What better way is there to spread freedom and democracy than to incrementally take it away from people that already have it?
Always championing new tools in the Global War on Terror, the Bush administration said on Monday that immigrants arrested on suspicion of terrorism may be held indefinitely and may not challenge their imprisonment in civilian courts. The Justice Department has filed papers explaining that a new anti-terrorism law signed last month to hold detainees at Guatanamo Bay also applies to foreigners captured on US soil. This means that non-citizens—like Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri a citizen of Qatar, who was a student in the US when he was arrested in 2001—who are in the country legally, can be labeled enemy combatants and basically stripped of basic rights afforded to most anyone. This of course makes perfect sense, because what better way is there to spread freedom and democracy than to incrementally take it away from people that already have it?
Have we grown actually to hate freedom ourselves?
A few days after September 11, President Bush explained to America that we had “entered a new type of war. It’s a war against people that hate freedom. We’re fighting for freedom and liberty.” Yet since then we’ve seen our “war time” President suspend habeas corpus for the first time since the American Civil War, justify warrantless eavesdropping on our phone calls for the sake of protecting the American people, and he’s even tried to justify torture, all in the name of freedom. And that’s just to name a few of his tactics. For many, this does not seem problematic, but others are asking where will we stop? How many of our own freedoms are we willing to give up protecting ourselves from those who “hate it?” Have we grown actually to hate freedom ourselves? After all, if we care about it enough to be in a war to keep it, it seems that we’d want to stop taking it away from ourselves.
Right now, anyone could be named an enemy combatant. While thus far, most have been non-citizens or foreigners, what is going to happen when “ordinary” Americans are accused of being enemy combatants? What if you have a friend in Pakistan that calls you asking for money and you send it to him? Since the government clearly has the right to listen to your phone conversation, and perhaps look at overseas bank transactions, and because there are clearly many Pakistanis who are terrorists, you are clearly helping the enemy, and you clearly deserve to not have rights. Clearly this makes no sense whatsoever, yet it is sadly now not beyond the realm of reality.
How can we expect anyone to respect our liberty when we don’t respect that of others and hardly respect our own?
Michael Ignatieff, who was once the head of Harvard’s Center for Human Rights said, “It is the response to terrorism, rather than terrorism itself, that does democracy the most harm.” At this moment, his statements could not be anymore true. It is a paradox at best and completely hypocritical at worst that we would abandon the very values we are seeking to protect for the sake of liberty. Like it or not, there are people that hate America. Like it or not, there are people that wish to do America harm. But like it or not, they are still people. How can we expect anyone to respect our liberty when we don’t respect that of others, and seemingly more and more each day, hardly respect our own? If we purpose to ensure that American people are entitled to their basic rights without fear of them being taken away from outside forces, perhaps we need to first focusing on the inside forces that are committed to taking them away. After all, five years after September 11, it is the Bush administration, and not the terrorists, that have been most injurious to democracy here in America.
23 responses so far ↓
Andy // Nov 18, 2006 at 9:54 pm
I tend to agree in principle, but perhaps “…the Bush administration, and not the terrorists, that have been most injurious to democracy here in America.” is going a little too far.
I absolutely worry about the direction our country is headed and think that measures such as these are completely inappropriate — but, I don’t believe that makes the Bush administration more dangerous or evil than terrorism itself.
Scott // Nov 19, 2006 at 2:44 pm
Andy,
What about the idea that the Bush administration’s tactics are considered terrorism? What about the idea that fear is being used as a way to enforce political ideologies? Is that not terror? Fear/terror, to me, it is interchangeable.
I believe that the fear produced by the Bush administration’s portrayal of “the enemy” is just as evil and wrong as any “terrorist’s” objective to instill fear into those who don’t believe in their god or live up to thier faith.
Honestly, what is the difference?
Sphynx // Nov 21, 2006 at 11:20 am
So don’t give reasons to be suspected of terrorism, and you’re perfectly safe.
And Scott, that’s not even remotely like Terrorism. Terrorism is a fear of death. Your logic suggests that we shouldn’t imprison criminals since we’re using the ‘fear’ of being imprisoned as a tool to keep people from doing bad things.
You don’t live in an anarchy-state. Everyone has abridged rights, unless a Human Right is violated, your rights can be abridged at any time. At least when you live in a Democracy, those rights are written ‘by the people, for the people’ not by a dictator as people seem to imply Bush is.
Scott // Nov 21, 2006 at 9:00 pm
My definition of Terrorism is far removed from the definition you gave, Sphynx. I don’t think that terror or fear have to be limited to death. What about fear of oppression? Fear of losing control? Fear of losing your rights as a citizen of the world? Sticking to your definition alone however, I do believe that the US is afraid of losing their lives to a false “enemy”. I do not think that the level of fear our country has lived by since its inception has ever been quite realistic. And this is an argument that could go into a plethora of issues way beyond politics. But sticking simply to the topic at hand:
I don’t think that the terrorism tactics the Bush admin. is using are directed toward people who are breaking the law. I think that it is directed toward the American people. I think we are held hostage at the gun of a hostile administration that has a very specific agenda aimed at protecting the privilege of a select few. Since you mentioned human rights, I think that it is very likely that the Bush admin. has countless violations against human rights. I do not believe we live in a true Democracy. I think that is a lie we tell ourselves. Just look at any election. Look at the stats of who votes. The system does not work the way we portray it to work. I could go on and on and on.. but I’ll leave it at that.. for now.
Sphynx // Nov 22, 2006 at 3:47 am
I’m not questioning the impurity of your democracy (I’m European), it’s been clearly stated by many intelletuals that no ‘pure’ form of any government actually exists. But that has nothing to do with the imagined terror you’re portraying on the American populace.
Terrorism is killing women and children who are uninvolved to get the men to listen. All governments use a fear tactic to get things done, that’s part of governing. But those methods must stay withing the guidelines of Human Rights. That’s not, in any way, Terrorism.
Saying we have to fight the japanese because they’ll bomb more than just PearlHarbour isn’t terrorism, that’s creating incentive and public support, based on facts. Same here. If their ’soldiers’ are not occupied with our ’soldiers’ over there, where do you think their focus is going to be? Rebuilding or finding ways to set a nuke off in a Western country? He’s not fighting Terrorism with Terror, he’s keeping them off American soil by occupying them in their own sandbox. Claiming that they’re terrorists is factual, not a terror ploy. The moment we pull out of the middle east, that’s the moment to start worrying about what major attack is planned next on western soil.
Scott // Nov 22, 2006 at 4:47 pm
Sphynx, the difference between you I, it seems to me, is that you are analytical of war tactics and you use that in your view of the way that government is run.
I don’t believe that war is useful or tactful. I choose not to analyze war because I think it only creates more problems instead of solving them. I am a pacifist when it comes to war.
Our views couldn’t possibly mesh because we are coming from two very different perspectives. You speak from a perspective of defense. I speak from a perspective of peace. I don’t think there is any way to find peace through war.
I don’t agree with the Bush admin.’s tactics because this administration is a self proclaimed war administration. Why did Rumsfeld resign?
I do not think there is any way to progress peacefully while in a state of fear. Therefore using fear tactics in any way has no other purpose than to progress deeper into fear. Please explain to me how war will ever result in finding peace. Peace being the supposed, projected goal of the west since the beginning of this mess in the middle east.
If peace is truly possible, I’m open to hearing how. The only thing I see are people reacting to war with more war, or as we call it, terrorism.
Sphynx // Nov 23, 2006 at 3:34 am
No Scott, the difference is Idealism vs Realism. There’s nothing wrong with Idealism, it’s the way we progress and evolve from a social and political point of view, but it is Idealistic.
“There is a Peace that can only be found on the other side of War”.
Please believe, I would love nothing more than for everyone to lay down arms and live in peace. It would be so easy too, if people could get over their pride a bit. However, we’re not dealing with people who follow the Western culture. You lay down your arms, the extremists will pick them up and shoot you with them.
I spent days reading blogs and online writings of Muslim Extremists from Saudi, Iran, and Pakistan. They refuse to accept that individuals are responsible for things. The ‘U.S.’ is the enemy, not the men who did the deeds. They need an avenue to avenge, and since the individuals are out of the way, their only target is a country of innocents. They are venomous in their desire to kill every single white man or westerner in the entirety of the world. According to their own words, the war isn’t over until every single Westerner is dead and their Jyhad is completed. Idealism believes there’s a middle ground, a way to find peace. Realisticly, that’s the Western way of thinking, there is no peace available to them except through war.
Scott // Nov 23, 2006 at 11:06 am
I can’t disagree with the fact that there are eastern extremists, however I do see that there are western extremists. I think you’re generalizing a little bit, pigeonholing Easterners and Westerners.
Do you have a background in the military?
Sphynx // Nov 24, 2006 at 4:59 am
Yes, I’m Ex-Military.
You’re right, there are Western extremists. The new Army of Christ is a great example. But my comments weren’t about westerners or easterners. Simply about the extremists muslims who are on their holy crusade/jyhad.
Scott // Nov 25, 2006 at 6:22 pm
I just don’t see how you can single out muslims, other than to say you are biased toward a western perspective. I don’t think Muslims are any worse than western extremists. I wouldn’t break out a scale to measure who are the worst evils. To me, they are all evil.
Sphynx // Nov 26, 2006 at 8:51 am
I’m not singling them out. This discussion is only over one side of things, and I’m not interested in de-railing the current discussion further than it has been. There’s no denying that there are Muslim Extremists. There’s no denying their Jyhad. There’s no denying their refusal to accept any middle ground. The fact that others might be similar has no bearing on those facts.
Scott // Nov 26, 2006 at 12:19 pm
If an issue has the capability to be derailed, that means there are flaws in its makeup. In other words, as long as there is a different point of view to be heard, there is room for change. Otherwise we are speaking in infinites and I don’t believe in those. I doubt you do either otherwise you wouldn’t be here.
Sphynx // Nov 26, 2006 at 12:29 pm
Irrelevant. That has nothing to do with the discussion.
Scott // Nov 26, 2006 at 5:59 pm
It does because it is my perspective. You seem very totalitarian about your opinions, which is something I completely disagree with.
Sphynx // Nov 27, 2006 at 11:00 am
You mis-understand. Although I’m sure that would make for an interesting conversation or debate, that’s not what this blog is about. I will only comment on the topic of the blog in any commenting I make. If it’s not specifically about the subject matter, it’s irrelevant for the discussion. That’s common Netiquette.
Ponderous // Dec 24, 2006 at 2:28 pm
Scott-
Please move to communist North Korea if you feel we live under an oppressive, tyrannical ruler. Sure, Bush, like all presidents has his faults, but you are just out of your mind. After a few years under a communist dictator (if you live), you will come to realize the freedom you have here.
Scott // Dec 25, 2006 at 12:02 pm
Ponderous-
If i’m not mistaken, communism is what occurs when the public does not question its government. I surely do realize the freedoms we have in the USA however, I do believe that we are not the ideal society as people like yourself so claim that we are. If you think for one second that you gained your freedoms without the likes of “crazy” people like me (activists), you simply must require a reevaluation of your history books.
Zach // Jan 2, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Speaking of netiquette, I really dislike this “move to [insert country of your choosing here]” argument. It’s completely irrevelant and borders on the hostile and ad hominem.
Anyhow, I think at a time like this, it is the liberals who really need to keep the warhawks in check. People, such as Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri, can get swept up under the radar and be wrongfully stripped of their rights. Bringing attention to such matters forces the government to be more cautious and take greater care when corralling people up into internment camps.
Toni // Jan 10, 2007 at 4:43 pm
ok first off… i have to say that i agree with this. they are american citizens they are here legally and the fact that we call them “enemy combatants” and take away their rights is jsut totally unjust.
This isnt the first time this has happened though.. isn’t it so that in 1941 when the japanese attacked Pearl Harbor that we sent all the japanese americans on the west coast to interment camps because they were somehow helping the enemy by giving japan information?
these are american citizens and they deserve to be in this country, isn’t our saying “life, liberty and the persuit of happiness” well how are we making the people who come here for jsut that happy if we dubb them “enemies” jsut because they come from the country we are at war with.
i have to agree witht he statement “how long untill real americans are branded ‘enemy combatants”
Ashley // Jan 16, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Not to totally interrupt this whole discussion, but I’m going to just throw my opinion in here.
First of all, I don’t agree completely with being able to remove all rights from anyone who can be viewed as an enemy combatant. We’re suppose to support the freedom of every citizen in this country as the great American melting pot.
Second of all, I don’t believe Bush is using terrorist actions to fight the terrorism (and no I have no military background). Bush is merely trying his best to stop another tragedy like the one on 9\11 from happening again while he is in office. Honestly I don’t envy him. He gets to tough and he has people saying he’s being unjust and is just trying to fulfill his own agenda. He gets too soft and he’s not putting the safety of the US first and foremost. He really has no good way to go.
Next I am a strong believer of human rights but that includes the rights of American citizens not having to be afraid to go to work, get on an airplane or leave the country because there may be a terrorist act.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t we free to pursue happiness? And if our happiness comes from work, visiting other countries, or traveling in general, do we lose our rights because of terrorism and protecting their rights?
Scott // Jan 16, 2007 at 11:18 pm
Ashley,
If you truly believe in human rights I implore you to investigate the Bush administrations involvment in countless violations including the occurances at Guantanimo Bay and the thousands of civilian and military deaths in the Iraq war. I do not see how anyone with a consciense could honestly defend the decisions that have been made by Bush and driven by his agenda.
You ask about happiness. My happiness does not involve hype, racism, prejudice, war, death, paranoia, fear, lost rights, the patriot act, ethnic cleansing, intolerance, violence, bigotry, religous zealotry of any kind (Christian or Muslim or any other)………………….. You want to see terrorism, turn on any major news broadcast today and listen to the death toll in Iraq. See what is happening in THEIR country. NOT on our soil. And then ask yourself what connection Iraq had to the attacks on Sept. 11 2001. If I’m not mistaken, that was what we went to war in Afghanistan for (where is Osama Bin Laden?). This has very clearly gone way beyond a war on terror. And the deaths are CIVILIANS. INNOCENT children, women and men. And people claim this is not about racial or ethnic profiling? How blind are we really?!?
Rick // Jan 22, 2007 at 1:30 am
I agreed with Bush when he invaded Afghanistan. Since Osama Bin Laden is hiding there, bombs away. When it comes to Iraq, Bush LIED!!! He invaded an innocent country, he should be impeached and tried as a war criminal. Osama Bin Laden is responsible for killing about 3000 innocent American on 9/11. How many innocent Iraqis and Afganis did we kill since then?
Since when is it the USA’s job to be the UN’s police force? If Saddam violated international law, let the UN deal with it. It is not baby Bush’s job to finish papa Bush’s war.
nurse hentai nursse // Sep 4, 2008 at 9:50 pm
hentai nursse gets nursse anime hentai
Leave a Comment