The idea for this group began with resistance to institutionalized torture. As the debate over torture has played out, it has seemed to me that too many of us have lost touch with the fundamental underlying principle which renders torture unacceptable politically as well as morally and practically. There are two sides to this issue: the courage to insist on being treated with respect and the discipline to treat others with respect. The intention is to strengthen our commitment in both these areas in support of one goal--a society in which everyone enjoys the dignity inherent in being human.
Indeed, this right to be treated with dignity was cited as a primary justification for the founding of America:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
I believe strongly that a necessary connection exists between the way we treat one another in our daily lives and the behavior of distant, powerful forces. If we the people forget that everyone deserves to be treated with dignity, then we should not be surprised that our government begins to stray from this principle. If we the people fail to strengthen our understanding of this concept through practice and discussion, we will fail to see violations of the principle with clarity. We will fail to appreciate the profound dangers of allowing government forces to violate the dignity, even of those who would do us harm.
As used by the founders, the word "unalienable" has a specific and quite powerful meaning. Unalienable rights are inherent, not subject to change by man or nature. They cannot be given up or transferred, even by the individual. The state does not grant these rights--power flows in precisely the opposite direction: the state derives its very meaning from its duty to protect the unalienable rights of the individual:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men
The Declaration of Independence expresses the fundamental principle, the Constitution enshrines it through the 5th and 14th Amendment:
source
("[T]he Due Process Clause protects [the unalienable liberty recognized in the Declaration of Independence] rather than the particular rights or privileges conferred by specific laws or regulations." SANDIN v. CONNER, _ U.S. _ (1995)
The fundamental nature of unalienable rights is expressed even more powerfully in the notion of jus cogens, as laid out firmly by Marjorie Cohn in her May 6, 2008 testimony before Congress:
What does torture have in common with genocide, slavery, and wars of aggression? They are all jus cogens. Jus cogens is Latin for "higher law" or "compelling law." This means that no country can ever pass a law that allows torture. There can be no immunity from criminal liability for violation of a jus cogens prohibition. The United States has always prohibited the use of torture in our Constitution, laws executive statements and judicial decisions. We have ratified three treaties that all outlaw torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. When the United States ratifies a treaty, it becomes part of the Supreme Law of the Land under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.
The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, says, "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification for torture."
Whether someone is a POW or not, he must always be treated humanely; there are no gaps in the Geneva Conventions. He must be protected against torture, mutilation, cruel treatment, and outrages upon personal dignity, particularly humiliating and degrading treatment under, Common Article 3.
It is telling and disturbing that immediately prior to Cohn's testimony, Senator Charles Schumer stated,
I think very few people in America would state that torture should never, ever be used . . .
He may have been correct in his assumption that few Americans understand either the founding principle from which the state derives its power or the obligation of all, from highest to lowest, to obey the simplist of laws, much less laws which are so fundamental as to apply to anyone, anywhere, under any circumstances. Perhaps more disturbing, Schumer's off-hand remark implies that the decision to engage in state-sanctioned torture--behavior which radically violates both the individual and the social contract--may be subject to the whims of popular opinion. Look how far even one of our more reasonable Senators has strayed from the notion of unalienable rights.
It is not just Senator Schumer who has forgotten the correct relation between the state and the individual, who glibly imagines the state breaking laws, who easily forgets that the very purpose of the state is to secure for individuals freedom from such practices as torture. It is not just our civil servants who seem to have forgotten that inherent rights are not dependent on changing circumstances or good behavior, that even the most vicious criminal retains his inherent right to be treated with as much dignity as possible consonant with protecting the rights of others. Most Americans seem to have forgotten these things.
Torture, genocide, and slavery are the most fundamental violations of human dignity. Along the spectrum are such things as invasion of privacy, degrading prison conditions, poisoning of the environment, exploitation of labor, and wars of aggression. All of these concerns and more can be fruitfully analyzed and clarified by considering the ways in which each violates the inherent rights of the individual. Insulting and dehumanizing language are in the same family.
It is more than an analogy to connect these matters with our own behavior on this political blog. The process through which the state comes to forget the humanity of individuals derives from the psychological process through which individuals come to see others as less than human, deserving of less than full respect. If we are to live in a society which honors the right of each individual to be treated with dignity, then we must realize that principles of law proceed out of our understanding and not the other way around--we need to practice treating others with dignity, thus empowering our understanding with practical clarity and heightening our sensitivity so that we immediately identify as problematic the failure of other individuals or agencies of authority to treat a person as he is entitled to be treated. If we are to live in a humane society founded on enlightenment principles, we must see the principle of inherent dignity as inviolate, both in our government and in our personal lives.
Tomorrow I hope to discuss these ideas as they apply to our behavior on dailykos, and particularly to our behavior in this group.