If people are tuning into “The Daily Show” for news, it’s like an alcoholic drinking shampoo because there’s nothing else in the house.
- David Javerbaum
|
||||||
|
More “humanitarian” killing coming?
UPDATE (11/09/2011): Fortunately, apparently not, at least for now. I say “fortunately” with some ambivalence. Like Libya I’d be happy to see the Syrian leadership go, but the current use of war like water isn’t a healthy state of affairs. Adam Smith via Krugman regarding banking regulation:
Following the same logic in theory the prohibition against murder, theft, or rape are similarly a “violation of natural liberty”. The point is, a civil society is going to have lots of provisions that in theory violate “natural liberty”. So it’s not a question between a totalitarian intrusive government and a completely “free” libertarian government, it’s a sensible middle ground. Yes, it does want to favor freedom over control, but when an individual liberty greatly threatens society, some sacrifices are in order. Of course, and this is a completely fair point, “Who decides what greatly threatens society?” This is an enormously sticky point. The fact is it’s probably something that will never be entirely fixed in stone and will have to be constant conversation through the life of the union. Just as the balance of “freedom of the press” and “state security” are always at constant struggle, so will the balance of freedom of the few to protection of the many. From the comment section of Matt Yglesias’ blog:
This in reference to, the 5th amendment clause that says:
Apparently being against the government having the option to kill its citizens at “whim” is now “fetishist”. And this was a “liberal”! <insert-sound-of-American-experiment-dying-here> I will note in the post below I used the term “convert”, which is a loaded word especially when talking about Islam. To be clear, while I have no great love of any religion, I steadfastly believe in the right of all to worship any faith or for that matter, not worship at all (ie: be atheist). I don’t believe that anyone should be “converted” – Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc., etc. are all valid choices. Personally I find them all a bit silly, in the same way we find the trials and tribulations of Greek and Roman gods silly today. However, they also bring great beauty in terms of spiritualism, moral ideas, etc. All that said, I have a disdain for Fundamentalism, regardless of underlying religion, particularly where such Fundamentalism requires the conversion or killing others, or encourages killing period. So, while I am no fan of Islam, I am also no enemy. The same could be said of any religion. When I talked of “conversion” in my last post, I was talking about a conversion of secular views, not religious ones. That is, to make your supposed enemy see your side of things (and hopefully in the process vice-versa if we have any wisdom). However “conversion” of the realm of the spiritual, I’ll leave to others of a different calling. In the last couple of posts I’ve indicated at best an ambivalence, and what could most probably be expressed as a complete lack of empathy toward Anwar Al-Awlaki and Ibrahim Hassan deaths. There’s both some truth to this implication, but I also admit some posturing to bring home the point that, should these men be as described, I hold no love for them. I am not a “terrorist sympathizer” (as so many conservatives like to pain progressives). Certainly if they are the as murderously inclined toward the west as we have been told, it’s hard to hold any real empathy toward their plight. I’ll skip the fact that we have little proof their “crimes” outside of what we’re told by our government, however for sake of argument I’ll take their claims at face value. Still I think it’s important to point out in a better world we would care about killing people, even terrorists. In an ideal world we would try to convert our enemies to our side. That is, reform them, not kill them. At a basic level killing is wrong – period. At a basic level our ideal should be to end all war, all killing, altogether. At a basic level we should mourn the killing of not just those on their side, but all human life. Sadly that is not where we are today. Today life is “cheaper” than I’ve ever seen it – and it’s not just the “bad guys”. The “good guys” (us?) show remarkably little value for human life as well. Moreover there looks to be no end in sight – as a society we no longer even talk of a future without war. We no longer even seem to aspire to it. No one, at least in the mainstream, even attempts to offer a viable path to end this endless “war” against terror. Quite the opposite, we pursue policies that even those sponsoring know at best can offer respite, but are more likely in fact, to prolong and encourage. So I’m not happy these men were killed any more than I’m happy that anyone is killed. I didn’t want to see them die, I wanted them to see justice. Even better I’d have liked to have had them to have seen the error of their ways and change course. That or perhaps all of us find some middle ground where we can live in peace, since after all, our own policies have played a major part in this as well. Being raised in a Judeo-Christian society I’ve been taught to believe in repentance and the ability for men to reform. That turning the other cheek and “loving thy enemy” is an ideal to be aspired to. That seems so far gone now, by insults granted by both sides, as to to have no hope of ever returning again. But it is what we should aspire to – to end war, end death, end killing. To start caring enough that even when those killed are as evil as these men were said to be, that it actually matters to us. To at least wish we hadn’t had to do it. Instead, now, it only seems to come with the sound of cheering. Here’s another reason the 5th Amendment crushing assassination of an American matters:
Yes, this doesn’t say “suspected of constructing the bombs for the al-Qaida” but rather states as a simple fact he “constructed the bombs for the al-Qaida branch’s most notorious attempted attacks”. You have to continue a bit further than the average reader will probably read to start getting to the “proof” (and most probably don’t get much past the title):
I am not saying that this isn’t true, nor that if it is true, I much care that we killed him (again, I’m not much for killing period, I think at a basic level killing is wrong period, but I’m not going to lose sleep over it). And I’m certainly not saying, provided it’s all true, that I want this bastard left out there making bombs. Still, the point is here we have a news report that most will take as gospel that is essentially based entirely on the hearsay of government sources. In fact there’s nothing much anyone can do but take the government’s word on it – first of all it’s beyond most news organizations to directly source this kind of stuff and second, the vast majority of material is “secret” and will remain so indefinitely. So we’re forced, Star Chamber-esque, to take their word for it. However they’ve been wrong in pretty spectacular ways before:
And it’s not like public officials don’t lie:
And it’s not like, even with “due process”, we’ve haven’t wrongly convicted:
Our forefathers took this very seriously – to the point that they amended the Constitution to guarantee extremely strong protections. To quote Mason:
This is what “habeas corpus” is all about – the right to have ones case seen before a court to judge its legality, something which drone killings obviously don’t allow. However it’s the “longer view” that I’m concerned about – combining an increasingly parroting unquestioning press (and even public) with and an ever growing secrecy/security state, we risk a future where the government can effectively claim anything without substantiation and then execute with impunity. Said executions being done with no checks and balances, no public oversight, and certainly not even a simulacrum of “due process”. Maybe our leaders are generally getting it right, but if governments weren’t getting it wrong regularly, then our forefathers wouldn’t have inserted the significant inoculation of the 5th Amendment. In fact it was so important they went back and shoved basically the same thing in the 14th Amendment:
These laws were made by leaders who knew first hand what tyranny was about and sought to protect their nascent nation from ever facing it again. So, while I get that Americans don’t give a shit if some brown foreigner sees “due process” (that alone is sad statement on the morality of the country), however these are Americans. Granted, brown Islamic (and in this case, probably “ass hole”) Americans, but still Americans. Which brings me to a final quote (which I’m admit, I’m abusing the use of, but I think it gets the point across):
UPDATE: We certainly know that bad countries get it wrong:
(though I should note, from a report that also similarly lacks “secondary sources” to substantiate its statements). And people insist on keeping their guns because they are fearful of our government going “bad”, or to quote Scalia, the 2nd Amendment “right to bear arms”:
(OMG! I’m actually quoting Scalia!) So, if it’s so probable that the government is going to go to pot that we have to hold on to our guns, we sure as hell need to hold on to “due process”. Any country that could have this as a viable title of a “news” report:
has lost its bearings. This is particularly true when one considers we probably gave Rezwan Ferdaus the idea. All terror, all the time. You gotta even fear the toys (I’m kind of surprised these haven’t been implicated yet…). Anwar Al-Awlaki may be a bad dude. He could have been planning to murder thousands of Americans and deserves to die. However, it isn’t a complicated question:
This is the 5th Amendment to the United State’s Constitution. It isn’t even mildly ambiguous. It’s not some obscure legal reference. If you think the law is wrong, well there is a constitutional process to change it. Otherwise, we all are bound to it, including the President of the United States. Incidentally contrary to anonymous sources:
We all know damn well this is not what our forefathers intended and this is not what the courts have held. It makes good rhetoric, but it doesn’t make it legal. In fact such rhetoric is evil because it creates precedent to subvert the law. Why do I care? Well it’s not because I support al-Qaeda, terrorists, radical Islam, nor even Islam. I would give my life before I would allow the country to be ruled by Sharia law (I would give my life before I allowed the country to become a “theocracy” period). It’s not even that at a personal level I much care if he dies – should the government be correct, at some level, good riddance (though the world doesn’t need more death thank you). It’s because some day it may not be about al-Qaeda. It might be citizens against some future war just expressing dissent and thereby “providing aid to the enemy”. It might be non-violent anti-abortion activists who are deemed a “threat of terrorism” because of the violent sort of anti-abortionists. It could be peaceful environmentalists because they are associated with “eco-terrorist” environmentalists. It might be gun owners, because gun owners have, well, dangerous weapons and can overthrow the government. This is an enormously slipper slope, one that sadly it took a supposedly “liberal” President to openly subvert. If you have a strong political opinion and travel (not that there’s a reason why this has to be constrained to foreign soil), then you should care about this. You are now a valid target. Ok, if you’re not brown and not Islamic, will Obama kill you? No. Will Romney do so if he’s elected? No. Perry, Bachmann? Probably not. Ron Paul? Definitely not (he’s the only sane one in this argument). 5 presidents from now? Well the precedent has been set – that’s why you should care. Finally, per the Washington Post:
Which means along with the Bush administration for openly admitting to torture, the near entire top of the Obama administration is guilty of crimes. Murder specifically, since a police officer who kills a criminal without due process is a “murderer”. Same thing. UPDATE: Would Al-Awalaki have “killed us” given the chance? I don’t know. No one knows because there was no due process and he did not see a “jury of his peers”. There was no habeas corpus, no evidence produced to an impartial body, no chance to rebut, nothing. I believe the government probably isn’t lying – he’s probably a bad dude as stated. But this is exactly the sort of thing our forefathers took the time to add the 5th amendment for, and they weren’t ambiguous about it. They weren’t ambiguous because this is the same sort of shit the British monarchy was doing to us – summary killings without due process. This is the core of totalitarian societies, and we have taken one large step closer. UPDATE 2: I feel safer already:
UPDATE 3: Here’s another reason why we don’t want this:
What if our government goes bad and starts doing stuff like this to the “good guys”? The next step without “due process” is people disappearing (see Chile, El Salvador, Honduras, Columbia circa 1980). If you think this is improbable any time soon, so do I. However remember this:  House Un-American Activities Committee
Apparently Paul Krugman is taking a lot of heat for words like these on 9/11:
I’m not saying that he couldn’t have said it more eloquently, and unfortunately I don’t think that for most “in its heart, the nation knows it,” however I still have to support Krugman on this one. 9/11 could have been a time of introspection, of shared grief, of unity. For a short time it was, however as Krugman says:
and:
This is all entirely true. It was turned from something that should have mournful and sacred to a twisted mess of hubris and hate. From a source of common purpose, to a source of abject manipulation. Surely no one could expect that revenge wouldn’t ultimately enter the picture, but America and it’s grief was used, and “used” is the right word, to achieve ends that went infinitely beyond “revenge”, into something far, far darker. Something that stains and perverts what it means to be American to this very day. Americans, particularly those directly affected by 9/11 certainly have reason to mark the day, as all of us should. However something was lost, corrupted, stolen from them by those who perverted its meaning, turning it into something it should have never been. So, don’t hate Krugman for giving bringing to the truth here, hate those who with their selfish actions profaned a sacred day. |
    |
|||||
|
Copyright © 2012 RUTROW.org - All Rights Reserved |
||||||
