The right of habeas corpus has been a part of our country's legal tradition longer than we've actually been a country. It means that our government has to explain why it's holding a person in custody. But now, the War on Terror has nixed many of the rules we used to think of as fundamental. At Guantanamo Bay, our government initially claimed that prisoners should not be covered by habeas—or even by the Geneva Conventions—because they're the most fearsome enemies we have. But is that true? Is it a camp full of terrorists, or a camp full of our mistakes?
When I first heard that we were aggregating "prisoners" at Guantanamo Bay I was very nervous about it. As a Bush supporter I, at the time, supported his aggressive counter measures toward those who were waging an unconventional war against us. But over time I started to wonder just what we would emerge as once this was all "done" - if it ever was done. What would our nation look like?
There is an America that we all think is, then there is what our leaders and politicians are molding it into. There is what Evangelicals want to mold it into with their "wedge strategy" and for some the goal is to transform this into a theocracy. Um, that's not worked well in the past as I recall. We have been a nation of laws and of personal rights. We believe that it is better for a guilty man to walk free than to have an innocent man imprisoned. But I'm wondering if that's changing by our apathetic attitude toward Guantanamo. Is our need for security allowing our government to exchange security for human rights? I certainly hope not. I certainly hope that we will use our important voting power to ensure that the America that we want -- that we teach our children that it is -- continues: An America that values human rights and personal freedom over security.
Personally, this may be one of the first elections that I do not vote Republican. (Though, anyone but Hillary...)
No comments:
Post a Comment