Their guilt and shame, however, adheres not only with those who pulled the lever to keep the execrable conduct going, but with those of us who refused, for whatever reason, to call our relatives and associates on it.
For the sake of this conversation only, let’s assume that your brother-in-law Hagar (or the guy in the adjacent cubicle) loves kiddie-porn. He’s constantly surfing the web for it. Or, let’s say that your sister-in-law Hildegard (or the woman at the adjacent desk) is constantly on the hunt for 10 and 11-year old boys, to seduce. To the best of your knowledge, she’s either never been successful, or at least she’s never been caught.
I’m just not prepared to accept the proposition that anyone out there will let those behaviors go, to “keep peace within the family”, or because “I have no choice about who I work alongside”. How then is it possible to lay hold of those very same rationalizations when it comes to relatives and associates who, with their votes, said they were all for torturing human beings?
From the moment the proposal to prosecute members of the Bush administration, including George Bush, for advancing and conducting torture gained coinage, it set uneasy with me. Until we’re all prepared to at least confront our family members and associates for their endorsement of what we seem prepared to indict the administration over, my vote is to entirely close the topic to further investigation and comment. This suggestion may not sit well with most. But then, looking square into the mirror isn’t something any of us takes on easily.
— Ed Tubbs
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
