Yes!!!
The life of a humble scribe like myself has its frustrations and disappointments. But every so often, I feel unbelievably blessed by being able to do what I do. And right now is one such moment. My column Zero-tolerance on torture: How hard is that? is in tomorrow’s Christian Science Monitor. And it’s already up, here, on their website.
I can’t tell you how strongly I feel about this issue. (Regular JWN readers just possibly have an inkling.) I am really grateful to my editor on the CSM Opinion page, Clara Germani, for having squeezed this one into the paper outside of my regular schedule. It was probably she, too, who picked the title, which I’m kinda fond of.
So would any of the rest of you like to join in this campaign? Like, if you’re a US citizen, you could write to your representatives in Congress? We could make signs and go hold ’em outside the political conventions?
Alternatively, if you prefer your activism to be in cyberspace, maybe you could send the column around to anyone on your lists. Call your local paper and ask them to run it… I don’t know, I just wish we could get this campaign off the ground. How hard is that, indeed?
7 thoughts on “Zero tolerance for torture: the column!”
Comments are closed.
*claps* Wonderful writing, Helena!
I am absolutely on board here!
Thank you for writing this. It needs to be said. It needs to be addressed.
However: It will not be enough to simply assert a zero tolerance for torture. It is vital that we also indicate where the line must be drawn. No bags. No handcuffs so tight they do nerve damage. No loud noises. No jeering. No photos. No deprivation of sleep, food, water, warmth, ventilation.
We must move the “line” so far back that we never get near torture!
My own concerns, shared by others I know, begin with the bags they put on people’s heads. I believe the slippery slope begins with these bags.
Putting a bag on someone’s head immediately dehumanizes the person. It has been my impression based on TV footage and news photos that soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan were provided with bags for the purpose of dehumanizing detainees.
If there is a need to question someone, then that should be done in a civil way, in an effort to enlist their cooperation and free will for the greater good of humanity. We cannot deny them the right to remain silent.
We must never deny rights, dignity, or security to others that we assert for ourselves. And the slippery slope begins right at that point.
I share your passion for this cause!
Well, Helena, despite my admitted cynicism, I am more than willing to take action and make noise about this issue. I have a mailing list to which I send information and my commentary about the situation in Iraq, and I am asked now and then to speak to groups about Iraq and what is going on there. I will send your article to my list, and will make sure to speak out on this issue in public and in private.
It’s very unlikely that anyone will be able to hold up any protest signs outside of the Republican convention unless they are pro-Bush or if by “outside” you mean somewhere deep in the heart of New Jersey.
I think it’s official that NYC has been declared “not a free speech zone” for the duration of the convention. If there’s a second Bush term, the restrictions will be extended.
Everyone: Thanks so much for your support for this campaign. Marine’s Girl, thanks for even writing about it on your great blog! (Shirin: I can resonate to your cynical monents: I have lots of ’em, too. But sometimes, I think a person just needs to do what she needs to do even if she can’t see one whit of difference in the short-term… Hard to explain, but I guess it’s what we Quakers mean when we talk about following your conscience.)
I’m a little late to the party but I’ve linked to the CSM article and to this blog. Has anyone alerted Jeanne D’Arc, of Body and Soul?
Helena,
Maybe I am a Quaker at some level. I attended every single anti-invasion (I refuse to call it a war) demonstration I could, and took every opportunity to speak and write publicly and privately against the invasion and later the occupation. When people would point out to me that nothing I did would affect the Bush regime’s actions, I told them that if I did not protest, and speak and write I would be tacitly approving what they did, and I simply could not do that.