Imagine, if you will, someone who wants to hurt America. A violent and angry individual- someone who believes America is corrupt and fallen. This man believes the American government is "stripping his carcass" and proclaims that "violence is the only answer." Imagine this man plots to attack America. Strike fear into the government's heart and make people realize as the bodies are counted that his cause is just. Imagine he hates Western religion, viewing it as "vulgur" and "corrupt," and he despises the American government all the more for assisting Western religion. This man has spent over 30 years of his life working to convince others of the corruptness of America and its evil capitalistic ways. This man is a terrorist.
Now imagine we can find this man before his attack is launched. Discover his plot and expose it before it's too late.
What should we do with this man once he is apprehended? Should we waterboard him for information? He could have co-conspirators who must be found. Should he be detained in a prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba? Should he be tried by a military court? Should this man, this terrorist, be permitted rights afforded under OUR Constitution? What has he done to deserve them?
Picture that man. Does he look like this in your imagination?
That image is of Joseph Stack, the man who flew his airplane into IRS offices in Austin, Texas last week. Everything written in the first paragraph above comes from his manifesto which he posted online immediately prior to killing himself and one other man in his crash. Of course, this man was not apprehended. His attack, sadly, was not stopped.
So why do I bring this up?
A great debate is raging in America right now, punctuated by jabs between Dick Cheney and Joe Biden, about whether terrorists have any rights at all. You may recall Sarah Palin's comments from a few weeks back:
For example, there are questions we would have liked this foreign terrorist to answer because he lawyered up and invoked our U.S. Constitutional right to remain silent...Our U.S. Constitutional rights....The protections provided—thanks to you sir [PALIN ADDRESSES MALE VETERAN IN AUDIENCE]—we’re going to bestow them on a terrorist who hates our Constitution and wants to destroy our Constitution and our country? This makes no sense because we have a choice in how we’re going to deal with the terrorists. We don’t have to go down that road.
Lest you get the impression Palin is alone in her comments, think again. In a recent poll, 58% (!) of Americans think the underwear bomber should have been waterboarded (i.e., receive no Constitutional protections). 71% (!) think military authorities should have handled the investigation and trial as opposed to civilian authorities. Congressional Republicans threatened to drag Attorney General Holder before a House Committee to demand answers as to why the underwear bomber received constitutional protections.
Americans do not want to give terrorists constitutional rights- even when they are captured on American soil for a crime committed on American soil. Americans want suspected terrorists waterboarded. They want suspected terrorists whisked off to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where we won't have to be afraid of them anymore. They want suspected terrorists to be tried by the military, and many couldn't care less if the trial never occurs.
How do we know if someone is actually a terrorist, though? Especially if we never give them a trial? Who makes the decision that someone is a "terrorist"? For many Americans, the answer is "let the government decide." That's crazy. I would like to appeal to lofty principles of natural rights to make my argument (and I have before), but for those who reject that argument out of hand, let me appeal to a more base instinct: self-preservation.
Many Americans are busy fighting to tear down protective walls that our nation's founders carefully erected, all because those Americans are afraid. They are afraid, and they do not believe that their government could ever label someone who looks like them as a "terrorist." But what if it did? What if the conservative position carried the day in the courts as well as the polls? Would Joseph Stack have been whisked away? Would he have been waterboarded? Would his wife and daughter have been seized as co-conspirators? Would his colleagues have been detained with no constitutional rights? Would all of them have been denied access to a lawyer? How many years would his wife, daughter and colleagues been held without even being told what the charges were against them (as was the case for over 7 years for multiple Guantanamo Bay detainees)? When pressed on the whereabouts of Stack family and friends, how many times would the government respond, "We can't tell you- it is classified"?
Of course, we don't live in that world just yet. That said, it is frightening just how far down the path of shattered constitutional protections we traveled under the Bush administration before an election intervened (and even now much of what the Bush administration did remains intact). America has made many egregious mistakes when reacting to fear. One would think by now we could all recognize the signs and respond more cooly and rationally.
In a sense, the conservative argument is quite ironic. A party often skeptical of our government's power is fighting to give the government unchecked power to eliminate a person's constitutional protections. Perhaps Joseph Stack can serve as a bit of a wake-up call (even if not the one he intended). "Terrorists" can be just as American as you are. Are we sure it is good policy to remove constitutional protections based on a label that could define Americans? The Golden Rule is golden indeed: do unto others...
Check us out at http://www.thefourthbranch.com