[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

This century is only a bit more than 8 years old. Perhaps you mean the 20th. There were significant changes and additions then.

Yes, thank you for the correction.

For instance, U.N. laws on torture changed significantly from applying only to SIGNATORIES to the U. N. conventions to, uselessly, stupidly, self-destructively (in my opinion) to INCLUDE JUST ABOUT ANYBODY IN THE WORLD, signer or not, specifically to "outlaw" what you consider illegal CIA interrogations. By stupidly signing on to such a broad inclusion, you abdicate legal sovereignty to a fickle "World Court" that has no particular interest in the existence of the USA.[/COLOR]

International Law believes that all people are entitled to their mental integrity. Changes like the third Geneva Convention or the UN Convention on torture are meant to establish standards to help combat torture.

I think many people just can't seem to stomach that we do live on a plant with billions of other people who also have their own interests. Instead of complaining that others don't want to play by our rules alone, we should re-learn the lost art of diplomacy.

Our laws should apply only to those who are in the purview of our social contract. Torture of US citizens would be ethically wrong by those rules so long as those citizens are not engaged in some form of overthrow of our government.

By doing so you're giving the person, rather than the law, the determination as to if their action is legal or moral. If we say as a country that we "don't torture" because of our beliefs, it makes no sense to have convenient exceptions. This is openly hypocritical.

Our morals are of no interest to "them." They have different morals and laugh at us as puny fools to offer them sanctity in morals they would destroy. And we deserve their scorn when we do so.

Quite simply, this is why we have funny little sayings to help guide us through life like about not stooping to their level.

Of course the right-wing reaction to this is to assume I must be wishing we set terrorists up in posh apartments (I'd note that Rush Limbaugh even made money sell t-shirts mocking the luxury conditions at Gitmo, hey Rush, how about you rent a cell?) but that's just phoney rhetoric. Do the minimum under the law, get the job done, be consistent. We have plenty of tools at our disposal.

So far, I am not seeing in the history of the world, that ethics, rather than power, wins struggles. It has been reputed that RELIGIOUS fervor has, in times and places, changed the course of history. But in this "long-term struggle" it is our opponent who has that fervor, and we have all but abandoned it. Which policy, which basic premise?

How much "power" did the Soviet Union pour into Afghanistan, or the US into Vietnam or Iraq?

And to what end?

Did the USSR, at one time a country with a lot of "power" crack because of an opposing hard or soft power?

Our "opponent" in this case is a relatively small group of militant fundamentalists empowered by a very large and complex organism deeply rooted in the cultures and economies of the planet. If it were possible to simply apply "power" and eradicate terror it may be practical to do so.

History has certainly demonstrated that while hard power can be useful, without balance it's useless and often counter productive.

It could very well be a sign of weakness and a chink in what they hope is the eventual crumbling. Anyway (perhaps I have an autistic trait similar to yours)--in referring to those now running our country wishing to "change that", the "that" is the U.S. being an object of jealousy and the "change" would be us becoming just one of the guys in the fraternity of nations--no better, perhaps a little worse and required to apologize for our oppressions and transgressions.

I don't think there's a desire to go that far. Certainly there is a perceived need to reduce the hubris we're often accused of, and that the neocon school of thought was built on.

Personally I believe we need to not compromise our own sovereignty, but must be very measured in policies that give the appearance of "do as I say, not as I do.

How many policy shifts toward North Korea have born fruit? I must admit, I have forgotten what our latest policy is. I remember, in the past, our policies have eventually given NK fruit rather than bearing it. Power shift in Lebanon? From whom to whom? And, again, I'm not familiar with the Green Revolution in Iran.

Obama softened the tone on NKorea and as a result we were positioned to exploit a window of opportunity. N Korean leadership and S Korean leadership recently met in a landmark event. Even the US has been having discussions with N Koreans here in the US. Granted, there's nothing definitive, but you can't influence or control adversaries from a distance.

After Obama's Middle Eastern trip we saw pro-Western factions declare the surprise majority after June elections in Lebanon. In Iran we saw the people rise up and confront their lack of civil rights in a manner not seen since the Revolution. While I wouldn't give sole credit Obama for both of these significant events (it's obviously about the people), certainly an attitude towards mutual respect has given more confidence to the masses who we share far more with than some would like to admit.

-spence