why are we torturing militia who were not even part of Saddam's power structure when he ruled the country? They are POWs, and fall under the Geneva convention.
George Bush said we went there to close the torture rooms at that prison. Why did we reopen them?
These events have provided a greater recruiting tool for the terrorists than anything we could have ever provided. Many fence-sitting Arabs will now come down on the side of the enemy because of this.
I am a veteran, and I am ashamed of what was done. We are supposed to be the good guys, and the Constitution is supposed to apply to everyone, especially those that do not respect it, to demonstrate to them that it is a valid document that binds us all.
I am surprised that there is any debate on this topic, actually. If good
people decide that any action is justified in fighting evil
, then their good is no different from the evil they wish to destroy.
One comment I received was, "But are we supposed to be the 'good guys'? What if we're just 'our guys', in which case its the our-ness that separates us from our enemies, not our goodness."
I say to that, if that is the case, what business do we have in Iraq? What makes us different from any other imperial power? Bush said (after no WMDs were found) that we are there to liberate the Iraqi people. If we are not the bearers of freedom and human rights, why are we there?