THE BELL CURVE:Ends and means

dpt-bellcurve24TextLS271CNION THE WEB

To comment on this column, go to www.dailypilot.com and click on “Blogs and Columns.” Then click on the column and scroll to the bottom to find the comments field.

In a letter published in the Pilot last week, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher wrote, “I hope the public pays attention to the differences highlighted in Orange County Democratic Party Chairman Frank Barbaro’s May 14 commentary.”

I’d like to tip an enthusiastic glass to that sentiment. I hope so too.

One of the most useful purposes a community newspaper can serve is to provide a forum for the debate of local issues and the philosophy and ethics of governing. When that debate regresses into personal attack, the usefulness turns sour. But in the exchange Rohrabacher cited, that didn’t happen. Both he and Barbaro stuck to issues. As a result, voters who take the time to read this mini-debate are offered some clear choices to embrace or reject. And to enter the debate if they are so moved.

The issue that sparked the exchange was Rohrabacher’s defense of our use of “extraordinary rendition” in a congressional hearing and later in the Pilot on the grounds that “it is justified to suggest that those who want to neuter our defenses to save one or two people who may have been mistakenly targeted may be creating a scenario that could result in the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent lives.”

In other words — and in addition to the excessive rhetoric — tough luck to those people who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and were innocently targeted, but that’s how the ball bounces.

You win some and you lose some. Like, maybe, your life.

Our history is full of examples of the respect in which we hold individual human life. While I was in the South Pacific during World War II, for example, an American admiral put a whole flotilla at risk to rescue a pilot who had run out of fuel and put down in the ocean before he could make it to his carrier. The rescue was successful and the consequences slight, and the admiral’s decision was more praised than criticized. Or note the growing list of state governors who have stopped legal executions after learning that innocent people had been put to death on their watch.

We have both a history and a legal document called the Bill of Rights to codify this respect. Rohrabacher would suspend both on the grounds that “anyone who advocates policies that would emasculate America’s ability to protect our citizens from a terrorist attack should be prepared to reap the consequences of such a position.”

Once again, in other words, if things don’t turn out the way we want, it’s the fault of all of us who refuse to condone torture as a legitimate tool of this country or the open-ended incarceration of “targeted innocents” who are denied the most basic rights so deeply implanted in our political system. Rohrabacher would have us toughen up. If the terrorists won’t play by the rules, neither should we.

He apparently sees it as a sign of strength when we send an army of agents into Italy, for example, to live high for a month before they kidnap a terrorism suspect and take him to another country, allegedly to be tortured before they find out he’s no terrorist at all. This is a show of weakness, not strength.

When terrorists force us to abdicate our greatest strengths, they’ve won. We not only play their game badly, we do it from a compromised place of ineptness and guilt. We lead from weakness rather than strength.

Rohrabacher wrote, “Those who demand that terrorists be given due process rights put American lives at risk.” Barbaro wrote: “I hope there are certain values we share. For one, treating people with dignity and respect, even when they disagree with us.”

Rohrabacher wants our leadership anchored in tough guys who are willing to discard our laws and human rights in the bigger cause of protecting America and Americans from terrorists. The ends, in this view, support whatever means are deemed necessary.

Those of us who disagree also want tough leadership — but want it anchored firmly in our greatest strengths: our laws and dedication to human rights. In this view, the ends we seek are best served by the means that reflect who we are and what we believe.

Clear differences to be pondered at election time. In that pondering, it might also be relevant to ask how successful Rohrabacher’s approach has been in bringing democracy and stability to Iraq.