America was born of a noble idea of some very intelligent men. Americans are born into a tradition and taught a set of values that they celebrate on Independence Day. Our values are liberty, justice, and rule of law. We praise these values, but lately we seem to have forgotten them in the fight with the terrorists. Terrorists work to change values by violence rather than peaceful means. We work to change things by peaceful means and only use the military when necessary. We are told that this is a different kind of war with new rules and therefore our paradigm must shift.
How does the fight effect our values? What is the role of fear in this change? How do we maintian our traditional values while fighting an enemy that knows no bounds? These questions and many others are difficult to answer. However, we would do best if we were to remeber the words of Benjamin Franklin: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Since the above quote refers to liberty, I sahll start there. Our essential liberties were hard won by James Madison in the crafting of a Bill of Rights. The first ten amendments to the Constituion are known as the Bill of Rights. Since its framing some of these essential rights have been determined to cover women and minorities. However, the essential liberty we seem to have little value for today is framed in the Fourth Amendment which provides for the security of our persons, houses, papers, and effects, from unreasonable search and seizure. This essential liberty was confirmed to include the privacy of phone calls in 1967 when the U.S. Supreme Court decided Katz v United States. Since this landmark decision laws have extended the protected zone to include other electronic communications, through the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Laws such as Title III and FISA direct police and intelligence agencies to get a warrant in order toinvade the privacy of someone’s electronic communications.
Today, however, the administration believes that it has the inherent authority to surveil even U.S. persons without a warrant because we are at war with terrotists and it will keep us safe. Some accept this on the premise that your liberties are no good to you if you are dead. However, this is not what the framers intended when they protected this essential liberty. They had in mind a people that would fight to the death for it as they had done during the American Revolution. This seems to not be the case because people are willing to give up their liberty for security.
Next is the subject of justice. We value that everyone is equal under the law and that they will have their day in court. However, when it comes to a terrorist we should feel differently because they kill people. This idea of justice incorporates the ideal of human dignity. Each indvidual has inherent worth and ought to be treated like it. Jesus teaches us that we are to love our neighbor, but calls us to a higher ideal when he commands us to also love our enemies. This call is an appeal to justice.
Justice in the sense of the current policy debates centers around the rules for military commissions, rules for treatment and interrogation of detainees, and that everyone involved gets punished for a crime that is committed.
Military Commissions are a hot topic becasue the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the administration’s commissions because they were not authorized by Congress. The Court decided that, with proper well formulated deviations, the rules of the military commissions must conform to the Uniform Code of Military justice and Geneva Convention Article III. Common Article III is embodied in the War Crimes Act. The point is that even terror suspects deserve basic procedural protections similiar to the ones that give us justice in our federal and state courts.
However, the administration shirks both the Court and the value of justice when it says these people should be treated in a completely different manner that is unjust. Although he has said he will adhere to the Court decision the proposal the administration presented to congress preserved most of the flaws present in the commissions that were struck down. Not much justice here.
And finally a concept that is strongly related to justice, rule of law. this principle says that everyman great and small must agree to follow the same laws. No man is above the law. However, there have been many attempts lately to place certain officials above statutorry law by claiming and inherent authority to determine through a signing statement that an act of Congress conflicts with his authoirty. The worst example of this is the Detainee Treatment Act. He reserved the right to disobey particular provisions if he deemed it in the national interest.
There is no retreat from this road and it is a dangerous one. The administration has proposed to amend the War Crimes Act and in essence place civilian officials who commit war crimes out of reach of the courts, while military members will be subjected to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This clearly shows that the administration thinks that its policies and acts taken under these policies are above the law. This flies in the face of the rule of law and justice.
The forgetfulness of some in the nation about our values is leading us down a very dangerous path. These same people that tell us to forget the values when it comes to treatment and trial of detainees are the same people that argue the values issues to win elections. They fight for the sanctity of life and the unquestioned right of the unborn to become live. However, they don not apply this value to terrorists becasue they don’t value life. This contradiction goe to the values offered above. One can argue that ourrights are no good if we are dead. However, the proper question is weather our lives ar worth anything if we sacrifice our liberty, sense of justice, and vlaue of the rule of law. These values have been or compass since the country began and now is no time to change that it is infact the most critical time to fight for our core beliefs.
How does the fight effect our values? What is the role of fear in this change? How do we maintian our traditional values while fighting an enemy that knows no bounds? These questions and many others are difficult to answer. However, we would do best if we were to remeber the words of Benjamin Franklin: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Since the above quote refers to liberty, I sahll start there. Our essential liberties were hard won by James Madison in the crafting of a Bill of Rights. The first ten amendments to the Constituion are known as the Bill of Rights. Since its framing some of these essential rights have been determined to cover women and minorities. However, the essential liberty we seem to have little value for today is framed in the Fourth Amendment which provides for the security of our persons, houses, papers, and effects, from unreasonable search and seizure. This essential liberty was confirmed to include the privacy of phone calls in 1967 when the U.S. Supreme Court decided Katz v United States. Since this landmark decision laws have extended the protected zone to include other electronic communications, through the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Laws such as Title III and FISA direct police and intelligence agencies to get a warrant in order toinvade the privacy of someone’s electronic communications.
Today, however, the administration believes that it has the inherent authority to surveil even U.S. persons without a warrant because we are at war with terrotists and it will keep us safe. Some accept this on the premise that your liberties are no good to you if you are dead. However, this is not what the framers intended when they protected this essential liberty. They had in mind a people that would fight to the death for it as they had done during the American Revolution. This seems to not be the case because people are willing to give up their liberty for security.
Next is the subject of justice. We value that everyone is equal under the law and that they will have their day in court. However, when it comes to a terrorist we should feel differently because they kill people. This idea of justice incorporates the ideal of human dignity. Each indvidual has inherent worth and ought to be treated like it. Jesus teaches us that we are to love our neighbor, but calls us to a higher ideal when he commands us to also love our enemies. This call is an appeal to justice.
Justice in the sense of the current policy debates centers around the rules for military commissions, rules for treatment and interrogation of detainees, and that everyone involved gets punished for a crime that is committed.
Military Commissions are a hot topic becasue the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the administration’s commissions because they were not authorized by Congress. The Court decided that, with proper well formulated deviations, the rules of the military commissions must conform to the Uniform Code of Military justice and Geneva Convention Article III. Common Article III is embodied in the War Crimes Act. The point is that even terror suspects deserve basic procedural protections similiar to the ones that give us justice in our federal and state courts.
However, the administration shirks both the Court and the value of justice when it says these people should be treated in a completely different manner that is unjust. Although he has said he will adhere to the Court decision the proposal the administration presented to congress preserved most of the flaws present in the commissions that were struck down. Not much justice here.
And finally a concept that is strongly related to justice, rule of law. this principle says that everyman great and small must agree to follow the same laws. No man is above the law. However, there have been many attempts lately to place certain officials above statutorry law by claiming and inherent authority to determine through a signing statement that an act of Congress conflicts with his authoirty. The worst example of this is the Detainee Treatment Act. He reserved the right to disobey particular provisions if he deemed it in the national interest.
There is no retreat from this road and it is a dangerous one. The administration has proposed to amend the War Crimes Act and in essence place civilian officials who commit war crimes out of reach of the courts, while military members will be subjected to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This clearly shows that the administration thinks that its policies and acts taken under these policies are above the law. This flies in the face of the rule of law and justice.
The forgetfulness of some in the nation about our values is leading us down a very dangerous path. These same people that tell us to forget the values when it comes to treatment and trial of detainees are the same people that argue the values issues to win elections. They fight for the sanctity of life and the unquestioned right of the unborn to become live. However, they don not apply this value to terrorists becasue they don’t value life. This contradiction goe to the values offered above. One can argue that ourrights are no good if we are dead. However, the proper question is weather our lives ar worth anything if we sacrifice our liberty, sense of justice, and vlaue of the rule of law. These values have been or compass since the country began and now is no time to change that it is infact the most critical time to fight for our core beliefs.
No comments:
Post a Comment