Webster's defines retribution as recompense, reward, or the dispensing or receiving of reward or punishment, esp. in the hereafter. The Compact Oxford Dictionary says it is punishment inflicted in the spirit of moral outrage or personal vengeance.
I'm all for retribution for the dictator wannabes in the Bush administration who thought it was their God given right to take the United States down the road of torturing people. Now I am not naive enough to think it has never happened before. There will always be sadists in our midst who will do this kind of thing. However, to make it "legal", to make it "policy", to make it "common" for America is beyond all comprehension of a sane and moral society.
My little quibble here is the use of the term retribution. While the definitions are appropriate, the word has taken on connotations for vengeance, sometimes at the price of reason. Why not say justice? When a person is charged with assault or theft or even murder, we call it justice to hold the perpetrators accountable for their actions. Why is it not justice in this case. These people broke not only U.S. law, but international law. They broke agreements made between many countries decades ago. Why is it not justice to hold them accountable?
No comments:
Post a Comment