When President Bush took his case to Congress and the nation that extraordinary measures were needed in both the investigation and prosecution of terror suspects the lack of outrage was deafening.
He spoke of restricting access to evidence, holding trials without the defendant present, permitting coerced testimony and third party assertions. He asked that Congress give a free pass to interrogators so they know they won't face criminal prosecution for their work.
Is this really the kind of debate the government of the United States should be having?
When Bush ran in 2000 he said he was going to "restore dignity and honor to the White House." Now he is suggesting that honor and integrity should be removed from the Code of Military Justice.
In the closing trial scene of Rob Reiner's film "A Few Good Men," Jack Nicholson's character said, "You f***in' people. You have no idea how to defend a nation. All you did was weaken a country today. That's all you did. You put people's lives in danger. Sweet dreams." He justified the killing of a Marine in his charge by saying that although tragic, the Marine's death probably saved lives. Is that the way we want to live? Is that the course that we think is best? Killing people saves lives?
But few Americans object, few of us do anything more than complain. We hear the administration shouting "Danger, danger" like the robot in "Lost in Space" and we accept it.
I understand that some people trust the government, some people believe that the war in Iraq is a pivotal part of the war on terror. I know there are people who think that anything is OK if it keeps us safe. Torture is a terrorist tactic. The threat of pain or death is what they hope to inspire.
Are we for or against terrorism? Or does nothing bother us at all?
No comments:
Post a Comment