dilate (opening to include "opposing viewpoints")

oh yes. I DO like Ani's song "Dilate." Though here I'd like to use the title in relation to combating "cultural myopia"

I came across two books from the "Opposing Viewpoints" series, one is "Human Rights" and the other is titled "Third World" and they
offer exactly what the title promises: Opposing viewpoints on debates that I think often become paralleled because of limited dialogue and tunnel vision. At first read (and they do read quick because they are really small books) I felt that the arguments presented were too brief, too "conclusive" in their simple rebuttal formats. That said, these tiny books do offer a jumping off point for further debate, which is crucial and sadly lacking in the "Expert" opinions I've come across so far. For example in the "Human Rights" book, Richard Lowry
argues "The U.S. has not violated the Geneva Convention in its
treatment of Terrorist suspects" because of what he calls "Rules of proportionality" while Michael Byers argues that the U.S. of course
has violated the Geneva Convention and is trying to manipulate the language to fit their needs: detainees are "unlawful combatants" not
prisoners of war. So why the need to differentiate, in a sense, excusing the treatment (potential human rights violations???) if the Geneva convention protocol is to be followed? For Rumsfield, the detainees have no rights, in large part due to where they are being held (Guantanamo Bay is "foreign territory" thus theoretically and conveinently out of the jurisdictional safety of U.S. laws) but once again, if there are no "violations" going on, what is there to hide?
Why can the detained not have visitors to ensure their health? What rights do they have to legal counsel and access to advocacy by non-military groups?

Perhaps these "experts" are both right in a sense. Byers in that the U.S. has violated the human rights of those being detained and Lowry in that the U.S. is using "rules of proportionality" to determine who has rights and who doesn't...

Lowry suggests that the Geneva convention protects "innocent civilians" but this logic assumes that those in power could and would choose to distinguish between the innocent and the guilty before violations occur, would it not? Is this like pre-emptive war where you strike first, based on the possibility of future attacks? There is a quote in Lowry's rebuttal that absolutely nauseates me. The quote is actually from Robrt L. Maginnis from "Insight on the News" July 15, 2002" who argues:
"Human-Rights violations did not end with World War II. We still see genocide, repression of political and ideological dissent, disregard for religious freedom, class discrimination, persecution of ethnic minorities, unjustifiable emigration controls and inhumane punishments. All of these human-rights violations will be tragically expanded around the world if terrorists are not defeated. So the United States has gone to war for the sake of human rights and freedom. This surely is a just cause. And America is respecting human rights even as she prosecutes a war to defend human rights--our military operations distinguish between combatants and noncombatants and use proportional force. On these criteria, the United States has performed admirably. Our precision weapons have spared innocent civilians and minimized collateral damage as much as possible" (74).

My first response:What planet is he living on??????
My calmer response...You have to be joking right? Our precision weapons are so smart they end up killing our service men and women along with PLENTY of civilians. Oh and look at his list of "violations" linked to terrorism, doesn't our own history mirror this list as well? What
is proportional force any way???? Proportional to what? To whom?
To the one "carpet bombing?" or to the one deciding which group of terrorists, enemy combatants, potential terrorists is the next target, the correct target or the accidental one?????
My final response...well these books certainly DO deliver on what they promise. The back cover reads: Those who do not know their opponent's arguments do not completely understand their own.

The editors of this series are right. It is so difficult to pause
(and refrain from shouting) long enough to listen to the "other side." I think though it is critical to do so, even (and perhaps especially) when what they are saying goes against every thing you believe.
Please read these books and then learn more for yourself. As I said, they are really I think a nice spring board into deeper contemplation and discussion, certainly not an end point for debate. We need the debate. We need to be able to talk about these things because silence is certainly no solution and the political rhetoric encourages an apathy equally useless. Perhaps we need to call them on their manipulations as they are as equally ignorant and laughable as Clinton's infamous "It depends on what your definition of is, is"
and stop settling for the choice between the "lesser of two evils." These articles argue along the lines of what defines America, what makes this nation great or hegemonic (depending upon your point of view) and yet these definitions are our mythology masquarading as historical truths. They are stories we tell ourselves and yet, if we don't question them and if we refuse to look honestly, openly and not avert our eyes to that which is undeniably real and at times beautiful and other times, unforgivably ugly, America's "committment" to human rights and freedom will remain exactly that...a nice story.

Peace!