Deconstructing my thoughts.
Moral absolutism in the age of terror
Published Thursday, August 25, 2005 by Gabriel | E-mail this post
Today I read Joe's recent blog entry titled "Moral relativity in the age of terror". With a big sexy title like that I got all geared up to read a meticulously crafted article perhaps laying out the glaring moral contradictions and fallacies in the left's doctrine on fighting the war against Islamic extremism. I guess that was a silly expectation to begin with, especially considering that there probably isn't even any clearly articulated and identifiable doctrine on fighting Islamic extremism that could be broadly attributed to the entire "left". But at the very least I did expect Joe to hit me with something thought-provoking, and maybe even controversial.
Joe's article was a terse, heavy criticism of the human rights group Amnesty International for a report issued on human rights violations in Iraq, titled "Iraq - In cold blood: abuses by armed groups". Joe's issue with the report seems to be two fold: 1) Amnesty's usage of the term "armed groups" in place of "terrorists" and 2) Amnesty's reporting of human rights violations committed by US troops, which Joe refers to as "obscene on their face". Joe backs up his categorical rejection of Amnesty's report on U.S. troop violations by making statements like: "American troops do not detonate bombs in the middle of a group of children collecting candy." which although true seems to be the rebuttal of a claim that was never made in the Amnesty report. The examples of U.S. violations that Amnesty does site are well known and widely reported cases such as the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. The Amnesty report unequivocally condemns the insurgent attacks targeting civilians referring to them as "perfidious", "marked by appalling brutality" and uses the strongest possible language by describing the insurgent attacks on civilians as war crimes and crimes against humanity. The report is lengthy and grim in it's documentation of human rights violations committed by the "armed groups" or insurgents. In the brief section of the report that does address U.S. military human rights abuses, the report focuses on recommending that the U.S. military apply humanitarian law to detainees, and take extra precautions in the use of "proportional" force to mitigate harm to civilians and non-combatants. Recommendations that I would say are coherent with a policy to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis, and steps that our Military is probably actively improving.
I see no problem with Amnesty's rational for using the term "armed groups". It's clear to anyone who even skims over the report that Amnesty is also calling the "armed groups" war criminals and accusing them of crimes against humanity. In that sense, Joe's definition of a "terrorist" is no different than Amnesty's definition of an "armed group". Slamming Amnesty for the minutia of their semantics just seems like Joe is reaching far and wide for reasons to dicredit them.
After reading Joe's article I was left with the impression that Amnesty's report must have been, in a nut-shell, giving the U.S. a big "F" and the insurgents a "C+" or maybe "B-" on their human rights record. But after reading the Amnesty report I couldn't reconcile the disconnect between Joe's harsh criticisms of Amnesty International and the reality of their report. Joe concludes his article by stating: "Amnesty is so blinded of their hatred of America and its president that they can no longer tell right from wrong." I'm left wondering what the basis for that claim is, and how he can conclude that a group whose very existance is dedicated to the protection of human rights is engaging in moral relativism. Amnesty International's stance on human rights is one of the few consistently applied moral absolutes. They defend the human rights of all people, everywhere.
Joe Scarborough demonstrates a great moral absolute of his own. It seems that Joe's position is that America can do no wrong, that, by definition, everything America does is right since it is righteous in its fight against terror. It's only from that position of intransigent support of American policy that anyone could conclude that Amnesty's report is obscene and that Amnesty harbors hatred towards America.
Joe's article was a terse, heavy criticism of the human rights group Amnesty International for a report issued on human rights violations in Iraq, titled "Iraq - In cold blood: abuses by armed groups". Joe's issue with the report seems to be two fold: 1) Amnesty's usage of the term "armed groups" in place of "terrorists" and 2) Amnesty's reporting of human rights violations committed by US troops, which Joe refers to as "obscene on their face". Joe backs up his categorical rejection of Amnesty's report on U.S. troop violations by making statements like: "American troops do not detonate bombs in the middle of a group of children collecting candy." which although true seems to be the rebuttal of a claim that was never made in the Amnesty report. The examples of U.S. violations that Amnesty does site are well known and widely reported cases such as the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. The Amnesty report unequivocally condemns the insurgent attacks targeting civilians referring to them as "perfidious", "marked by appalling brutality" and uses the strongest possible language by describing the insurgent attacks on civilians as war crimes and crimes against humanity. The report is lengthy and grim in it's documentation of human rights violations committed by the "armed groups" or insurgents. In the brief section of the report that does address U.S. military human rights abuses, the report focuses on recommending that the U.S. military apply humanitarian law to detainees, and take extra precautions in the use of "proportional" force to mitigate harm to civilians and non-combatants. Recommendations that I would say are coherent with a policy to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis, and steps that our Military is probably actively improving.
I see no problem with Amnesty's rational for using the term "armed groups". It's clear to anyone who even skims over the report that Amnesty is also calling the "armed groups" war criminals and accusing them of crimes against humanity. In that sense, Joe's definition of a "terrorist" is no different than Amnesty's definition of an "armed group". Slamming Amnesty for the minutia of their semantics just seems like Joe is reaching far and wide for reasons to dicredit them.
After reading Joe's article I was left with the impression that Amnesty's report must have been, in a nut-shell, giving the U.S. a big "F" and the insurgents a "C+" or maybe "B-" on their human rights record. But after reading the Amnesty report I couldn't reconcile the disconnect between Joe's harsh criticisms of Amnesty International and the reality of their report. Joe concludes his article by stating: "Amnesty is so blinded of their hatred of America and its president that they can no longer tell right from wrong." I'm left wondering what the basis for that claim is, and how he can conclude that a group whose very existance is dedicated to the protection of human rights is engaging in moral relativism. Amnesty International's stance on human rights is one of the few consistently applied moral absolutes. They defend the human rights of all people, everywhere.
Joe Scarborough demonstrates a great moral absolute of his own. It seems that Joe's position is that America can do no wrong, that, by definition, everything America does is right since it is righteous in its fight against terror. It's only from that position of intransigent support of American policy that anyone could conclude that Amnesty's report is obscene and that Amnesty harbors hatred towards America.
2 Responses to “Moral absolutism in the age of terror”
Leave a Reply
About me
- I'm Gabriel
- From
- My profile
ATOM 0.3
Previous posts
Links
Serious Blogs
Humor Blogs
Useful Blogs
I am so happy to have found your wonderful blog. It has been a while since I have looked foward to reading someone else's opinion.
Keep your angry honesty comming.
Your comment's are irrational and smug. I would not recommend any future publications. Very disappointed.