During sunday school last sunday, someone made the comment that it was really sad that the government was "legally" keeping so many people (even American citizens) in prison without charges in Guantanamo Bay. I was thinking to myself that I couldn't agree more, when the majority of the people in the class disagreed! "These are Terrorists!" they said, "This is a new kind of war!"
Doesn't that seem like a pretty scary attitude? To think that you could be minding your own business, and then one day, BOOM! you are in prison, with no proof against you, no charges, and no set date for trial. Should nobody care because this is a "new type of war"? This point was brought up in the class, but people seemed to assume that "well, they would only arrest you if you were obviously involved, right?"... would they? If it were so "obvious", wouldn't there be charges brought against you?
Where do you draw the line between who gets charged with a crime and allowed a trial and who doesnt? What if I gave money to terrorists? NO TRIAL? What if I gave money to a charity that supported terrorists? Do I get a trial? What if I gave money to a Charity that I thought was legitimate, but it supported terrorists? Trial or not? What if I'm friends with a known terrorist? Would it matter if I were Christian, Buddhist or Muslim when determining if I got a trial?
Here is an excerpt from Mayer's They Thought They Were Free: The Germans 1933 - 1945
You can and should read the full original excerpt here.
"...What happened was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to be governed by surprise, to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believe that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security....
"..."You see," my colleague went on, "one doesn't see exactly where or how to move. Believe me, this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for the one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don't want to act, or even to talk, alone; you don't want to "go out of your way to make trouble." Why not? - Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty.
"Uncertainty is a very important factor, and, instead of decreasing as time goes on, it grows. Outside, in the streets, in the general community, everyone is happy. One hears no protest, and certainly sees none. You know, in France or Italy there will be slogans against the government painted on walls and fences; in Germany, outside the great cities, perhaps, there is not even this. In the university community, in your own community, you speak privately to your colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, "It's not so bad" or "You're seeing things" or "You're an alarmist."
"And you are an alarmist. You are saying that this must lead to this, and you can't prove it. These are the beginnings, yes; but how do you know for sure when you don't know the end, and how do you know, or even surmise, the end? ...."
Should it make you nervous to live in a country where the president can authorize wiretaps on citizens without court approval, where citizens can be arrested and held indefinitely without charges filed or trials scheduled, and where the government secretly monitors antiwar groups and activist groups?
How does a frog in a pot of heating water know when to jump out? When is it too hot? Or does he just sit comfortably until it's too late?
Yes and no. Too much to cover here. But, exactly, what "rights" are you talking about when we capture enemy combatants and hold the most brutal leaders in a war-time prison facility? Or are you referring to others? I'm not saying you have to agree, but what "rights" are you talking about?
ReplyDeleteAnd is it wrong for law-enforcement to monitor groups or individuals who have threatened violence against citizens and government? I don't think so, and it has been done since the beginning. There is much to consider with the recent information about Bush's authorization of "spying"--and I must add I am disgusted that a couple of news outlets have used it to try to get rid of the Patriot Act, rather than deal in facts and realities--some disturbing and some not, ( a decent, short article that covers some of the points can be found here: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/jonahgoldberg/2005/12/21/179938.html).
And yes, I am in favor of being able to do detective work to catch murderes and other criminals. No, I am not in favor of turning over all power to the government to arrest and destroy people based on ex post facto rulings, ala Adolph Hitler.
But when you say "citizens can be arrested and held indefinitely without charges filed or trials scheduled", who are you referring to? Yes, I agree that it is wrong, although Captain Moroni would probably agree that there are extreme times where there need to be exceptions. But the last time that happened that I know about was under FDR, when the government put Japanese and German citizens in internment camps.
(And, for the record, no I don't think George Bush, in spite of his faults, is the evil Chimpy McBushitler seeking to destroy our freedom. Guys like that don't sacrifice popularity to set up democracies in Iraq, and they spy on Hillary Clinton and news people, not terrorist cells.)
Oops. Here's the email.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/
jonahgoldberg/2005/12/21/179938.html
By the way, as far as I know, there are no U.S. citizens at Guantanamo Bay. I read the linked article, and it does not claim that there are. Where are you getting this info, Kirk? You haven't been talking to Paul Hellyer have you!? (He is a former cabinet member in the Canadian government who recently had this amazing announcement (from the Edmonton Sun):
ReplyDelete"Hellyer said he is concerned the United States is preparing weapons for use against the aliens and could get the whole world into an 'intergalactic war.'"
"'The United States military are preparing weapons which could be used against the aliens, and they could get us into an intergalactic war without us ever having any warning,' the former deputy prime minister told an audience at the University of Toronto. 'The Bush Administration has finally agreed to let the military build a forward base on the moon, which will put them in a better position to keep track of the goings and comings of the visitors from space, and to shoot at them, if they so decide.'"
I was primarily referring to this: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june02/limbo_6-12.html
ReplyDeletebut this is old news.
OK. Only one of the three was held at quantanamo because he was captured fighting the U.S. in Afghanistan with an Al Quaeda group. When his citizenship was discovered, he was sent to a facility in the U.S.
ReplyDeleteYou make it sound like suspects are rounded up in the U.S. and then sent to Guantanamo. That has never happened.
The other two guys are an interesting dilemma. What do you do with someone who belongs to a terrorist group overseas and was probably involved in attacks (considered war-time attacks) on Americans outside of the U.S., but is a U.S. citizen? I dunno. Our courts can't really try them because it didn't happen here, but the military obviously doesn't want them to walk. Looks like they are still trying to sort that one out.
But I don't think I'd be worried about being arrested for accidently giving money to a charity that covertly supported terrorism. Islamic groups in the U.S. openly give money to terrorist groups overseas. I only know this because some of the leaders get quoted in the paper denouncing the "illegal imprisonment" of "innocent" Muslims in Guantanamo (there's an interesting angle--since the world is made of countries that have their own laws and there is no "world law", wouldn't it be better to characterize men that are caught in Afghanistan shooting at U.S. or British soldiers as extralegal prisoners of war or something?) are also on record openly supporting and giving money to terrorist groups like Hamas. (Thanks to people like Michelle Malkin for finding the "rest of the story", as the the MSM generally doesn't think it is important to point that out.)