Tuesday, February 12, 2008

It's another rant-y day in the neighborhood...

Have a look at this article about Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who apparently said during an interview in the UK that "it would be absurd" to say that inflicting pain on terrorism suspect is wrong. This creature, who is supposed to be looking out for my rights under the US Constitution actually said the following:

I suppose it's the same thing about so-called torture," he said in the interview. "Is it really so easy to determine that smacking someone in the face to find out where he has hidden the bomb that is about to blow up Los Angeles is prohibited by the Constitution?
Well, Your Honor, I would start with the Bill of Rights, and the part about protection from unreasonable search and seizure; cruel and unusual punishment. And from this article, I can't even determine if he's talking about terrorist suspects or someone caught in the act of performing acts of terrorism.

I absolutely despise how militaristic and violent the US has become. I don't know that we've evolved from the days of the "Wild West." We treat everyone who enters this country like a potential terrorist (come on people, retina scans?) but our terror alert rating has fluctuated between high and elevated since it was enacted. I've yet to see any proof that we're safer than we were in August of 2001. I know that the President likes to say that the proof is in the pudding - we haven't had attack of 9/11 proportions since then. We never experienced terrorism to the extreme it reached in September 2001 before then, and we had no Department of Homeland Security to provide for our safety. I'm not pretending that the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 where six people died, or the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, in which 168 people died, didn't happen. But we can't go back in time. We'll never know if the DoHS would have prevented the nearly 3,000 deaths of 9/11.

Today, the Senate voted to expand the country's power to spy on people, with no direct protection for US citizens. (According to the New York Times, the bill only provides for checks to see if those the government chooses to watch are US citizens after the fact.) We're still holding people prisoner without trial or charges at Guantanamo Bay, and we're still inflicting capital punishment. The US executed 42 inmates in 10 states during 2007. I am pleased to see that the trend is declining. However, according to Amnesty International, "In 2006, 91 per cent of all known executions took place in just six countries: China, Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, Sudan and the USA." Check out the human rights abuses in these countries. I'm not happy to see the US listed in this grouping.

Check out our newspapers and the local news. We're using violence against each other at an alarming rate. I can hardly bring myself to watch the local news anymore.

As a nation, why are we so aggressive? Where are we hoping it will take us? Why are our own officials supporting this image to the media, and why are we, collectively, representing ourselves in this way?

Labels: , ,

3 Comments:

At 6:15 AM , Blogger Lily said...

Here's the real question that we've been grappling with, and please don't take it that the answer is the solutions that have been thrown out there so far. We have our rules and standards and principles. What do you do about an adversary who doesn't play by the same ones, and in fact rejects them? Where is the give, and who is the one that has to make it? Who has to make the sacrifices? Does a society as a whole have rights as opposed to just the individual?

I don't know the answer to all these questions. I'm not sure what the founding fathers envisioned, but even when they had principles and even though some objected, they were willing to tolerate slavery -- some because they didn't see anything wrong with it, others because they saw it as a necessary evil, and some because even though they despised it, realized you can't get perfection all the time and realized they'd have to accept something.

What do you do when telling people you shouldn't do something because it's wrong isn't enough? What do you do when someone else has a different sense of what right and wrong is and the two sides are in conflict? I don't have any great answers, and I still haven't seen any.

 
At 2:56 PM , Blogger joshv said...

Well, let me ask you what you would do if in a position of power and you had a suspect that had information that could save thousands of American lives. Give him a lollipop and deport him?

 
At 9:30 PM , Blogger Bet said...

Did I not reply to this? Oh, that's right, I was at work when I read it.

You know, here's how I feel about the whole torture thing. I'm so sick of hearing people say, "Well, other countries do it to our people, why shouldn't we do it to theirs?" Because we're supposed to be better, that's why! We're supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave. We're supposed to be the good guys.

And it sucks growing up and finding out we aren't, and there really aren't any good guys.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home