This week Barack Obama lived up to his campaign promise to dismantle the terrorist resort which lies on the Isle of Cuba. By this very action, we are accomplishing ourselves what we have been striving to do by our laws and securities for the last eight years: to keep terrorists from entering into the country and targeting innocent people. Now, we are shipping them in, which will only lead to trouble and possible disaster. I understand the argument about human rights violations and the possible unjust nature of Gitmo and it is this very argument I would like to explore while enumerating the points behind.
One may say, however, what about the torture? The argument though valid does not apply, for the issue we are talking about is not the revamping of the procedures at Gitmo, but rather the complete obliteration of the prison altogether. I may address these practices at a later time, however for this particular installment I would like to stay on task with explaining why it is I find this decision dangerous and how it could potentially lead to the deaths of innocent Americans. The biggest reason is simply, if they don’t care about losing their own lives or even shielding military targets with their OWN children, how can we really expect, if we show them “respect,” they will in return cease their campaign of terror? I would like to believe this to be true, but I believe the roots of the hate run far, far beyond than just a lack of respect on our part. No, it goes to Israel’s mere existence and our backing of them, so in order to even possibly entertain the thought they would begin to respect us just by a mere change in policy, we will have to forfeit the lives of those in Israel. This will lead to more death and blood shed with the extermination of a whole nation. In fact, it could be said without our backing, Israel would be subject to attack from several countries around the Middle East, which would constitute a violation of their basic human right, which is the right to self-preservation. A conclusion could be drawn that one way or another human rights are going to be “violated.”
To explain why I put “violated” in quotes we are going to have to look at our very system of government, government in general, the nature of man, and war. First, let us look at the citizen, which is you and me. By merely living in this land we come under an agreement with the United States of America, saying we will abide by its laws and in turn get the benefits of personal safety with the protection of the rights under the constitution. I feel some of these rights have deteriorated, however that’s for another article, yet the basic premise still holds true.
We have the right to walk without fear in the midst of society, for one purpose of our government is to provide safety, which is a term of the charter which we belong to by having citizenship. When this safety is encroached upon by whoever, citizen or not, then the government by the agreement comes in to rectify the situation. There are two universal principles upon which our system of punishment is built upon. First, government must NEVER take any enjoyment in the punishment of those who trespass against law. Second, government must only punish when it leads to the overall good of society
This is universal in nature, not to just us the citizens, but to all men. However, the means in which this is accomplished differ from that of the citizen, to those who try to trespass on the law and our safety from afar. Most Americans, which speaks somewhat to their credit, cannot handle the truths which are the realities of war. We see it through the eyes of media and public opinion, which is completely unreliable when it comes to such matters, yet it is a driving force behind getting rid of Gitmo. Even the brilliant Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once expressed the dangers of the majority when he said, “Groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.” This shows morality and justice are not things to be judged upon by the majority, for the majority opinion is always in flux. It runs by emotion rather than a concrete set of principles and such judgments should not be based on pop-opinion, but rather those who have a full awareness of facts. It is these people who are qualified to be an equal arbitrator between the nature of war and the citizen’s right to safety.
Those in the know are those who stand in the front lines of the battle and these people completely disagree with the decision, which may give some credence to the real dangers this decision poses. Look, I am all for human rights, but I don’t want these people living in my back yard either. Truth is, when you threaten the lives of American civilians as many of those at Gitmo have done, you lose your rights, not by some arbitrary government decision, but rather in response to the actions which you have done of your own accord and thereby you deserve your rights to be taken away. Problem is most people think American judicial rules apply to such people, but in times of war they don’t. The only people to which these laws apply is the citizen, for in the very act of being a citizen you enter under the contract with the authority placed over you that you will be subservient to the principles which rule over you. This is a missing element with those in Gitmo; they have not entered into this contract and thereby our laws which apply to John Q. Public do not apply to Mohammad Q. Terrorist.
Thomas Hobbes, whom all our founding fathers had to read before designing our government, proposed his 7th law of nature, which said when concerning retribution for wrong, “men not look to the greatness of the evil past, but the greatness of the good to follow.” It is apparent that even though great efforts can be made to advance peace within society, those persons who follow their carnal, selfish nature, to the degree which they violate one's right to safety, are always going to be represented within any group of people. Yet, due to the need for safety, which Hobbes and our own government advocate, these trespassers against law and order must be judged, but again, with no other reason than “for the correction of the offender or direction of others.” Our justice system is designed not to take any pleasure in punishment of offenders, but rather use it as a means to further peace by making them an example and making sure the offender’s rehabilitation is in accordance with the nature and degree of his crime. This is what is behind the incarcerating of criminals and punishing those violent offenders who encroach upon the law, so those who strive towards peace may be protected under this same law while those who seek the adverse are discouraged from doing so.
These principles when applied together show Gitmo offers the protection of our safety by the incarceration, which leads to the overall good of society and furthermore, their distance from our borders adds to this protection. It also represents the accountability that one will have to face if they break the safety of the American citizen or encroach upon it, which will direct others not to violate our rights, lest they be judged and locked away. Lastly, people aren’t just arbitrarily thrown into Gitmo, but are captured during the process of war, committing terrorist acts, close association of those terrorists, or support there of, which is the means to the end of the death of American citizens.
So now let us reflect on the nature of war, the pact of the US citizens with government, and juxtapose it with those inmates incarcerated within Gitmo.
War is an unfortunate thing, but is inevitable. It is said by many that the very nature of man brings such war about. A good government promotes self-respect through equality and liberty of every individual. This respect is not only towards the self, but mutual to all portions of society. John Rawls once said, “All social values and liberty and opportunity, income and wealth, and the bases of self-respect, are to be distributed equally UNLESS an unequal distribution of any, or all, of these values is to everyone’s advantage.” The second part of the statement is not contradictory, but rather if applied, the concept of “to everyone’s advantage” will equate to equality by its very practice.
Take this into account with the government’s duty to protect the citizen, and then you see these values are not contradictory to what is happening in Gitmo, but rather a fulfillment of the principles. Our protection is warranted in relation with civil rights and the incarceration of terror suspects is not a violation of those. It leads to safety and liberty, while still promoting a greater good in our society. It could be argued it actually promotes a greater good in their society as well. The nature of war, and even justice itself, determines the same laws which govern the citizen living under the law, do not apply to those who transgress the law.
By the constant violence which surrounds the nature of war, one cannot always choose a judge, jury and conduct proceedings, for such violent actions which initially warrant incarceration are either already readily apparent, or the delay such a trial would have, would in itself be dangerous to American lives. It is the safety of these lives who are the first and foremost concern of our government as determined by the agreement. Concerning the agreement, you do have a few choices. One, you can void yourself from under it by leaving its sanctions in a peaceful, voluntary manner, which means leaving the country and thereby you are not held to the agreement by an action predetermined as reasonable within the pact. Secondly, you can attempt to persuade, but must do so in a manner that is in accordance with the contract. Third, you can obey. Anything outside of this can be otherwise deemed “criminal.”
Lastly, despite the just nature of the existence of such a place as Gitmo, there is an unknown variable too, which makes me use the word “potentially” in talking about the dangers of the destruction of the prison. This variable is the one which is manifest concerning what Obama’s future plans are. I think he jumped the gun in efforts to keep with his campaign promise and made a dangerous decision for our security, without knowing where these people are really going to go or what the final outcome of the plan is, assuming he has one. Such people as those who are detained in Gitmo need to have a concrete set of plans set around them, for if they don’t it will lead to death and it is this degree of harm which government is supposed to protect us against, but thus far is compromising by their actions. In my humble opinion.
If he does have a better plan, then it must be made known specifically, for failure to do so is closely encroaching upon the contract stipulation that we have the right of safety. A requisite of this safety is security and this security or sense of it is being breached even as we speak by the dismantling of Gitmo.
No comments:
Post a Comment