terrorists are people, too?
by Ryan Porter
Published: June 14, 2008
“The nation will live to regret what the Court has done today.” Big words from a big man. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was obviously less than thrilled by Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling on the rights of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, which he said “warps” our Constitution. In a 5-4 vote, the Court ruled that suspected terrorists and foreign fighters held at “Cheney’s fun house” have the right to challenge their detention in federal court. After all the hard work that the Bush administration has done to selflessly hoard power in an effort to keep America safe, these “activist” judges and their “Constitutional justice” have to go and throw it all away.
As it stands now there are approximately 270 prisoners being held at Gitmo, some who have been there for more than six years without being charged. Now some liberty-huggers may find this unconscionable, but tell me, how many terrorist attacks have occurred on American soil in those six years? Correlation equals causation every time.
The worst thing about this Supreme Court decision is that it’s going to give people the idea that President Bush does not need absolute, dictatorial power to fight terrorism. Some might even start to believe that he is less than infallible. The whole point of putting these enemy combatants (lack of evidence notwithstanding) in Cuba was to circumvent federal courts. The Bush administration says that this is a time of war and the judicial system does not have a role here because it is an administration decision. The fact that no official declaration of war was made does not make this non-war war any less of a war.
So what happens next? Are the Gitmo detainees going to be free to appeal their captivity willy-nilly? Michael Moore already told us that they enjoy better living conditions than many Americans, what with free healthcare and all, so one would think they should want to stay.
Furthermore, who ever listens to the Supreme Court anyway? They sit around all high-and-mighty in their robes pretending like they can tell the president what to do, but checks and balances are so last century. For the sake of our safety, I trust that President Bush will tell the Court where to stick their Constitution. With that dense, yet affectionate look only he can give, you can almost see the question in his eyes: “You and whose army?… (chuckle)”.
Seriously, who is going to make President Bush do anything at this point? Are these robed naysayers going to rally their trusty band of ACLU democrophiles and storm the White House? Is Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg going to pry the “non-war war-time Commander-in-Chief (aka fascist)” stick out of Bush’s icy, kung fu death grip? I would like to see them try. Before you know it, a few spots on the bench will open up, and Gitmo will have five new enemy combatants to entertain.
Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court’s swing vote, said, “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system reconciled within the framework of the law.” The swinger failed to mention that, at the moment, President Bush IS the law, so one can assume that this ruling will be up for interpretation. I trust that he is only taking away our civil liberties to better protect them and serve the greater good—meaning the good of the country with the greater power.
So forget about this warped ruling. In a show of allegiance to our president, we should all personally start imprisoning anyone who looks suspicious or simply different than us. It does not matter if they are innocent or even your friend. President Bush says that it is the only way we can be safe, and so far he has been right. When we are at war we must trust our leader even if it doesn’t make sense.
Heil, mein Führer!
—
(email this article or post to social network)
—
(12)
June 14th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
“You and whose army?…(chuckle)”
Hahaha…
June 14th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
I apologize for not feeling guilty that the people who are trying to destroy us are still bunking at camp Guantanamo. I’m just wierd that way.
June 14th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Easy for you to say, Nancy. You haven’t had your “unalienable human rights” stripped from you–yet. You sound like every other neo-con: “They’re all just a bunch of ragheads…they don’t deserve rights!” Thomas Jefferson would disagree. He believed that all people deserve equal justice under law. Remember the law, Nancy? Your president doesn’t.
There’s also that nasty little bit about no charges, and no apparent evidence to substantiate any criminal charges. Know who was a fan of disappearing people in the dead of night for no reason other than being different, Nancy? Hitler. Stalin. Pol Pot. Mao. Is the august company in which you would like the United States to stand?
Let’s not forget, Nancy, that most of those at Gitmo have long since been demonstrably free of any connection to al Qaeda. Remember them, Nancy? They’re the ones that attacked. That Osama bin Laden guy…when was the last time that your president uttered his name in any way other than to scare you s***less and manipulate you? When was the last time you didn’t stand and deliver in response?
Let’s not forget that your president was the selfsame individual who called the Constitution “a g*dd***ed piece of paper.” If you don’t believe me, use “the Google;” you strike me as someone desperately in need of the reality-based community.
June 14th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Your rhetoric is that these so-called prisoners are practically “less than human” and that detaining so many people without right to judicial oversight has made us safer. I have to disagree. Not allowing people to communicate with their families, know why they are being detained or not see a shred of actual life for years is anything but constitutional or in the name of human rights. If anything, this perpetuates more hate for the U.S. worldwide, only increasing the threat of virulent retaliation. You can’t use fire to fight fire. This was violates international law and has nothing to do with fighting Al Queada. Al Queada wasn’t in Iraq until we invaded anyways. Our prescence only influences more extremism. If anything, this is as fascist as it gets. Your last paragraph particularly disturbs me. Too many people’s lives have been ruined by our corrupt judicial system. And how many of these detainees have actually been brought to trial anyways? Gitmo hasn’t improved anything. If I had my way, George Bush and his cronies, would be brought before the world court for war crimes, but I’ll have to be realistic, because we basically own the U.N. Actually its funny how we collaborated in the formation of the U.N. and subsequently violate all the laws and regulations we wrote. Think about that.
June 14th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Ummm…Matt, this piece is satire. Porter’s typically are.
June 15th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
It’s interesting how you pay lip service to the constitution and seperation of powers in this article but then support the Supreme Court case. Regardless how you feel about the OUTCOME of the case (I personally think the US should promote human rights for all, including here), you would disagree with the decision if you cared about or understood the Constitution at all. If you’ve read the 14th Amendment (a lot of liberals talk about it but it’s so misplaced sometimes that I don’t think people actually read it), it gives equal protection to all CITIZENS. Detainees in Guantanamo are far from being citizens. So the Court had no constitutional basis for their decision. Yes, Bush sucks and he’s taken this national security thing way to far, but the Court shouldn’t decide this because its a nonconstitutional issue. Get your ****ed lazy congressman to pass legislation on the issue; he’s probably messing around at an Obama or McCain rally and doing nothing productive. If Bush vetos, it will be overriden if its pressing enough. That’s using the Constitution and seperation of powers the correct way.
June 15th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Here’s your 14th amendment:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION the equal protection of the laws.” (caps added)
If people are being held by the U.S. government are they not “within its jurisdiction”?
If that’s not enough for you, Matt S., how about this? The role of the U.S. Supreme Court as defined by Section 2 of Article Three of the U.S. Constitution:
“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.”
It is interesting how YOU pay lip service to the Constitution when clearly you have not read the part that extends the power of the SCOTUS beyond the Constitution alone. If you need a reason to accept that this ruling was, in fact, theirs to make there are plenty if you take the time to find them. Lucky for you I’ve done your work for you. You’re welcome.
June 15th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Sorry I have read Article 3 section 2, and your use of it is totally misplaced. That is the court’s original jurisdiction. I never said the court didn’t have original jurisdiction. Let’s see maybe becuse the US and a foreign citizen are the parties.
Second, okay sure I simplified my argument too much; any analysis needs to go beyond the 14th amendment. Yes, the 14th gives life, liberty and property to noncitizens, but from the first clause of the amendment, it is clear these privileges are distinct for citizens and noncitizens. What privileges are given is up to question. I would agree that habeas corpus is a liberty that extends to noncitizens in Article 1 Section 9, but even that section is ambiguous and debatable. However, habeas corpus must be separate from the due process guaranteed in the 5th and 14th, which includes trial by jury, fair trial, etc., because Article 1 Section 9 also provides limits to habeas corpus that aren’t applied to other due process guarantees. One such limit is for public safety. Detaining possible terrorists is certainly for the public safety.
I don’t need article 3 thrown at me. The SC certainly had jurisdiction, but it didn’t need go into the mode of constitutional review, striking down law without full analysis of the text of the constitution. Instead they should have looked at applicable law and pointed out cracks where the legislature needs to better clear up law regarding habeas claims of terrorist suspects, rather than creating new law.
Furthermore, Scalia correctly points out in his dissent that current law regarding habeas claims only allows jurisdiction where the US is sovereign, therefore excluding Gitmo.
So, as I have said, let lawmakers revise the law where it is confusing, rather than using judicial review to nullify laws and actions that aren’t explicitly unconstitutional.
Scoreboard.
June 15th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Just playin a little devils advocate with Porter, whose article is, by the way, hilarious. I agree with the author on this one, and I think the arguments I threw out there are nearly impossible to make. Just being an a-hole. Are there any better arguments out there for the other side? I have had a lot of respect for Justices like Thomas and Roberts and their interpretations of the Constitution, but their dissent just seems really uncharacteristic and inconsistant to me and its almost hard to swallow. Are they being paid off? Scalia’s dissent uses some other case, saying Gitmo isn’t sovereign US territory, so habeas claims are therefore not valid from Gitmo.
If we are able to detain people somewhere, say we’re pretty sovereign there. The strongest argument out there supporting Bush would, I think, would be using Article 1 Section 9 and wartime presidential powers to justify it. But even this argument seems weak. We aren’t in a state of war as we were in the Civil War, where “enemies” or rebels were everywhere. Legal thoughts or moral justifications from Bush people?
June 15th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Matt S., I appreciate the application of your legal acumen here, but despite your “scoreboard” bravado, the game’s not yet over.
What remains unambiguous about Article I, Section 9 is the following passage: “The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” Dozens of the detainees in Gitmo today have been exonerated of any criminal connection to al Qaeda by evidence or the lack thereof. They are therefore innocent of any conspiracy to rebel against (not legally possible, since–as you rightly note–they are not citizens) or invade the United States. By that criteria, habeas can and should constitutionally extend to the detainees.
Second, while it is technically correct to characterize Guantanamo Bay as land upon which the United States is not sovereign, the application remains a bit more nebulous. The Cuban-American Treaty of 1903 leases in perpetuity the land surrounding the bay, and, in the language of the accord:
“While on the one hand the United States recognizes the continuance of the ultimate sovereignty of the Republic of Cuba over the above described areas of land and water, on the other hand the Republic of Cuba consents that during the period of the occupation by the United States of said areas under the terms of this agreement the United States shall exercise complete jurisdiction and control over and within said areas…”
The question therefore reduces to the interpretation of “ultimate sovereignty” against “complete jurisdiction and control.” If we apply a literal definition of “jurisdiction”–the right, power, and authority to administer justice by hearing–one might reasonably conclude that American law obtains in Gitmo.
I’m no attorney, but I think it’s safe to say that, at a minimum, Scalia’s interpretation here flies in the face of stare decisis, and his prejudicial and reckless remark that the decision “will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed” betrays a partisan inclination that has no business in an opinion or on the bench.
June 16th, 2008 at 9:59 am
You guys are all arguing over tiny details and it’s just stupid. To me all these details are put there in an effort to insure that the constitution cannot accidentally be misconstrued to in a way that would allow our leaders to take human rights away from anyone unless it’s absolutely necessay.
That’s what sucks about Freedom and Liberty, every body wants it for themself, but nobody trusts anyone else with it. So we sit here and look for tiny details and loop holes in our laws in order to deny it to anyone we don’t trust. It doesn’t matter if your a Republican or a Democrat you should know that’s not what this country was founded on.
Whether or not our Founding Fathers thought of every possible scenario these rules could apply to shouldn’t matter, the point is they specifically tried to grant human rights to everyone they could. If our President is going to talk about loving freedom as much as he says he does, he shouldn’t be looking for loop holes to take freedom away, he should be looking for loop holes to give it to more people.
June 16th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Mr. Schuldt,
With all due respect, I could not disagree with you more. Understanding the intricacies of our constitutional system allows those of us who care about it to resist attempts by unsavory individuals who would subvert it at their whim–like our current President. How dare you suggest that we should impose a limit on our understanding of the machinery of government? Do you call that vigilant citizenship?
Our Founding Fathers did not conceive of scenarios such as those we face, but they did consciously construct a framework that would permit solutions to unforeseen problems. I think you’re correct to note that they sought to apply human rights–habeas included–to everyone, because, as children of the Enlightenment, they identified universal human rights. They likewise embraced English common law as part of the inspiration for our Constitution, which, of course, includes the Magna Carta of 1215. They conceived of an expansive liberty, even as they denied it to women and people of color.
I know all too well “what this country was founded on,” sir. I won’t be scolded by the likes of you for deliberating over it.
June 16th, 2008 at 10:49 am
I’m not saying you shouldn’t know the details, but the bigger picture here is that you guys are arguing over whether these people are technically granted rights by our constition.
But the whole founding principle of our country is that you aren’t granted rights by a constitution, you are endowed with them by our creator. What is a fact here is that these people are people, and they are being held by the United States of America. They should be treated like any other person that is imprisoned by the United States of America. We shouldn’t be looking for loop holes in our constitution so we can avoid having to treat these people like humans.
June 16th, 2008 at 11:06 am
“What is a fact here is that these people are people, and they are being held by the United States of America. They should be treated like any other person that is imprisoned by the United States of America. We shouldn’t be looking for loop holes in our constitution so we can avoid having to treat these people like humans.”
A fact that is self-evident to all but this president and his supporters. I think we’re more in agreement than you realize. I would also say in closing that the arguments employed by those seeking to deny detainees natural rights probe the details of the constitution for ambiguous language and “loopholes.” If we are to respond to those arguments effectively, we must understand them in their specificity.
Keep your friends close, Mr. Schuldt, but keep your enemies closer. Good day.
June 18th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
seriously though, where does the constitution get off telling our government what it can or cannot do?
June 22nd, 2008 at 2:02 am
I hope we can all stop arguing over whether we have constitutional control over Guantanamo Bay or its people. If we have a prison there, I think we’re responsible for the land and the people we take into custody there.
I honestly don’t see why the detainees in Guantanamo Bay can’t protest their arrest. Go ahead. I highly doubt any one of them was taken without VERY reasonable suspicion, just because I believe the natural American mentality IS “humane treatment” and “God-given rights” for everyone. I just cann’t see too many Americans grabbing random people and giggling to themselves about harming innocent people.
But let’s also remember that war is not pretty. Sacrifices are made every day to keep us safe. And I’m sure okay with 270 detainees sitting in jail for six years because hey, that’s six years I haven’t had to see another 9/11 on TV. Natural rights may be taken away during a time of war for the protection of the common people. If holding those prisoners in Gitmo has been keeping hundreds, maybe thousands of Americans safe, I say “Kudos.”
We’re seeing the same blindness in Israel. Everyone says “the poor Palestinians”. I sincerely feel bad for the restrictions that are having to be put in place on both innocent Palestinians and Gitmo detainees. I really do. But nobody seems to care enough to keep strict measures in place when innocent Israelis or Americans are blown up by suicide bombers. Every time Israel has relaxed its Operation Defensive Shield mentality or its West Bank fence measures, they have seen an increased number of attacks. Likewise, the West Bank fence, while in operation, has stopped all attacks from that area.
In places like Iraq, American soldiers sometimes take precautions to avoid the unnecessary loss of life that often put their own lives in danger. For this, I think they are brave beyond expectations. America is trying to save as many innocents as possible. Don’t tell me any of those Gitmo prisoners are being held their with malice or without substantial evidence.
Besides, not revealing evidence or sources to the prisoners keeps those brave souls dropping tips on terrorist activists safe, and inspires them to keep America informed.
June 22nd, 2008 at 8:24 am
Good morning, Mr. Phelps.
Orwell would be proud of your post, particularly the last couple of paragraphs, which distill in spirit down to:
“secrecy is awareness.” Utter nonsense.
What rankles even more, however, the the pervasive, insidious invocation of “the other” throughout. What you have said is that everyone has inalienable (see that word, Winston? INALIENABLE–means you can’t lose ‘em) human rights, so long as they look and think like you. If not, well, screw em…so long as I’m safe. No one is saying that cases of criminal conduct should not be addressed, or that those who would terrorize others should not be detained. What those of us who opposed Guantanamo Bay as a detention facility believe is that those same people should be entitled to due process. Hardly a radical idea, and I’m quite sure that the Framers would never have sanctioned this remark: “Natural rights may be taken away during a time of war for the protection of the common people.” Easy to say when they’re not YOUR rights, Mr. Phelps. Would you object if you were initially denied access to an attorney? Would you object if you were not allowed to see the evidence presented against you? Would you object if you were not given the opportunity to defend yourself in a court of law, particularly if you were innocent of the allegations?
Finally, stop conflating supporting the troops and supporting every other aspect of the war on terror. That’s a oversimplified, unhistorical, and juvenile understanding of the situation. No one wants a single American in uniform to come to harm. Wanting them to come home safely from a discretionary and unnecessary war IS supporting the troops for thoughtful people. Don’t tell me, however, that “America” is trying to save as many innocents as possible. The United States military may well be doing that, but I doubt the survivors of the massacre at Haditha by Blackwater contractors would agree with your claim.
Your blanket generalizations here are uninformed and dangerous, Mr. Phelps. There’s a spectrum of ideas and activities at work here, and I would encourage a more critical view of ALL of them.
June 22nd, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Well I’m sincerely sorry if I didn’t make my views clear. But I did in fact say that I did believe they had the right to protest their arrest. I just don’t believe that in times of war, such as now, if we see a a suspected terrorist and we can’t disclose immediately why or how we have reasonable suspicion, that we shouldn’t be able to detain them. I agree six years is much too long, and I would hope that there is very, VERY good reason that they have not yet been brought to an understanding of their arrest, albeit many know darn well why they’re in there.
I also do not recall ever insinuating that those opposed to the war on terror wish Americans to get hurt or wish an end to the war because they don’t care about keeping “an American in uniform” safe. On the contrary, I think it is very altruistic and good of you to wish them to come home, that you don’t want American blood spilt. I just disagree with those that would suggest Americans are over there purposely harming innocent people (if there are any, as my father is a judge in the USMC, I know we bring these sick examples of our country to justice) or that the war is unnecessary. We are over there trying to help, yes the self-interests of our own country, but to also help the local Iraqis and other Middle Easterners as well.
And I won’t deny that oil is probably an issue of us being over there. I DON’T agree with that aspect. But I do agree with us being over there to try and set up democratic societies that have to respect the inalienable rights of their citizens as well. So, on the contrary, Red Pill, I DO want people who do not look or think like me to enjoy the same wonderful blessings of liberty that I enjoy. All the more reason to try and keep those who might do harm to all people of liberty behind bars in Gitmo.
And I would greatly appreciate it if my support of the troops or support on the war on terror would not be demeaned. While I don’t believe you feel this way, I think it could technically be argued that those in support of freeing Middle Eastern countries of evil dictators like Saddam, though it would cost more precious American blood, care more about the rights of those who look and think differently than us than those who believe (as you put it) since they “don’t look or think like us and OUR rights aren’t being taken away, screw ‘em.”
Thank you for being such a champion of inalienable human rights, though, I tip my hat to you.
June 22nd, 2008 at 3:33 pm
remind me, winston, when exactly did congress issue a declaration of war? and who exactly did they declare war on? or does our presence in iraq still fall under the executive power granted by the constitution to “repel sudden attacks”? 9/11 was a long time ago, but i don’t remember being attacked by iraq.
June 22nd, 2008 at 3:44 pm
I think it’s terrible we haven’t declared war. Goodness, we’re sending American troops over there for combat operations, I think that’s defined as “war.” I agree with you. I think it shows a lack of backbone and full commitment to not come out and declare war.
However, I don’t believe 9/11 was a long time ago. Ask victims’ families. And I’m glad we haven’t given other terrorists a chance to get us by continuing to crush totalitarian governments in the Middle East.
And I’m almost positive Saddam Hussein was no enemy to Osama bin Laden. And there are still terrorist attacks in Iraq, so who’s to say we wouldn’t have been attacked by Iraqi religious fundamentalists?
June 22nd, 2008 at 4:18 pm
you speak truthiness. what you’re saying feels right, but unfortunately it is not based on evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.
a state of war exists under specific conditions (as outlined by the constitution), and not what feels like war. so if we were to formally declare war, who would you propose we declare it on? iraq didn’t do anything to us, so it can’t be them. maybe “terrorists”? that seems like our only option. sadly “terrorism” is but a mere idea and a war on “idea” can never be won.
you equate terrorists with totalitarian governments. al qaeda and other similar terrorist organization are not associated with governments. terrorists are no less able to “get us” simply because we take out a dictator.
“almost positive…” “who’s to say…” this is the same kind of ignorant, fear-mongering BS that got us in this mess in the first place.
June 22nd, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Mr. Phelps,
My thanks for your kinds words above. Despite our obvious disagreements, I think civility is paramount. I would like to take you to task on one point in your last post:
“And I’m almost positive Saddam Hussein was no enemy to Osama bin Laden. And there are still terrorist attacks in Iraq, so who’s to say we wouldn’t have been attacked by Iraqi religious fundamentalists?”
I will say it, because Iraqi religious fundamentalists were not in charge of the government there. Saddam Hussein was a thug, true, but he was a secular thug. What’s more, you may recall in the 1980s, while Iraq and Iran warred against one another, Saddam was our thug–a secular pan-Arabic counterforce against the bona fide fundamentalist regime that had overtaken Iran in the 1979 revolution. Hussein extended unprecedented liberties to Iraqi women, westernized the Iraqi legal system, and abolished Sharia law courts in all but personal injury claims, just to name a few. Why else would the Ba’ath Party become the scourge of Shi’a Iraqis under Hussein’s rule? The man was a nationalist–not a fundamentalist.
I’m not sure where you got the notion that “Saddam Hussein was no enemy to Osama bin Laden, but bin Laden is on record calling Hussein an “infidel” in February 2003, and indeed, the purification of Islam and the restoration of Sharia law for which bin Laden is a public advocate requires the elimination of the infidel–particularly pan-Arabic advocates like Hussein. Could al Qaeda associates have found their way into Iraq surreptitiously? Sure! Were they hosted officially by the Ba’athist government? Our own CIA knew the answer to this in 2002:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/14/AR2006091401545.html
I’m inclined to agree with “seriously?” above; the kind of speculation in which you indulge in your posts mirrors the broken logic that led us into this debacle in the first place. Careless rhetoric like Bush’s infamous sixteen-word claim about Nigerian uranium, Rice’s outrageous “smoking gun=mushroom cloud” statement, Cheney’s ridiculous assertion that we would be greeted as liberators, and Rumsfeld’s claim on “Meet the Press” that the United States knew “exactly” where the WMDs were dispense with the inconveniences of evidence and instead comprise a gauzy rhetoric that both confused and frightened the general public. They are now attempting similar tactics with Iran; whether it works or not remains to be seen.
Please reach for the evidence, Mr. Phelps; don’t indulge in a ****tail of propaganda and fraudulence.
June 22nd, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Thank you for the compliment, Red Pill.
But to try and answer seriously?’s and yours questions from my point of view, I’ll do my best.
I don’t believe that the things people like Saddam say are true. That is, all the times dictators say things to the American press, it’s all a farce. They have to appear and remain on good terms with the U.S. I mean, they’re on United States and/or international television. These are men killing millions of their own people. They’re not going to get on TV and talk about their plans to destroy the West, the countries with the most secure governments and most powerful militaries on earth. They’re going to play the “I’m YOUR thug.” card, which I think was a fine way of putting it, by the way. Many of our leaders have tried to defend relations with these tyrants by saying that a dictator who, true, is mercilessly terrible to his own people, might keep our country safer than a possibly volatile democracy. If he’s an evil man, we don’t necessarily mind because he might be keeping us safer.
However, I believe the majority of people on earth, including those in the Middle East, want peace, and that a democracy where the leader would have to be dependent on public opinion of him to stay in office, would be MUCH safer. Think of what we’re doing right this moment. We have the freedom of speech and press to say WHATEVER we want about Bush, congress, even the very structure, purpose, and views of our government, with no fear of any kind of harm or discomfort coming to us or our families- other than perhaps verbal disagreement or ridicule from others exercising THEIR rights. They don’t have that in non-democratic societies, like the old Iraq. Leaders there are put into power through military coups and phony elections, and nobody can disagree with the current regime without fear of arrest, torture, or murder to them or their families.
If we could, as seriously? pointed out, declare war on terrorism (and all wars are based on ideas, think of the War for Independence, WWII which was to stop the spread of Fascism military nationalist expansions, the Cold War to stop the spread of Communism, etc.) and build democracies where the majority rules, it would keep us safer.
Now to address the issue of seriously? suggesting that I link totalitarian governments with terrorism. I do. As I said, people like Arafat were playing and are continuing to play and always will play, two cards: preaching friendship and peace in English to the West and preaching the spread of radical Islam, terrorism, and hate in Arabic to their own people. All their press is devoted to things like the annihilation of the State of Israel and their friend America.
If we put the proper pressure on governments in the Middle East, we can end terrorism, because they will be put in a hard position. Non-democratic regimes like Iran can’t function because they need the support (like supplies and legitimacy) from the West, but they also need external enemies to unite their people against to stay in power. The people hate their government so much that their evil leaders, to keep the people under their thumb, need to unite them against a common enemy to dodge their own peoples’ bullets. If we can be strong and brave and force them to choose between support from the West and more rights for their people, or America as their enemy, we could help destroy terrorism.
I’m sorry for the long reply. I hope I made my position clear.
June 22nd, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Arrrgh! I really should finish grading papers, but I’ll submit this last remark.
Of course Hussein was an opportunist, and you’re right to say that they all are. Pick any dictator who has had American favor–Batista, Diem, Rhee, Noriega, Pinochet, the Shah–they all were savvy enough to recognize that the policymaking apparatus in America viewed foreign relationships through an uncritical lens–namely, anti-communist (or a claim to) anti-communist credentials. There’s little difference between that and our uncritical support of Pervez Musharraf.
I think you’re spot-on that most the people in the world are peace-loving individuals; I also think, however, that most would prefer to be left to the individual pursuit life, liberty, and happiness of whatever form. Things get complicated, as you no doubt know, when other countries–namely the United States and the former Soviet Union in the last fifty years–dislodge the balance between the promotion of our national ideals (democracy, individual liberty, equality, etc.) and the protection of our supposed interests. As we (and it’s not just us, I’ll readily conceded) have further ingratiated ourselves into the politics, economics, and cultural norms of other societies, we have denied the indigenous population the very things we claim to advocate. When are ambitions are so nakedly presented, should we really be surprised when the Iraqis rise up in insurgency? The Vietnamese?
“Pressure” can be defined in many ways, but history has long since proven that no system of government, economy, or social relations can be forcibly imposed on a people that does not want it. Like ours, it must be a product of the intersection of the unique historical experience, social priorities, and cultural values of the population in question. There are Iraqis now–few, perhaps, but they’re there–crying for Saddam’s return. Is that not instructive in any way? Our troops have performed admirably and with valor, and I don’t discount what rebuilding of the national infrastructure that has occurred so far in Iraq. But we can never–never–achieve our purported goal of fostering democracy in Iraq, because so long as it comes from us–a people with a flawed understanding of Iraqi (or Arab, for that matter) culture–it will be American democracy. The Iraqis must find Iraqi democracy, and only they know the way.
Finally, a word about ideas and action. Ideas do move people, but to declare “war” on an idea is a futile endeavor. The American Revolution was fought for a political objective–to achieve political independence from the British Crown. World War II was fought for political objectives: prevent the German conquest of Eurasia and the Japanese Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. Even the Cold War, which is on shakier ground here, had the palpable objective of “containing” Soviet expansion anywhere in the world. But a war on communism? There are millions of self-identifying communists in the world today. We actively trade with one in Vietnam, and yet, the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. Was that our victory? Or does the continuing presence of communism in the world today suggest failure?
Terrorism is a tactic; it is a method. As such, it can not be “defeated” in the conventional sense, because doubtless in the future one cause or another will demand inflicting a perpetual sense of fear upon a population as a means of achieving a particular goal. One could argue–safely, in my estimation–the minutemen of the Revolution were terrorists by virtue of the fact that their invisibility inflicted real psychological damage on the British regulars. We can defeat al Qaeda–by killing or capturing every known member and marginalizing its influence throughout the world. We can not defeat terror. It has no state, it has no leader, it has no terminus.
I have met your long reply with one of my own. Godspeed.
June 23rd, 2008 at 12:02 am
Well, that’s a bit morbid, Red Pill. I will readily concede that you cannot ultimately, indefinitely, defeat evil, but does that mean we don’t try? I mean, we’ll be around a lot longer if we fight terrorism than if we allow it to keep waltzing in and hijacking our planes. (Yes, that was a writers’ exaggeration, but you get my point.) And I don’t think it’s fair to compare people fighting a war for independence to people who use fear and murder to motivate and kill thousands of innocent civilians over and over again. I know there were probably some Americans, in fact I know there were some, who performed evil crimes in the Revolutionary War, but it was a few radicals and not condoned by our infant government. Nor was it ever purposefully used by the vast majority of the army. But that’s a bit beside the point at hand.
The points you have made about democracy working in the Middle East are not new ones, nor are they without valid thinking. I disagree, however, for the following reasons.
First, I do not believe we are imposing democracy at all. Though there is a very small minority who are the “true believers” in a fear society, (the cronies and beneficiaries of a totalitarian government), most of the people who call for a return to people like Saddam are people who are forced to say those things. As you will probably recall, many similar protests were made by former USSR citizens, who have now admitted that the only reason they were allowed to speak on Western television was because they were compelled to say how wonderful the communist government was doing, not because they really believed it. They had to; as I’ve said, they did not have the freedom of speech and were fearing arrest, torture, or death to themselves or their families by organizations like the KGB. If they had spoken out, they would have faced immediate consequences. The same is true in every fear society to date: there are the true believers, but the vast majority (somewhere in the 90 percentiles) are “doublethinkers” (those against the reigning power but to afraid to take action, for good reasons) and dissidents (the incredibly brave few who stand up and are immediately imprisoned or killed, for the most part). There were only a few hundred dissidents in the old Soviet Union, hardly enough to convince America that the Russians hated their government. As soon as Reagen, with the West, put enough pressure on Gorbachev, millions of doublethinkers, inspired by the West’s support, gained the courage to become dissidents. We saw an end to the Soviet Union, though not an end, as you have rightly pointed out, to communism. It was still a great victory for liberty and inalienable rights, as I’m sure you know.
Second, I have obviously said how I believe democracies are infinitely safer for international security than totalitarian governments. I won’t bore you by repeating myself.
Third, according to a politician and dissident I look up to very much and whose views I am continually “stealing” here, it takes three things to bring down a fear society. Brave dissidents in the country willing to fight the government and reveal the reality of the situation to outside help, governments (headed by the prosperous, good USA) outside willing to base relations with that fear society on their treatment of its citizens, and third, leaders outside the fear society that believe they DO want freedom and believe they CAN achieve it.
Fourth and lastly, is the fact that we have been wrong in the past. Many of our brilliant, brilliant, Western politicians, scientists, and philosophers said that Germany, Japan, France, and Russia all liked their government and that the West was imposing its democratic ideas. We were wrong every time. We need to try and use our ability to look back on the past to realize the Arabs probably want freedom as much as the French, Japanese, Germans, and Soviets wanted it.
You may say, with good reason, that the Arabs are different because of their Muslim faith, which granted, has a MUCH more violent history than the Christian faith. But Japan wasn’t and still isn’t, for the most part, Christian. And there are plenty of Muslims living in democratic societies around the world, the best example being the large numbers in India, the largest democratic society on the planet.
Finally (this is the last finally), we can see from the reactions of people escaping from the Middle East and such reactions as our occupation of Baghdad as fuel to the hope that we are not wrong in believing that peoples everywhere do want freedom.
We’re not trying to impose our government; we’re trying to get those leaders out of power that do not allow their people their own government. And democracies around the world vary greatly based on their cultural, historical, and religious influence, but all share basic, core values of freedom. Japan’s democracy, Germany’s, France’s, are not American democracies. But they all respect their people’s rights, especially the right to disagree, or dissent.
Thank you for respectfully listening to my view, Red Pill. I appreciate your open-mindedness.