Stupid, STupid, STUpid, STUPid, STUPId, STUPID!!!
Here's a very stupid thing. I have to go to this really stupid panel because my D@*& Constitutional liberal, tree-hugging, Patagonia-wearing type teacher has decided that he might include on the final a question about this panel. I hate this discussion, I hate the vitriol that's pours from the kind of people that decide to speak at this kind of meeting.
AND I HAVE TO ATTEND OR I'M GONNA GET HAMMMERED ON THE FINAL! I came to law school so I could get a law degree and work as a tax attoney. I didn't come here to get brain washed into thinking that terrorists are eligible for the same protections by the Constitution as I am. How is it that people who hate and fight against the ideas that are the U.S. are protected by the laws that it embodies?
Dunno, I don't care, I want my dang degree, I'll never set foot again at DU (except for some very limited circumstances). I'll never sit through another thing like this if I can help it.
"Nobody here wants to see the terrorists go unpunished!!!" Yeah, that's a real statement, unfortunately, everything they've said is paraphrased as "THEY HAVE RIGHTS! WE SHOULD LET THEM GO!" Wait, how does that work?
I'm sick and tired of this crap.
posted by Carl Miller @ 11:45 AM
3 comments
3 Comments:
"We hold these truths to be self evident that all Americans are created equal" (Declaration of Independence - modern style)
"With liberty and justice for those lucky enough to be born under our flag" (Pledge of Allegiance - modern style)
I don't know what they are saying at "this kind of meeting" so I don't know if I agree or disagree with what you are about to hear from them, but if you understand the United States and the ideas upon which it was founded then you should recognize that the rights and freedoms that we claim to be protecting are supposed to be the inalienable rights of all men.
We should be catching and prosecuting criminals and terrorists, but we should not be torturing them. We should be protecting liberty and executing justice. Torture is not justice and neither is indefinite detention of people who have not even been charged with a crime. We should be bringing them to justice, not just holding them in prison.
So I may or may not agree with what they will be saying, but I do believe "that terrorists are eligible for the same protections by the Constitution as {we are}." This means that if we think they are guilty of something they should be charged and tried - even if we have to modify the rules of evidence a little bit to account for a situation of war. If they are found guilty they should be punished. If we do not bring them to trial then we cannot execute justice, we just commit a new injustice. Those "people who hate and fight against the ideas that are the U.S." should either leave us alone or face the justice of our country, not the injustice of our country.
I have to disagree with David's position. While one of the things I admire most about this country's foundation is the universality of the rights we champion, war changes the equation immensely.
In peacetime, domestic criminals who kill someone are arrested, held, tried, and sentenced. Their rights are upheld as much as possible, and while there may be exceptions, they get reasonably fair treatment.
During times of war, however, someone who comes at our citizens shooting to kill faces immediate extermination without recourse to due process and trial by jury, and rightly so. Trying to detain opposing forces using only nonlethal means would be tantamount to surrender.
Granted, heat-of-the-moment combat is a far cry from calculated torture. But we treat war criminals outside of the norm for citizens; we always have.
Yes, we believe all men are created equal. But that doesn't mean all men get equal treatment. Certain actions show such a disregard for basic principles of decency to change the rules. Sex offenders are required to register with local law enforcement for the rest of their lives. Convicted violent felons are ineligible for many jobs. Discrimination? Only in the sense that we discriminate whenever we use our judgement.
We are at war against an enemy that wants to destroy our country. How can we dispense justice? What is the crime? What is the punishment? We cannot allow these enemies to go free as long as they continue to be a threat. I could see, perhaps, releasing those prisoners of war who would swear to put down their weapons and no longer fight against us, but what of the rest? Could the US put the most heinous butchers to death without further angering the international community?
I like what Sheldon said, but I feel I was misunderstood on some points. Let me clarify.
"During times of war . . . Trying to detain opposing forces using only nonlethal means would be tantamount to surrender."
Agreed, I was talking about some form of trial and the execution of justice related to opposing forces whom we have already detained. The battlefield is a completely different scenario. On the battlefield, I do not consider it a crime to kill your enemy before interrogating him to see how extreme his personal opinions are.
"But we treat war criminals outside of the norm for citizens; we always have."
The fact that we always have does not prove that it is the right course of action.
"Sex offenders are required to register with local law enforcement for the rest of their lives. Convicted violent felons are ineligible for many jobs."
I do not see either of those examples as cases where basic rights have been infringed. If they were given no jobs, or not allowed to choose where they lived, that would be an infringement of rights. The need to register or restrictions on some jobs are merely protecting the rights of the innocent.
Post a Comment
<< Home