the ‘right’ to be captured and brought to justice ---- our "right" to kill killers choose sides carefully
On May 14, 8:05 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > What Did bin Laden 'Deserve'?by Butler ShafferGabriela: And you believe > everything the authorities tell you?Franz Kafka: Well, I have no reason to > doubt.Gabriela: They’re authorities! That’s reason enough.-- From the > movieKafkaMy recent article on the U.S. government’s assassination of Osama > bin Laden elicited many favorable responses, along with a negative one that > advised me that this man "got what he deserved." The reader went on to ask > "how dare you imply that we owed him the ‘right’ to be captured and brought > to justice." How effortlessly we make our judgments when our minds are in the > default mode, and we need only parrot the words of those in authority! > The media has long been an echo chamber for the avoidance of independent > thought and judgment. It is easy to repeat the party line that the state’s > enemy du jour "got what he deserved" when one refuses to ask the question > "what doesanyof us ‘deserve’?" What do I "deserve?" Do you know > whatyou"deserve," and for what actions? From what set of facts do we draw > when we make such judgments about the conduct of others? I am neither a fan > nor a defender of bin Laden, but those who are so anxious to invoke "closure" > as an excuse for evading inquiries into the nature of governmental policies, > might ask themselves why they are so willing to embrace his murder. > An answer to the question "what did bin Laden deserve?" depends upon one’s > perspective. Even leaving aside the obvious responses that his Al Qaeda > sympathizers would make, even patriotic Americans might have differing > opinions, depending upon the time period of one’s assessment. When the Reagan > administration found bin Laden and Al Qaeda useful agents to help rid > Afghanistan of Soviet military forces, American politicians took turns posing > with these "freedom fighters" for self-serving photo-ops. Their combined > efforts drove the Soviets from that country, and helped bring about the > collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. For his part in all > of this, did bin Laden "deserve" having a statue built to him in Washington, > D.C., or a boulevard named for him? > But when his usefulness to American interests terminated -- or even became > hostile -- he was quickly relegated to the character of "villain." This is a > tactic long predating Machiavelli, having been useful, in recent years, to > transform Saddam Hussein from Donald Rumsfeld’s smiling photo-op "friend" to > a linch-pin in the axis of evil; to Muammar Gaddafi’s mercurial > foe/friend/foe role of convenience in American foreign policy. That most > Americans insist on remaining so dupable -- if not outright stupid -- as the > state plays out its games of "endless enemies" at their expense, is > remarkable. > Whatdidbin Laden "deserve" in all of this? What do any of us "deserve" in our > dealings with one another? Is there any principle to which we can turn to > help us answer such questions? Do we "deserve" to be coerced, robbed, or > killed whenever someone with superior strength is able to do these things to > us? Is this the highest social standard to which we can repair? Have the > playground bully and the brutalizing parent become the "founding fathers" of > our "New World Order?" > If the defenders of state assassinations believe they have found a defensible > tactic for resolving disputes -- or just promoting their own preferences -- > should it become more widely available for all of us to employ? If two > neighbors have a long-standing dispute as to the ownership of rose bushes > along their property boundaries, should they resort to murder to settle the > matter? Do we not understand that the problem of urban street-gangs is but > politics on a different scale; that Obama’s drive-by shooting in a house in > Abbottabad differs from such a killing in south-central Los Angeles more in > terms of geography than substance? If the political establishment is willing > to embrace such methods as a way of eliminating political enemies in foreign > countries, should the same practices be acknowledged as appropriate within > America? Might we want to rethink the "lone-nut-with-a-gun" explanations most > of us eagerly swallowed to explain the deaths of the Kennedy brothers, Martin > Luther King, Malcolm X, et. al. as well as the failed attempts on the lives > of Ronald Reagan and George Wallace? > For decades, I have tried to discover whether there is some principle upon > which all people can agree to define the propriety of our actions; a > proposition that rises above arbitrary subjective preferences. > Politically-defined laws will not suffice, since the state -- being defined > by its use of violence -- exists to promote and enforceconflictsamong people. > Neither have I found so-called "natural law" principles much help, as their > content seems to vary from one advocate to another. > The one standard to which I am able to find a virtual consensus is this:no > one wants to be victimized.No one accepts that their life or other property > interest should be subject to trespass by another. Sadly, most of us have > internalized our regular victimization by the state, sanctioning such > predations provided (a) we believe everyone else to be so bound -- the > vicious doctrine of "equality," and (b) if we are to be singled out for > maltreatment, that we be accorded "due process of law." > The idea that the military and/or the police -- the enforcement arms of the > state -- could undertake arbitrary and deadly force against any person, finds > support among most conservatives. This is why the market for flags and > "support the troops" decals blossoms whenever the emperor finds a new "enemy" > to attack. It is also why so many conservatives -- and even a number of > so-called "liberals" -- can get their diapers so knotted over the suggestion > that Osama bin Laden should have been brought to trial rather than murdered. > It is the same mindset that allows police officers to gun down "suspects" > without, themselves, being held to account in a court of law. > Suppose a man is "suspected" of having committed a heinous crime (e.g., > sexually assaulting and then murdering a small child)? Suppose this man is > found and arrested by the police, who then take him into a back alley and > kill him? Did he "get what he deserved?" Would you raise any objection to > this -- unless, of course, you were the suspect -- or would you regard > demands for a public trial to be only a "loophole" that might allow him to > "escape" his punishment? Is a jury determination of"innocence"to be regarded > as a "legal technicality?" Is "suspicion" or "accusation" the equivalent of > "guilt?" Should "criminal procedure" classes in law school be required to > address such matters as "how to organize a lynch mob?" Should a Ku Klux Klan > Grand Dragon square off with an ACLU activist to debate the question "is > justice delayed, justice denied?" > Given the grisly history of lynching in this country -- in which the race of > the victim was often all that mattered -- President Obama who, regardless of > where he was born, has more melanin in his system than most Americans, ought > to have resisted the self-righteous impulse that has led some people to > respond to fear by pulling sheets over their heads! > Don’t you understand that if the bin Ladens of the world can be "brought to > justice" by government hit-men who, like their Mafia counterparts, then dump > the bodies into the ocean, so can you? Insistence upon state-defined "due > process of law" is no guarantee that the innocent shall not be punished, but > it’s an improvement over assassinations, torture, trips to hidden prisons > around the world, and the denial of habeas corpus. Jury trials often result > in wrongful convictions, but I’d rather take my chances with twelve men and > women with no sinister agendas of their own, than with decisions made behind > closed doors by the politically unscrupulous. Bin Laden "deserved" a public > trial for the same reasons you and I would. > With each passing month, it becomes increasingly evident that the United > States of America -- as a formal system -- is about finished. The > Constitution has become virtually meaningless as a means of conducting the > business of the state. The "separation of powers" of the various branches of > government -- which we used to pretend would limit the ambitions of each -- > has given way to notions of "empire," with the president playing the role of > "emperor," able to start wars on his own motion (and without congressional > approval); to torture or imprison without trial, or order the assassination > of any persona non grata of his designation; to give away hundreds of > billions of dollars to his corporate friends; ad nauseum. Over many decades, > thepowersgranted to government in the Constitution -- which, far from > beinglimited, speak of "general welfare," "necessary and proper," and > "reasonable" -- have been given very expansive definitions by the courts. By > contrast, therightsreserved to individuals have been accorded very > restrictive meanings. In the treatment of bin Laden -- as well as the > continuing incarcerations at Guantanamo -- we see further confirmation that > what we once thought of as an inalienable right to a public trial is another > illusion sacrificed... > > read more » -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
