Aptly, David wrote last week about the American ranking for peacefulness, which is woefully low. Thankfully, though, we have government representatives who want to help us become a more peaceful nation. One way we can improve our peacefulness, as suggested by criterion number 9 of the peacefulness index, is to respect human rights and stop perpetrating torture. To that end, Senators Feinstein and Whitehouse proposed legislation last week that would have banned spending on excessive interrogation techniques. The legislation failed, due to Bill Nelson voting against the rest of the Democrats. From The New York Times:

[…] In a closed session on May 23, two Democrats, Senators Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Dianne Feinstein of California, proposed barring spending on interrogation techniques that go beyond the Army Field Manual, which bans physical pressure or pain. Under their proposal, the only exception would have been when the president determined “that an individual has information about a specific and imminent threat.â€?

The amendment failed when Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida, joined all the Republicans in voting no. [full text]

Perhaps a conversation with Bill Nelson would be fruitful. I’d like to know what made him vote against the bill. His behavior seems to typify the American ambivalence about upholding human rights standards. We want to be the moral leaders of the world, but in our zealousness for the moral high ground, we ironically abandon the very principles which we claim to be promoting.

In some ways it comes down to basic insecurity — something that is often at the heart of relational problems. How often in my work do I see teenagers striking out at one another, convinced that the other is secretly plotting behind their back? Basic insecurity often drives aggression and bullying. Why? Because the bully does not feel secure enough about what will happen if he (or she) stops being the bully. They are afraid that without bullying, they will not have the upper hand.

But in many ways, having the upper hand as a nation or in a relationship is a precarious and dangerous position to be in. It gives you power and advantage, but it means you must not abuse your power or your underlings will rebel. Economically, America had an empire-like century, and now we are maxing out. Canada is experiencing more economic expansion than the United States. China and India are becoming increasingly strong economically and geopolitically.

What is it we’re trying to hold onto? The belief that in that hour before a bomb goes off, we’ll be able to torture the right answer out of someone in order to avert the crisis? Of course, in any circumstances of imminent threat, standards might need to be suspended, but how often does it happen that information can be extracted that can actually stop a plot?

It comes down to the paradox of acknowledging weakness, accepting vulnerability, in order to join with others and be strong. But at the moment, it appears that America, like a stubborn bully, is not ready or willing to change.