1 for 285

The United States is a country at war against an insidious enemy who would like nothing better than to senselessly slaughter civilians to satisfy a bastardized version of Islam. The enemy must be fought with all possible means and we must take all necessary precautions to secure the United States, even if that means an occasional violation of civil liberties -- it is worth it to keep Americans safe. Using a civilian court system in a time of war to try terrorists is unconscionable and unreasonable. This is war and military detention is the only reasonable and safe solution to the problem.

Or so the conservative national security wisdom goes. At least, that's the only reasonable conclusion to reach after watching the numerous politicians and hopefuls pouncing on the Ahmed Ghailani case as an excuse to lambast the Obama Administration.

Ahmed Ghailani, a Tanzanian and not a US citizen, was acquitted of 284 of the 285 counts the government had brought against him for his role in the 1998 Embassy Bombings. A member of al-Qaeda, Ghailani had assisted their efforts in conspiring to attack US assets overseas. The case against him had been brought in Federal court after his capture in Pakistan and rendition to the United States. Of the 285 charges brought against him, the jury acquitted him of all but one -- one count of conspiracy. The conviction means that he will spend at minimum 20 years and at most the rest of his life in "Supermaximum Security" ADX Florence along with other noted criminals such as Richard Reid (Shoe bomber), Ted Kaczynski (Unabomber), Zacarias Moussaoui (9/11 conspirator), Mahmud Abouhalima ('93 WTC Bomber) and Ramzi Yousef ('93 WTC Bomber).

There are those who criticize the use of the civilian court system as "coddling terrorists" or for being "ineffective" and "harmful to national security". The US is at War, after all and we don't try enemy POWs in civilian court, that'd be crazy. And if their assumption was correct, that would be a very logical progression given the facts established. The problem is that their underlying assumption is incorrect.

The United States is not at war, or at least not in anyway that matters to the current discourse of how to try international terrorists. We are, of course, at war in Iraq and Afghanistan but that is not what this is about. Ghailani did not attack US troops in Afghanistan, he did not attempt to bomb a market in Baghdad, he attacked US assets overseas in Tanzania. As such, he was subject to US laws, as many other have been before him. The US Federal Court system has plenty of experience trying terrorists successfully and has done so many times since and before 9/11. There is no reason to give him a status he does not deserve. He is a terrorist, a murder -- a criminal. He is no warrior, no soldier -- he deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison.

The other flawed assumption behind the aforementioned reasoning is that we are in an existential conflict with al-Qaeda and affiliated organizations. Their continued existence poses a threat to the very existence of the United States. But this too is flawed; al-Qaeda cannot destroy the United States, no matter how long and hard it tries. It may hurt us, it may kill thousands of people but in the fight between 300million people, 14 trillion dollars and the most powerful military in history against a few hundred people who are perpetually broke, the outcome is preordained. What has a greater ability to hurt us is ourselves: bankrupting ourselves with costly wars, sacrificing our civil liberties and our values for questionable security gains and our willingness to point fingers and political opportunism.

It's also not as if there is no precedent for the trying of non-US citizens for crimes against the United States, my personal favorite is Manuel Noriega, who never set foot in the United States but was nonetheless captured, tried in federal court and incarcerated in the US prison system. Since 9/11 hundreds of people have been convicted of terrorism/terrorism related offenses in the civilian court system. To be precise, 524 people are currently in US prisons on terrorism related charges (prosecuted since 9/11). The other option that detractors of the prison system support are military tribunals. Since 9/11 there have been 4 people convicted in these tribunals, 2 of whom are walking the streets and one of which is 15 years old.

There are some, very isolated cases in which there is a genuine legal uncertainty about the proper methods of trying terrorists. An al-Qaeda member who blows up a Baghdad market should be tried under Iraqi law. A Talib who throws acid in a girls face for attending school should be summarily executed, I mean... tried under Afghan law. There are a few cases where the legal system or prison system in the countries of origin is so precarious as to make it genuinely dangerous to keep them in the country and that is a rare exception. But with that caveat noted, terrorists should be tried in civilian courts. And yes, there will be some cases where the courts acquit a terrorist and he goes free. Such is the price we pay for having a just society. Such is a price I am more than willing to pay to keep it that way. Ahmed Ghailani is not a terrorist mastermind, and any possible damage done by releasing him is entirely manageable. Nor, even if he was would it be unreasonable to release him. The United States, the judicial system, is bigger than any man, regardless of how horrible his crimes.

The reason the United States is worth saving as more than a collection of disparate peoples and material goods is the values upon which we were founded and attempt to live up to every day of our lives. Equal Justice Under Law isn't just a pithy quote relegated to the fresco of some stone construct in downtown DC, it is the underpinning of our entire judicial system and changing that would do more damage to the United States than Usama bin Laden could ever dream of doing. To close, a quote from Judge William Young at the sentencing of Richard Reid:

This is the sentence that is provided for by our statutes. It is a fair and a just sentence. It is a righteous sentence. Let me explain this to you.

We are not afraid of any of your terrorist co-conspirators, Mr. Reid. We are Americans. We have been through the fire before. There is all too much war talk here. And I say that to everyone with the utmost respect.

Here in this court where we deal with individuals as individuals, and care for individuals as individuals, as human beings we reach out for justice.

You are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. You are not a soldier in any war. You are a terrorist. To give you that reference, to call you a soldier gives you far too much stature. Whether it is the officers of government who do it or your attorney who does it, or that happens to be your view, you are a terrorist.

And we do not negotiate with terrorists. We do not treat with terrorists. We do not sign documents with terrorists.

We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice.

So war talk is way out of line in this court. You're a big fellow. But you're not that big. You're no warrior. I know warriors. You are a terrorist. A species of criminal guilty of multiple attempted murders.

In a very real sense Trooper Santiago had it right when first you were taken off that plane and into custody and you wondered where the press and where the TV crews were and you said you're no big deal. You're no big deal.

Thank you, and vote Ballingrud/Scout in 2012.

Representations of Injuns

Representations can be a trick subject to delve into.  In a recent post of mine, I try to explain the time-bound nature of certain representations and how the discursive materials available can shape these representations.  When I'm given the decision to choose which representation is better, Redskins or American Indian, I end up leaning towards American Indian.  While I'm not entirely offended by the term Redskin, I  can understand how there are negative connotations associated with the term due to its racial nature.  I also feel that there are negative implications of terms such as "Native American", which as PTJ highlighted in class, can connote a primitive nature of the American Indians.  There potentially is even a literature base that opposes the term "American Indian".  Regardless, I feel that representations are a serious issue but can sometimes be falsely associated with a malicious nature.

In the context of the Redskins, there has been consistent controversy from the issue that has even reached the Supreme Court twice.  Certain Native American parties believe that the term is rooted in insensitivity towards their people.  This is understandable since the history of the word does seem to be correlated with racism.  Interestingly, Sports Illustrated and University of Pennsylvania conducted comprehensive polls that indicated that a majority of Native Americans found the term acceptable.  This seems to me to indicate that the oppressive power of the word, from which it was originally founded upon, has gone away over time.  The word may be rooted in racism, the implications in a generally more sensitive period have been decreased.  This made me think about the concept of reappropriation in which terms such as "nigger, queer, faggot, tree hugger, redneck" etc., have been used by the discriminated groups as a method of disempowering the negative connotations of the words.  It seems to me that representations can sometimes be based upon the mindset behind these terms.  Yes, all of these terms are rooted in in racist history and yes, they are used presently in racist ways, but movements and forums that disempower the effectiveness of these words exist.  I do believe that representations are extremely important and can be used to marginalize populations.  Additionally, I do feel that discourse has the ability to shape reality.  I'm just curious as to whether a mindset shift and/or an actual policy proposal is necessary to address these issues.

I feel that the flawed representations of lolcats is another area of controversy which is a vital issue to discuss:

Colombus - A Real American

Colombus is infamous for "discovering" America.  His discovery of a new world is both praised and criticized.  On one level, he started the progression towards the inhabitance and development of our country from the west.  On the other hand, his discovery inevitable lead to the destruction of countless indigenous people and the "imperialist" policies that acquired the Native American's land.  Now whether it's fair to blame Colombus for what happened, I feel that it is not. I've attempted to explain my argument regarding this in class but I'm not entirely sure that this was fleshed out well enough.  I decided to evaluate this issue in consideration to the time-bound nature of the question.  I feel that the actions and interactions he had at the time were justified and inevitable.  I want to back this up with an understanding of western imperialism. 

Generally, imperialism is correlated with colonial and territorial policies couple with economic and/or military dominance and influence.  This was due the materialistic mindset that existed at the time.  European history had been deeply rooted in expansionist policies that was evident throughout the Roman Empire.  The reason behind this expansion were the economic benefits from collecting resources from foreign lands or colonies.  Obtaining these resources was only possible by guaranteeing they were secure.  To ensure this, control was exerted through military means.  While states were clearly attempting to ensure their own security, the easy access to resources with virtually no resistence was an opportunity they couldn't afford to ignore.  At the time, France, Spain, Portugal, and the United Kingdom were spreading colonies throughout the world.  None of the nations wanted to be left behind so they seized every opportunity that was available.  Because this mindset existed at the time, the result of Columbus discovering new and rich land was inevitable.  The way expansionist policies existed at the time meant that it was only a matter of time before some country found the "New World".  His actions were fair for the time being because he couldn't have predicted that colonizing foreign lands would be criticized in the future due to their fair nature at the time.

A second facet of the inevitability of Columbus' actions is the philosophy of the world that existed at the time.  While material gains were extremely important for countries, their philosophies on life were rooted in Eurocentric thought that prioritized the white male over other beings.  This prioritization of life caused these countries to believe that the people that inhabited the land they were occupying were less than human.  This justified violence against them because they weren't of equal status with the Europeans.  Also, the Europeans felt that it was their religious duty to God to attempt to convert these new populations.  Any resistence to their attempts to convert were instantly stifled.  The material and superior mindset that existed at the time made the actions against the Native Americans inevitable at the time.

Stealing the Moon

If one is to accept the notion that Columbus is responsible for the resulting genocide of the indigenous peoples of the Americas then one must also accept that people are responsible for the actions of others that follow their own. There is no charitable way to put this: Columbus was kind of a jerk. He thought of the Indians as a clean slate upon which to project his version of “civilization”; he thought them only moderately more intelligent than animals and he had no qualms about trampling all over their civilization, all the while treating them in a very paternal and condescending manner. But he cannot be blamed for the resulting genocide for the simple fact that it was inevitable. Once he discovered the Americas, people like Cortez were going to come over and ruin some days regardless of how Columbus treated the Indians. There was far too much inertia on the part of the Spanish Crown for him to have changed the inevitable course of events.

One of the key exonerating factors for Columbus is that he never seemed to have any malicious intent toward the Indians on his first voyage, before he reported back to Spain and took more people and such along. The main motivations for his voyage were religious, to spread Christianity and to raise money for the reconquest of Jerusalem, as opposed to people like Cortez who came in with malevolent intent for the peoples of the Americas and designs of their wealth and land.

“And he concludes with astonishment that, although naked, the Indians seem closer to men than to animals.
…
His attitude with regard to this other culture is, in the best of cases, that of the collector of curiosities, and it is never accompanied by any attempt at comprehension: observing for the first time certain masonry constructions … he contents himself with ordering a piece of it to be broken off to keep as a souvenir.” (p34-35)

Contrast that attitude to the later actions of people like Cortez:

“Having learned of the existence of the Aztec empire, he begins a slow progress toward the interior, attempting to win over to his cause, either by promises or warfare, the populations whose lands he passes through.

Cortez reaches Mexico City, where he is cordially received; shortly thereafter, he decides to take the Aztec sovereign prisoner and succeeds in doing so.” (p54-55)

The discovery of the Americas was inevitable, and the actions of people like Cortez were going to happen even if Columbus had treated the Indians as equals. The allure of a land ripe for pillaging with its riches was too much for anyone to resist at the time. Columbus may have started off poorly, but as soon as he discovered the Americas, their fate was sealed regardless of his possible actions. Once word first reached Europe of the riches of this new land, the indigenous populations never had a hope of survival.

That is not to say that Columbus doesn’t deserve blame for being an arrogant, eccentric jerk; but rather to say that you can no more blame Columbus for Cortez’s actions than you can blame Gary Anderson for missing the field goal in the 1998 NFC Conference Championship – our defeat was already ordained and nothing Anderson did could’ve changed that. That said, I hate the man for missing the kick.

Indians

What a brilliant picture! I must first compliment Erin in her idea for the shot. Secondly I must point out that, in my opinion, both depictions of Native Americans is incorrect. The Redskins football team has a derogatory name and shows a very stereotypical drawing of a Native American.
The museum was built as a tribute to Native Americans, yet is just as incorrect and offensive. The museum, though it contains beautiful art, artifacts, and remnants of Nativa American culture, it omits some of the most brutal, yet important aspects of Native American history. The museum conveniently leaves out the numerous accounts of American repression and ruthless cruelty toward the Native American peoples. Even though I am not of Native American decent, I am personally offended that the creators of the museum could so intentionally left out a very defining part of Native American history. I say it is defining because the history of Native Americans, at least as far back as written documentation, has been shaped most violently by European settlers who soon developed into the America we call home. Native American peoples have suffered endless Supreme Court Case loses, brutal attacks, and stripping of rights. I am surprised the museum has gotten away with its silence on the subject for so long. It is as if the museum is determined to blatantly lie to the children and other visitors to the museum, looking to avoid marring the American image. Then again, it may be best to avoid sharing the stories of American evils toward the Native American tribes with children, because unlike the bad guys in fairytales, there is not hero that has sent the evils away, righted all the wrongs and saved the day. Who wants to tell their kid that the American dream they spend their afternoons thinking about is tainted by the red blood of Native American peoples.
There is no difference in the two depictions of Indians in the picture. Both are politically and morally incorrect.

A New Kind of History

This week has been crazy. I have had nine performances in 7 days. I really enjoyed hearing Ann Tickner speak. How are these things related? They are much more interrelated than one might think! The musical I was in, I Never Saw Another Butterfly, was based on a true story of a Czechoslovakian ghetto during the Holocaust in which a famous Czech artist became a teacher to the children in the ghetto and helped them paint and write about how they felt and what they saw. The teacher hid the paintings and poems in hopes that they would be discovered after the war. A suitcase full of the children’s creations was found in the 1950s and there was a book made.
How is this linked to Ann Tickner? She talked about rewriting history from the point of view of those whose voices were silenced. She said history is written by old, white men and she is attempting to write history from the view of minorities and women.
I thought it was interesting to evaluate the musical as a means of voicing a piece of history that would make it to the history page. The basic facts have been stated. Hitler, FDR, Winston Churchill, Terezin, and Nazi are all terms that make the page in the history book but in between the lines are so many stories. The show I was in was a means of projected the voices of the victimized children onto the ears of students and members of the community.
What if, instead of accepting the history presented to us, we meandered off the beaten trail and discovered more than what the well-known people said in each era? What if we began to see history as a myriad of voices, some deafening and others whispering, but all adding to history and its significance? Just some thoughts.

Reflection

So, this week seems to have three themes for me; Harry Potter, Mozart, and human rights vs. human needs. All in all, a pretty good week, I'd say. In between being excited for the upcoming premiere and rehearsals for my pending Mozart Requiem performance this weekend (Come see Gabe, Colin, and me!!!), I found some time to think about the difference between what people deserve and what people need.

I really don't like people getting free handouts, but at the same time I would like for everyone to at least have the opportunity to support themselves. The solution? It's an NGO! It's a corporation! No, it's Grameen Banks! More economically sustainable than an NGO, more helpful than a bank, it's here to save the day!

If you couldn't tell, I am a huge, flag-waving, screaming fan girl of Grameen Banks. They are such a great solution; a small loan can allow someone to lift themselves out of poverty. The Grameen method of loaning also utilizes support groups, peer pressure, and education, which results in a payback rate of 97%. No one gets anything they didn't work for, and they can support themselves after the loan rather than relying on society. Not only that, but it satisfies our (or at least my) human inclination to help others in need. Win-win, pure and simple.

Week 12 Reflection (11/8-11/12)

The week began with Tuesday's class being rescheduled in favor of a lecture by a noted feminist scholar of international relations, J Ann Tickner. The lecture itself provided some useful points and made a good point about the imperative to study alternate histories and perspectives. And on a personal note, I will admit myself to being militantly in favor of woman's rights and equal treatment. My mother is a gainfully employed professional and a very, very strong woman and my favorite teacher in the universe was a former marine corps colonel who had 2 daughters (1 marine, 1 army officer) who are also gainfully employed professionals so I've had a great deal of pro-woman influence growing up.

That said, I found several aspects of Ms. Tickner's lecture to be cringe worthy. The biggest was her aside that she's "gotten into arguments with physicists". Wait, what? I understand that in the soft sciences there is a lot of room for this type of stuff but I cannot fathom how she can argue for "alternate perspectives" in things like Physics. The Law of Partial Pressure is just that, a law. It's not up for debate. Now, I agree that on a certain level even the hard sciences go soft and are up for debate and interpretation. But I, as I would counsel Ms Tickner, would leave that to the PhDs.

The lab on Wednesday was also a bit disappointing (this really wasn't my week). The lady who presented did a well enough job (even if she did take an enormous amount of time) but the subject matter was not terribly interesting. International aid and development is very important, but so is the rule against perpetuities and nobody is clamoring to learn about that if they don't have to.

Thursday's class posed a very interesting questions about human rights and what they should entail and where they come from. I am very interested in this question but do not feel I could do it justice at the moment. Look forward to me published an essay on it down the road, though.