Thursday, April 29, 2004
New Nightmares
Cruel Detentions - The Supreme Court considers whether the president can throw away the key. By Dahlia Lithwick
Just as one national nightmare ends, another thrusts itself upon us, albeit in less publicized form. Dahlia Lithwick begins her piece on yesterday's Supreme Court proceedings, in which the justices contemplated the indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, by meditating on the notion that the nation is dangerously close to the line between a free society and one that features internment camps.
Ridiculous, right? We're talking about terrorists, people who have been fighting against the United States, right? Probably. But a trial is a remarkable thing; given one, a man who everyone "knows" is guilty can prove to be innocent. If you don't believe this, watch Twelve Angry Men sometime. Without access to a trial, a wrongly-accused person has no recourse.
All of this seems very academic, still: it's not like these folks were locked up without cause, right? But to believe that, you must believe that the government that locked them up is telling you the truth--and we know, whether the administration is this deceitful one or another, that the truth isn't always what we're told. The government could tell you tomorrow that I've been locked up for plotting an attack on Woodfield Mall--without a trial, without the right to contact anyone, how would you know that I'm not an enemy combatant? (I'm almost fearful to type this, lest someone--hello, FBI agents!--think I actually am plotting such an attack. I'm neither smart enough nor cruel enough to do such a thing. With that said, I'll cross my fingers that no one else is, either. Imagine the shame of dying while trying on a pair of pants at Eddie Bauer!)
My point is this: you usually don't know you're on the slippery slope until after you start sliding down it. These cases represent an opportunity for the Supreme Court to prevent us from ever starting down a path that has a disturbing tendency to lead to totalitarian rule. The right to a trial, no matter the circumstances, seems like an unnecessary frivolity in the case of a terrorist. Give up one right or freedom, though, and they'll be back for more. We can't wait until they come for ours to defend the rights and freedoms of others.
Just as one national nightmare ends, another thrusts itself upon us, albeit in less publicized form. Dahlia Lithwick begins her piece on yesterday's Supreme Court proceedings, in which the justices contemplated the indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, by meditating on the notion that the nation is dangerously close to the line between a free society and one that features internment camps.
Ridiculous, right? We're talking about terrorists, people who have been fighting against the United States, right? Probably. But a trial is a remarkable thing; given one, a man who everyone "knows" is guilty can prove to be innocent. If you don't believe this, watch Twelve Angry Men sometime. Without access to a trial, a wrongly-accused person has no recourse.
All of this seems very academic, still: it's not like these folks were locked up without cause, right? But to believe that, you must believe that the government that locked them up is telling you the truth--and we know, whether the administration is this deceitful one or another, that the truth isn't always what we're told. The government could tell you tomorrow that I've been locked up for plotting an attack on Woodfield Mall--without a trial, without the right to contact anyone, how would you know that I'm not an enemy combatant? (I'm almost fearful to type this, lest someone--hello, FBI agents!--think I actually am plotting such an attack. I'm neither smart enough nor cruel enough to do such a thing. With that said, I'll cross my fingers that no one else is, either. Imagine the shame of dying while trying on a pair of pants at Eddie Bauer!)
My point is this: you usually don't know you're on the slippery slope until after you start sliding down it. These cases represent an opportunity for the Supreme Court to prevent us from ever starting down a path that has a disturbing tendency to lead to totalitarian rule. The right to a trial, no matter the circumstances, seems like an unnecessary frivolity in the case of a terrorist. Give up one right or freedom, though, and they'll be back for more. We can't wait until they come for ours to defend the rights and freedoms of others.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment