CIA & Torture, Camus and His German Friend

I wish I were uncynical enough to be surprised by what was contained in the summary report on torture from the Senate Select Subcommittee on Intelligence.  Hell, I’d settle for being uncynical enough to think that it contributes significantly to reform.  I initially used the word "naive" for "uncynical" but it's not naive to hope - it just gets tiresome sometimes.

I have a whole long essay in my head having to do with destroying your principles in order to support the structures that are supposed to protect those principles.  I’ll probably get to it in some ordered fashion, but at the present time, it amounts to noise.  I should do it, because I think I have some small insights to share, but not now.

What keep slipping into the center of my mind at the moment are four essays by Albert Camus entitled “Letters to a German Friend” in which he speaks about the consequences of subordinating not only the individual but also morality for the good of the state.  They were first published in 1945 but are, at least ostensibly, written for the period at the outset of World War II.

For now, I’ll just leave you with the beginning paragraph of the first letter:

You said to me: "The greatness of my country is beyond price. Anything is good that contributes to its greatness. And in a world where everything has lost its meaning, those who, like us young Germans, are lucky enough to find a meaning in the destiny of our nation must sacrifice everything else." I loved you then, but at that point we diverged. "No," I told you, "I cannot believe that everything must be subordinated to a single end. There are means that cannot be excused. And I should like to be able to love my country and still love justice. I don't want just any greatness for it, particularly a greatness born of blood and falsehood. I want to keep it alive by keeping justice alive." You retorted: "Well, you don't love your country."

Hating the "hate" - or something like that

How is is we've gotten to the point that, whatever side of the current political/social/religious/etc. divides we're on, any person who holds an opinion opposite ours is a "hater?"

No group is spared the indignity of large numbers of their rank and file seeming to be incapable of any more intelligent, mature, and productive dialog than ad hominem attacks, name-calling, and puerile accusations that the other person is a "hater."  I put it in quotes because most of the time, the writer or speaker (in my seldom humble opinion) seems to have no idea what hate is when they encounter it.

Yes, there are dark, hate-filled people out there, who are angered by anything that they think threatens them or their sense of status quo.  But not everyone who has similar reservations is a "hater."

For example - on the issue of gay marriage.  It IS hateful to say "Those damn gays are trying to destroy the sacred institution of marriage!!"  It is NOT hateful to say "I have problems with extending the definition of marriage to same sex unions."  There's a world of difference between the two, but some people choose not to see it.  

On the other side, it ISN'T hateful to say, "I don't understand how you can impose your standards on other people's relationships."  It IS hateful to say "You're all just a bunch of fascists, unable to deal with your own sexuality, so you try to repress mine!!"  Clearly, there is a difference in tone and intensity, and the people who say one are not the same people who say the other.

There's a great middle ground between this emotional violence and passivity.  I think sometimes our society is immersed in a mixture of co-dependence, with vast groups dependent upon someone else for their sense of well being, and passive-aggressive behavior, where people don't communicate boundaries, they just sit on their thumbs until they've been "pushed too far" and lash out in anger.

I know for a fact that it's possible to firmly, but calmly and respectfully, discuss matters of concern.  I've had plenty of experiences where discussions go from frustration and alienation to respectful disagreement, where both parties retain their personal power and neither ends up backed into a corner, angry and fearful.  Unfortunately, too many people either lack the confidence that allow this, or are simply unwilling to make this effort.

Sometimes I get angry over that fact (nothing *makes* me angry - I choose to be or not be), but more often I am fearful (not *made* fearful, but ... ) over the consequences for our society.

Both sides act like they're on a sinking ship, afraid to let loose of anything for fear they'll be lost.  But if they're both on the verge of losing, who's left to win?

I don't have to agree with you.  I don't even have to like you or respect you.  But for the sake of my personal integrity, I have to treat you with respect for your valid concerns, uncoupled from your possible excesses.  For my sake, I have to be willing to express myself fairly and firmly at the same time.  Will our disagreements magically go away?  Not at all.  But we'll learn to live with them better.

I'll end with two quotes I firmly embrace:

“If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in each man's life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility” - Henry Wadsworth Longfellow.

"I shall not try to change anything that I think or anything that you think (insofar as I can judge of it) in order to reach a reconciliation that would be agreeable to all.  On the contrary, what I feel like telling you today is that the world needs real dialogue, that falsehood is just as much the opposite of dialogue as silence, and that the only possible dialogue is the kind between people who remain what they are and speak their minds." - Albert Camus