Where is the US going, legally?
Actually, this post was actually written two weeks ago. As it is, the story remains the same. I was going to revise it to make it more comprehensive analysis of the US legal system and how it relates to military practices and what-not. I might still do that in the future, but I'm going to go ahead and post this now.
=========== =============== ===============
They used to teach that the American judicial system is the means of protecting our civil rights and liberties; that due process was a right, and that its violation is a violation against justice; and, that because you are judged by your peers, judgement will be fair.
Well...not so much anymore, I guess. Yeah, I know. We're in a state of war (where, exactly?). Civil liberties (of certain groups) are not more important than national security, yadda, yadda, yadda.
I'm not buying it. The legal system is an institution that embodies the fundamental principles of the constitution and the system of governance. The precedents set in the past affect how decisions are made today; the precedents we set today will influence how law is approached tomorrow.
Yes, a time of war is a time of trial, but let's be real about this. If at the most critical times we cannot stick to what we claim to value, then what/who are we? The principle of liberty and justice, embodied by the legal system and symbolized by the Statue of Liberty and her legacy, are under threat, from the inside. People who respect military power and martial law over civil liberties are using the notion of national security to undermine constitutionally protected rights.
'National security' has throughout history been used to justify some of the most agregious crimes against human rights and demonized individuals and groups. Years later, when we study the affects of such decisions and actions, we are left wondering how a nation wide hysteria was unleashed.
Now, I'm not saying that the US is going to follow in the footsteps of psychopathic leaders in a lot of other countries, but there is reason to be alarmed. A policy of keeping your hands clean while transfering prisoners of war to other countries known to use torture is not a good sign.
Terrorism suspects may be detained forever - Global Terrorism - www.smh.com.au
=========== =============== ===============
They used to teach that the American judicial system is the means of protecting our civil rights and liberties; that due process was a right, and that its violation is a violation against justice; and, that because you are judged by your peers, judgement will be fair.
Well...not so much anymore, I guess. Yeah, I know. We're in a state of war (where, exactly?). Civil liberties (of certain groups) are not more important than national security, yadda, yadda, yadda.
I'm not buying it. The legal system is an institution that embodies the fundamental principles of the constitution and the system of governance. The precedents set in the past affect how decisions are made today; the precedents we set today will influence how law is approached tomorrow.
Yes, a time of war is a time of trial, but let's be real about this. If at the most critical times we cannot stick to what we claim to value, then what/who are we? The principle of liberty and justice, embodied by the legal system and symbolized by the Statue of Liberty and her legacy, are under threat, from the inside. People who respect military power and martial law over civil liberties are using the notion of national security to undermine constitutionally protected rights.
'National security' has throughout history been used to justify some of the most agregious crimes against human rights and demonized individuals and groups. Years later, when we study the affects of such decisions and actions, we are left wondering how a nation wide hysteria was unleashed.
Now, I'm not saying that the US is going to follow in the footsteps of psychopathic leaders in a lot of other countries, but there is reason to be alarmed. A policy of keeping your hands clean while transfering prisoners of war to other countries known to use torture is not a good sign.
Terrorism suspects may be detained forever - Global Terrorism - www.smh.com.au
posted by smokey spice at 4:59 AM
8 Comments:
from one who shares the frustration... this reminds me of one of my favorite quotes:
"God, grant me the serenity to accept those things i cannot change; to change those that i can, and the wisdom to know the difference." :)
... i screwed up the quote. way to kill the moment eh? lol :) ....CORRECTION *ahem* : "God, grant me the serenity to accept thoses things i cannot change, the STRENGTH to change those things i can, and the wisdom to know the difference..." there we go :)
... i screwed up the quote. way to kill the moment eh? lol :) ....CORRECTION *ahem* : "God, grant me the serenity to accept thoses things i cannot change, the STRENGTH to change those things i can, and the wisdom to know the difference..." there we go :)
lol...thanks for the correction. I know the quote, and it is a favorite as well. But .e!manie, you have to check my message to you in that other comments section and respond to my proposition. I hope the answer is yes, but I would understand another answer (sadly). ;)
Peace Out.
a couple thoughts:
you talk about setting precidents, well the united states has always suspended liberties in times of war. this is neither special or too worrisome -- and no, that's not me saying that i think that internment was cool. but i am going to keep this brief. what makes this situation is that we are "at war" without really being at war. this open-ended war begs the question of "how long will we suspend our liberties for?"
of course, for me, law and precidents have little to do with anything. but i just felt that your argument was flawed.
hmm thought:
law precedents have a lot to do with everything... as they set the foundation for what future laws, legal decisions, etc will be based on.
if the suspension of civil liberties (to this extent)..is normal, it begs the question of what civil liberties are? what their purpose is, if they're going to be suspended at moments notice?.... im not saying rights are absolute, yet there must be some sort of consistency in order to take things seriously...
secondly, ive always understood civil liberties to be one of the cornerstones of a liberal democratic society,...doesn't it seem slightly hypocritical to be "spreading" such "democratic" values within "rogue" states, when we haven't even mastered their proper implementation at home?....
i don't want to be argumentative here. really i was just poking a hole in an old friend's claim. but if you like, you can look back at american history, and you will see that the same country that has granted these liberties has taken them away during every single war -- to different degrees of course. it's nice to wallow in the world of idealism, but you can't ever forget to look at the world that we live in an see it as it is.
i often wonder why it is that people spend so much more time trying to mold the world the way they want it to be rather than learning to live in it the way it wants them to be. but i fear i will never understand that.
on the other thing, when i say i don't care, i was more saying that laws and precidents are for the people that care about living their life in accordance with law. i just live mine based on what i think is right and wrong, and i am not too interested in a government helping me out in that department.
What's really ironic for me right now is that, based on my relationship with Jeames and what little I know of
e!manie, I could just imagine you two having one of the conversations I generally have with Jeames. lol. It's all good for me. e!manie, meet Jeames; Jeames, meet
e!manie.
Really, I always appreciate your input James, whether its pointing out logic issues or derailing the entire discussion to other things and eventually confusing me out of any point I had intended to make.
Other than the fact that ideals are just more pleasant in thought than reality ever has been, I think another reason that people focus on how the world ought to be, is to understand where things are wrong.
Ideals, by definition, are impossible to reach, but serve as a general guide towards where we would like to be or head towards. Is it possible to know your deficiencies without some ideal to contrast the reality with?
Really, it's the same as asking why there is organized religion, or need for religion. To an extent, I think people don't want to accept that this--this world, this life, this moment--will be over when its over period.
Look at the sayings "Ignorance is bliss" and Marx's depiction of religion as "opium for the masses". When I think about them, I see a theme of shunning reality, responsibility, or pragmatism.
Ignorance is bliss because knowledge, while prized as power, often comes with a sense of accountability to the self and to society and to the world. Knowledge of reality is a burden too heavy for some, and others don't know what to do with it yet still can't ignore it. What's you know something, you know it. You can try to talk yourself out of knowing it, but you can never unknow it.
"Opium for the masses"--yes, it gives those who feel powerless hope for something supernatural, something more powerful than what we see when we open our eyes, something bigger than the powers that currently run the world and our lives. We just want something more than this, I think.
Post a Comment
<< Home