2008 Woodie Awards
Matt’s guest-blogging at Sirota’s place, and has more thoughts.
We’re going to have a lot more to say on these topics this week. More on why in a bit. For now, this Post op-ed arguing that Guantanamo detainees should not be held by the government indefinitely without trial goes very well with this Times column on the need to cease using interrogation tactics tantamount to torture in dealing with people apprehended in GWOT, er, GSAVE.
I’ll have further thoughts on all of this later, but for now, I’d just like to quickly note that the pro-torture side seems to be mired in some really serious contradictions. Because if we’re waging a war that’s as much about defeating terrorism as it is about spreading democracy, we lose legitimacy when we conduct ourselves in an undemocratic manner.
Exactly. This speaks to precisely what happened when Rice graced Princeton with her presence a couple of weeks ago, here.
That’s what I think America needs in order to win the war on terrorism. Here are some ideas.
Dean Slaughter takes the pro-torture crowd to task, here.
In a series of leaked e-mails, two former prosecutors at the Guantanamo Bay prison for suspected terrorists insist the terror trials were highly flawed. One of the two went so far as to call the process “rigged,” while the other considered it “morally, ethically and professionally intolerable.” They specifically cited the hand-picking of panels to ensure guarantee convictions, the weak evidence commonly presented by prosecutors, and the inability of prisoners to access evidence essential for their defence. Despite their complaints, the government has already stated that their claims are “baseless.”
But while the government may not admit to some attempts to strip the basic rights of prisoners, in other cases it has been quite public about its intentions. After all, it’s well known that the government has set up a network of secret military tribunals, has refused to apply the Geneva Convention to prisoners, and has made no attempt to ensure anything parallel to Fifth Amendment protections like the right to a speedy trial for suspects.
No matter how strongly I disagree with someone, I do my best to at least try to understand their point of view. Unfortunately, I just CAN’T understand the federal government’s philosophy towards the treatment of those imprisoned by “war on terror.” While the Fifth Amendment contains a clause allowing the government to limit privileges in times of war or national peril, the government has a responsibility to promote the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Nor should we accept the belief that these rights should only be applied to Americans. To do so is to obscure the real reason that we have these rights in the first place: they are morally good and philosophically correct. If the United States truly believes in the greatness of the values inherent in its own political system, it should seek to maintain these values even in its relationships with non-US citizens. Only then, can the United States truly be perceived by the world as a paradigm for liberty and equality rather than a massive contradiction.
Robby reminded me about the difficulty- but vital necessity- of maintaining a democratic, pluralistic society even in this age of terrorism. Racial profiling undermines this, and also doesn’t make anybody more secure. Neither does random searches on mass transit systems, unfortunately, as this Voice article points out. I’ve argued frequently for better train security, but subways present massive logistical challenges that probably can’t be overcome.
About a week ago, Jean Charles de Menezes became another innocent casualty of the war on terror. Only he wasn’t murdered by terrorists but instead by London police. Claims that he wore a large baggy jacket and that he jumped a gate when approached by authorities have now been proven false. So why was Menezes really singled out for execution by a firing squad of three police officers? I’ts quite simple: his skin color. Menezes, a native of Brazil, had dark skin and hair, causing police to mistake him for an Arab.
Some might be quick to excuse the Menezes killing as a necessary but unfortunate loss in a larger battle against murderous fundamentalists. But they would do well to remember this: earlier this month terrorists killed 56 people in London, but police gave the terrorists a helping hand by adding one more death to their list. One can almost picture the joy on the faces of the terrorists’ brothers in arms.
Menezes’ murder demonstrates the danger of racial profiling by law enforcement officials. Right-wing crazies like Michelle Malkin defend practices such as Japanese internment (and Korematsu) during World War II. Would they defend this murder as well? If so, perhaps Americans need to question the accuracy of conservatives’ “pro-life” stances.
A country that turns its back on its citizens by allowing racial profiling, internment, and discrimination is a country not worth defending. I sincerely hope that America learns something from the British debacle.
Just another WordPress weblog
RSS 2.0
