The lynch-mob mentality
Too many Americans seem to think it's ok for the government to execute a person it's accused of terrorism without having to bother with a trial:
... to someone who equates unproven government accusations with proof, those [judicial] processes are entirely unnecessary. Even in the absence of those processes, they already know that these persons are Terrorists. How do they know that? Because the Government said so. Even when it comes to their fellow citizens, that's all the "proof" that is needed.
That authoritarian mentality is stronger than ever now. Why? Because unlike during the Bush years, when it was primarily Republicans willing to blindly trust Government accusations, many Democrats are now willing to do so as well. ... The Government can literally just flash someone's face on the TV screen with the word Terrorist over it (as was done with al-Awlaki), and provided the face is nefarious and Muslim-looking enough (basically the same thing), nothing else need be offered.
Worse, this heel-clicking mentality the pro-war, any war crowd developed during the early months of the Neocon Wars has incubated and spread. Now it infects both the right and left:
But note how ... right-wing commenters are almost exclusively of the "just-kill-him" school of thought, and how identical they sound to that minority of Daily Kos commenters I linked above who, in their blind loyalty to Obama, also insist that there's nothing wrong with simply snuffing out the lives of their fellow citizens who are "Terrorists" (meaning: anyone their Leader claims is a Terrorist) with no due process or oversight whatsoever. Ultimately, authoritarians are authoritarians, regardless of whether they situate themselves on the left or right.
That last line is as dead-on accurate as it is chilling. Already, the government has branded advocates of gun rights and smaller government as potential terrorists. The end of this road is a tyranny that pre-emptively crushes any dissent.
Thanks a bunch, war supporters.
posted by Old Rebel @ Saturday, February 06, 2010
12 Comments
Links to this post
12 Comments:
Land of the free, home of the brave, baby! Makes me want to get out a little candy striped rag, stick my index finger in the air and scream 'USA number 1!' at the top of my lungs. That's what being a patriot is all about afterall, right? That and of course supporting the government as it kills anyone it wants. What a great country!
PalmettoPatriot,
If you don't scream loud enough during the official Two-Minute Hate, you're suspect ...
Land of the Free, indeed.
When someone says "just kill him" about the underwear bomber, they are correct and justified. There is no proof needed here, this guy was a clear and present aggressor. It is a crime against the natural rights of all people to give this man any sort of rights at all. He forfeited his rights the instant he stood up and tried to detonate an explosive device on a loaded passenger plane.
This is *exactly* the same situation as a person who pulls out a gun and starts shooting at people. It doesn't matter if this is on a battlefield or in a mall, that person is a clear and present danger to the individual rights of everyone in the area, and it is morally required of the military or police to eliminate that threat. What would you propose? That when a wave of enemy fighters runs towards our military, we stop and read them all their miranda rights? That is ridiculous. When you attack, you forfeit your rights.
That being said, it is also very important to identify the ridiculous situation that exists whereby the president (or other people in "national security") can simply deem someone an enemy combatant. You can't just go out into the countryside and round up people and call them enemy combatants.
Those people deserve a fair hearing, which includes penalties for subjecting people to this treatment without just cause. In foreign battlefields, or in the case where a foreign power is attacking at home, this should be done by military tribunal, and should be subject to the very strict rules thereof. For citizens and legal residents of the United States, this should be done in the civilian justice system.
Have either of you gentlemen seen this BBC documentary?
"Power of Nightmares", Part1of6:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOlwbaPe2os
Although I don't think the BBC is without an agenda it is revealing enough for one to infer we're approaching a fork in the road soon.
Wasn't it our beloved Abe who said "you can't fool all of the people all of the time"?
Old Rebel,
Yeah, we can really scream in bloody hatred against our new enemies (the Afghans and Iraqis) because we don't remember that a few years ago (when the Afghans were fighting the USSR and the Iraquis were fighting the Iranians) they were our best friends. That little fact was tossed down the memory hole. Scary how much like 1984 our world is today.
I saw a bumper sticker today that I want to get that says something like 'I'm losing track of all the things I'm supposed to be scared of'.
I don't have much sympathy for having a jury trial for the underwear bomber or granting him protections under the Constitution. Did we do that for Nazis and Japanese? At least the latter wore uniforms.
Should panty-boy have a hearing of some sort? Sure; it is necessary to establish the facts, even when they seem obvious. A military tribunal could do that. Give him a chance to explain; have witnesses testify.
Then kill the little bastard. Or, give him the option of life in prison in exchange for information allowing us to find and kill more bastards.
I think Tom's comment shows a lot of common sense.
Tom wrote: "It is a crime against the natural rights of all people to give this man any sort of rights at all. He forfeited his rights the instant he stood up and tried to detonate an explosive device on a loaded passenger plane."
No one can give or take away a man's rights, which come from God.
What CAN happen is that the government can abuse its citizens by illegally ignoring those rights. The prohibitions in the Bill of Rights applies to the central government at all times.
When a madman is trying to kill you, you have the right to defend yourself. That is your right. But government -- at least, a lawful government -- has Constitutionally imposed limits on what it can and cannot do.
If we submit to a government that can decide to turn the Bill of Rights off and on, we have surrendered everything we fought for in 1776.
Stogie,
Yes, we need to establish the facts. That's what courtrooms are for. The unconstitutional treatment of Jose Padilla should remind us that the government cannot be trusted, and that the rule of law must be followed.
It has to be a civilian court because we are not at war. There is no declaration of war with Kenya.
Am I being a stickler when it comes to the government following the rules we set for it? Damn right.
So then, if a foreign platoon was walking up King Street in Charleston, shooting everyone in sight, the government would have to first hold a trial for them before they could shoot back?
Tom,
Never said that. The situation you're describing is an immediate threat, and would be treated as such.
But Padilla was an American citizen who was reclassified as an "enemy combatant" and therefore deprived of his rights.
And the Undie Bomber has already been stopped (where WAS that Federal air marshal?). Now he can be tried for attempted murder, and if found guilty, should be locked up for life.
I have to side with Old Rebel on this one. I don't have any sympathy for him either, but we should be considering what is constitutional instead of considering what we and other people want - which is democracy. Representative government must be held under the thumb of the Constitution, or it turns into a monster. Not to mention the fact that recent history proves very well that we should not trust this government with any more power and money - not even to do supposedly good things.
I think that what we teach regarding concealed carry of a weapon is germane to this exchange. In the face of a potentially lethal threat, do we as individuals (or at any level of organization) apply lethal force to kill? The answer is no - we 'shoot' to stop that unacceptable deadly behavior, whether it be an invading army in the field or a thug with a pistol or a bomb. In the course of neutralizing that threat, death may very well occur. That is up to a higher power. Once that threat no longer exists (for whatever reason), decent societies dispense justice. During the act of trying to blow up a plane, he was fair game to be "neutralized" by any means available, including being shot dead on the spot. Fortunately he failed. Now he must face trial and be punished if found guilty. Personally, I view terrorists as armed combatants out of uniform. As such, they are subject to the death penalty UNDER CIVILIZED LAW. Do we want live in a Southern confederation that summarily executes its enemies without a trial? Is that the way our forefathers behaved in the War? Do not allow yourself to become the monster you oppose.
D. V. Arminius
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home