Friday, March 21, 2008

Deep thoughts

Believe it or not, I do have them. Occasionally. Ok, rarely. I've found that it's not...beneficial...for me to think too deeply about things most of the time.


I caught
  • The Good Shepard
  • on HBO last night.

    Laconic and self-contained, Edward Wilson heads CIA covert operations during the Bay of Pigs. The agency suspects that Castro was tipped, so Wilson looks for the leak. As he investigates, he recalls, in a series of flashbacks, his father's death, student days at Yale (poetry; Skull and Bones), recruitment into the fledgling OSS, truncated affairs, a shotgun marriage, cutting his teeth on spy craft in London, distance from his son, the emergence of the Cold War, and relationships with agency, British, and Soviet counterparts. We watch his idealism give way to something else: disclosing the nature of that something else is at the heart of the film's narration as he closes in on the leak.

    I thought it was a pretty fascinating look into the beginnings of the CIA.

    There's one particular scene in which the CIA uses (what I assume was)
  • waterboarding
  • on a man who they believe is a Russian spy. It didn't exactly look like a fun experience. But I suppose that's the whole idea, eh?

    Therein lies the kick-start of my particular "deep thought" of the day.


    Or rather, torture in the name of national security and/or during war-time.

    Obviously, I don't think torture just for the sake of torture is a good thing. And obviously I'm pretty naive when it comes to the politics of war strategy. But...ok, here's my conundrum.

    Those that abhor torture say it isn't "humane". Ok, I'll give ya that. But I'd like for someone to tell me just exactly what's "humane" about war. Are bombs that kill and maim hundreds of people at a time humane? Is blowing someone's head off with a high-caliber bullet somehow more humane?

    How could you possibly have a humane war? Isn't that oxymoron?

    Those that abhor torture say that we (the US) should be somehow more moral than our enemies...should set some kinda example. Uh...why? Maybe it's just me, but if given a choice of being moral or being alive...well...I might not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but...well...fuck morality. I choose life.

    Just who the hell appointed the United States as the guardian of the world's morality, anyway? Are we that egotistical? That bloatedly self-important? Don't answer that. Of course we are. Our "Christian" background dictates that we be more moral than all the rest, doesn't it? (/sarcasm)

    Do you really believe that us trying to set some kind of humane example of war to the rest of the world is gonna make one damn bit of difference? Has it made any difference in the past?

    Is it better to be right...or alive?


    Post a Comment

    Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

    << Home