Imagine you are walking down some busy metropolitan street in the U.S. There are people walking around in each and every direction, going about their day like it was any day. Then imagine a din of breaking tires focus your attention ahead of you, where you see a swarm of men in dark clothing geyser out of a few dark unmarked SUV’s. They stuff into a burlap sack the gentlemen, who was standing only a foot in front you a moment ago at the last croswalk, hurl him into the backseat of one of the SUV’s and then speed off into the distance. Not what you were expecting after just getting your morning coffee? How do you respond?
This isn’t a scene out of some blockbuster movie but an event that has happened time and time again in the real world. With every passing news week we are hearing another tale such as the one of Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr (the news article is linked below.) The only difference between the above scenario and the real occurrences are their locations. For Nasr the location was Milan, Italy. We don’t allow torture or warrantless arrests in this country. Now should the fact that the location is different really change the accountability of the crime? Does the difference of jurisdiction really make it right?
The CIA is breaking the law. They are breaking our laws, Italy’s laws, and the international laws we have promised to uphold. If the CIA acted the same way within our borders, especially against a U.S citizen, there would be a tumultuous uproar. As a New Yorker, I understand the threat our society faces from terrorism and have greatly felt its effects, and I understand some of the great work that the CIA does for our nation. But, we are a country based on principles, which do not waver because of the fear of the public. We are not the oppressors that we fought in the in the wars of past, and we cannot allow ourselves to become them.
There are practical reasons why the CIA’s behavior in cases like Nasr’s is counterproductive. It will certainly enrage more individuals who are willing to fight against the U.S and our causes. But, the point I want to hinge on is that we cannot hold ourselves to the moral high ground established in our laws and constitution and then ignore that virtue because we think it might suit our protectionist needs. We say we do not negotiate with terrorists because then we would have to negotiate with all terrorists. The same theory applies to our principals—we do not curtail our principals because then we leave all of our principals vulnerable. A freedom that didn’t abridge the rights of another that existed yesterday cannot cease to exist today.
Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33208384/ns/world_news-terrorism/
4 comments:
I saw the movie Road to Guantanamo over the summer and was deeply shocked by the story.
I agree with you that the CIA shouldn't act in ways against the Constitution even if what they are doing might be necessary. And also their action will soon become another excuse for Al-Qaeda or other organizations to attack the U.S.
However, thinking from the CIA's point of view, we will have a different understanding. As Bush said in his farewell address: "I have followed my conscience and done what I thought was right. You may not agree with some tough decisions I have made. But I hope you can agree that I was willing to make the tough decisions." Sometimes, some one has to make a call. I am not saying we should agree with what CIA did, but we should try to see it from their point of view.
You make a very good point, but can't it also be argued that these extreme actions the CIA are for the greater good of our country? If Nasar can provide the United States with vital evidence about a pertinent topic, wouldn't you capitalize on any opportunity to take advantage of his knowledge? If he knows where Osama Bin Laden is (or any information of equal value), do you think it's unwarranted to take more extreme measures?
That being said, after reading your post I immediately thought of Guantanamo and the terrible mistreatment of prisoners. This topic truly is a double-edged sword. If the CIA neglects to use aggressive actions, people may be upset because opportunities to learn vital information will not be capitalized on. But, if the CIA does resort to more intense methods of interrogation (like Jack Bauer), we fail to uphold the principles our country was founded upon.
I understand your claim, but there is one problem: The CIA operates based on secrecy. If they had to get a warrant and bring such a man to trial, they would be forced to put themselves out in the open. It would be nice if we didn't have to have spy organizations, even if every single piece of national security information were made public. But we operate in a world dangerous enough that elements of our government must remain sneaky in order to thwart terrorist plots. If the CIA weren't secret, then they would be more easily found out, and it would be much easier for terrorist groups to avoid being found. If the United States had made public every secret mission it made or even every time it sent a spy to another country, our national security would be greatly compromised. Therefore, there are some things that we have to do in secret, and since the only way to ensure a free and fair trial for all is to compromise secrecy, there's nothing we can do but allow some to be stripped of this right. The best we can do in order to ensure that we have consistent principles of justice is for the rights provided by the US Constitution to apply only to citizens and not to all people, which is how it is commonly interpreted today.
You are entirely correct. Similar to the joker in The Dark Knight, terrorists in a large way want to see the US sink below the city on a hill it wants to be. By engaging in this behavior the US has in some way given a victory to the terrorists, as less of a contrast is shown. The only way we can win a war on terrorism is by stopping terrorist recruitment, and while there are people who see the US as wrong there will be terrorist recruitment.
Post a Comment