【参考范文】
One of the most dangerous misconceptions that people hold today is the idea that our enemies are fundamentally different from us. It is easy, to a certain extent, to understand how such a belief comes about. Most human societies must kill in order to survive, but must at the same time prohibit particular kinds of killing. Throughout our history, humans have been meat-eaters, and so must kill and eat animals in order to thrive (the minority of vegetarians notwithstanding). Also, societies must often defend themselves against violent enemies, necessitating the occasional use of deadly force. On the other hand, civilized societies must prohibit most killing within their own ranks, so that their populations do not die out or suffer needlessly.
So how do humans deal with this dichotomy: the need to kill, at least occasionally, to survive, and the need to prohibit killing within its ranks? Simply, humans have developed the concepts of us and them. It is okay to kill and eat animals because they do not have the value of humans. Perhaps, too, a society may justify the killing of animals by adopting a belief system that says that animals are gifts to humans from a divine being or beings.
In much the same way, humans are inclined to put their enemies in the category of other, that is, less than human, or to believe that a divine being has given them permission to kill those enemies. Paradoxically, those religious systems are also very likely to have severe restrictions against killing other human beings. In practice, most cultures regard these as restrictions merely against killing their own kind. However, this type of thinking is counterproductive to the goal of building more just and functional societies. If one society can easily categorize another as an enemy and thereby reduce its foes to the status of animal, then the concept of universal human rights is abolished.
We see the dangers inherent in denying the humanity of our enemies in the United States today. Although the American Constitution champions the concept of inalienable rights that are due to all human beings, the United States Senate is actively engaged in undermining those rights. The right of habeas corpus, that is, the right of a person in custody to seek a hearing to determine whether or not he or she is being held justly, is a cornerstone of the United States Constitution. It is regarded as a fundamental element of a just society. Yet the Senate is seeking to eliminate that right for foreign detainees captured in the war on terror. In other words, the mere suspicion of terrorism—not proof, but suspicion—is evidently reason enough to reduce a human being to the status of an animal. This heinous distinction of us versus them will surely have dire consequences for the United States, who will rightfully be seen as being grossly hypocritical on the matter of human rights.
Even beyond the trampling of human rights, the us versus them distinction is not even as useful in wartime as it may seem at first glance, because to defeat our enemy, we must understand our enemy. If we begin with the assumption that your enemy lacks human intelligence, desires and motivations, then we risk severely underestimating his ability. Therefore, if the United States continues down this dangerous path, it runs the risk of losing not only the moral war but the actual war.