Recently, as Terri Schiavo was slowly starved to death, there was a lot of
discussion about whether a life such as hers was worth living. If the worst
opinion of her consciousness was true–that she was incapable of thought, and
not truly responsive–was she still a person?
This reminded me of the discussion, also current, about the status of
captured accused terrorists. The Bush administration insists that they are not
recognized combatants of any nation, are not regular soldiers, and thus have no
protection and no rights under international law. It is further argued that as
they are not American citizens they have no legal rights.
In both of these cases it is assumed that one must meet certain criteria to
be considered worthy of possessing human rights; in the Schiavo case, even the
right to life.
But this is arbitrary; to some–the young and healthy–anything short of a
vibrant physical existence is deemed not worth living. If rights inhere in
anything but humanity the door is opened to all sorts of horrors. I
fear we will see this played out to its logical, and terrible, conclusion.
I have long thought that I would end my days waiting in line at the Happy
Trails Peaceful Passage Center, explaining to my hapless fellow baby boomers,
awaiting termination, just how this thing had come to pass, and where the responsibility lies.
–Daniel Nichols
I think it is quite a stretch to compare Terry Schiavo’s murder with situation of the captured accused terrorists. Terry was deprived of a basic human right- the right to life. The accused terrorists are not being refused the basics: food, water, shelter, etc. It is true that they do not have American civil rights. They appear to have been abandoned by their own governments, most likely because they were up to no good.
I mention the suspected terrorists with Terri Schiavo because in both cases human beings are deprived of their rights because they lack certain things -consciousness, citizenship, an army uniform- that the State deems necessary to possess those rights.
While it is true that the suspected terrorists have food, shelter, etc., they are also held indefinitely without formal charges, legal counsel and other things which would be theirs by right in other cases [this is true even of American citizens]. And they are subjected to interrogation methods which ordinary people, as opposed to State Department bureaucrats, would recognize as torture. Indeed, “suspected terrorist” is, like “persistant vegetative state”, a term used to dehumanize those the State wishes to deprive of rights. To accept this is to grant that it is the State, not God, which is the source of human rights.
Daniel,
Boomers took to heart: “teach your children well”, and will regret their success.
Our children learned that life and love are conditional and suffering is to be avoided at all costs, even unto death.
The pursuit of happiness is the alpha and omega of Western life and where it leads is too tragic for words. Jolting glimpses into the future come with merciless frequency. The most jarring for me came a couple of years ago during a heat wave in France. 2000 plus died during the 2week period, abandoned by families and neighbors alike.
God help us as we reaphat we sow.
Certainly suspected terrorists should be afforded basic, God-given human rights simply by virtue of the fact that they possess the human dignity inherent in us all; this includes, of course, the right not to be tortured. But the issue here seems to be that the set of rights afforded enemy combatants under the Geneva Convention is greater than this set of basic human rights, just as, say, the set of rights afforded American citizens is greater than the set of basic human rights. Or, to put it another way, just as it’s licit to prevent Venezuelans from voting in American elections, isn’t it also licit to deny suspected terrorists the advice of counsel?