Detainees, Terrorists, Suspects, and Us?

I was disappointed this week to see that Congress passed a bill that allows the arrest, torture, and detention of suspected terrorists. The idea that we are willing to cross a line between cruel and inhumane acts and American ideals bothers me. I realize that terrorists are something to be feared, but if we look at the very nature of "terrorism" I believe that we are headed down the wrong road here.

Terrorism by its very nature is an attempt to change something through fear. Simple definition, I know, but that is really all it is. If someone doesn't like something that you are doing and uses violence to get their way, then that is terrorism. We make changes through fear, and by doing so we allow terrorists to accomplish their goals. Kids learn this on the playground.... The bully demands lunch money or he/she will give you a thrashing, so you give them the lunch money. Powerful people preying on the weak. Well, I believe that the global consensus is that we are not a weak country. In this case, the lunch money represents our fundamental rights. We do not need to bow to the threats of the bully, so why are we giving them our lunch money?

In this case, we have completely suspended "Habeus Corpus" for suspected terrorists. For international readers, our constitution guarantees that no citizen can be held for more than 24 hours without formal charges being filed. If there are no formal charges, then the constitution commands release.

Now, where I tend to get nervous about this is that the bill does not clearly specify foreign nationals. I guess that a US citizen could be a terrorist (Isn't that what Timothy McVeigh was called?) and commit terrorist acts. Under the provisions of the new law, someone suspected of terrorism can be held indefinitely, tortured, and prosecuted in a closed trial.

I look at things that have come of the Patriot Act over the past several years, and knowing that it has been interpreted very broadly in order to allow electronic monitoring of US citizens, as well as other curtailing of our rights. I fear that such interpretations can happen with this bill.

If this happens, then indeed, the terrorists have accomplished their mission. They will have changed our fundamental way of life through violent acts. I am by no means suggesting that violence is a way to achieve a goal. I just believe that if we step back and take a broader, more historical view of the whole governmental reaction to the 9/11 terrorist act that we may be going too far.

In 1755 Benjamin Franklin said:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Now, I am sure that entire conferences could be held to discuss this and someone somewhere would interpret it differently, but the essence of the thing is that we can't curtail our rights to protect ourselves. If we give up our rights, what are we protecting?

One possible solution would be retribution - Pax Romanus.... Find the nest and destroy it. I don't think that we should do this indiscriminately, but if we find that a terrorist act was committed by someone operating out of a foreign country, then we go in and destroy their headquarters. Since terrorism crosses political boundaries, there is no reason that our response shouldn't cross them as well. I believe that we could put up with the indignity of other countries over sovereignty issues. If we do this seriously and consistently, sooner or later the terrorists will have to understand that there is not a positive outcome to a terrorist act.

Anyway, that is the end of the political diatribe for this morning. I stand prepared to reply to comments, flames, and opinions. I purposely left my statements very broad in the hopes that it will spur a discussion.