How Much Do You Trust Big Brother's Discretion?
I'm not sure how many are aware of this ruling- U.S. Can Confine Citizens Without Charges, Court Rules. This is a reversal of a previous ruling back in 2003. The courts have
Governments all over the world have instituted provisions to allow for secret, extra-judiciary branches of government to deal with what they claim to be extraordinary circumstances. For Americans, the threat of terrorism has put the US into a "new" kind of war. In answer to this threat we have been told that some of our rights and freedoms (the ones for which the terrorists hate us so much) need to be sacrificed. Now we're keeping secret prisons in other countries, the names of which have been withheld due to the probability that our actions would be considered illegal in those countries. Globally and historically this is nothing new. Unfortunately, however, these policies, when instituted elsewhere, are often, if not always, abused and held up as obstacles to those governments entering the mainstream global community.
Malaysia met the threat of communism during its youth after WWII with the Internal Security Act (ISA). The communists have been gone for a while now, but the ISA is still in place. In addition, the ISA has given the government carte blanche to "legally" get rid of any political threats. I have personally spoken with a Malaysian Christian who narrowly missed getting rounded up during college. He was out of the country at the time interviewing for graduate school, but a number of his friend were rounded up and detained for months. Their crime: they had a Bible study in their room and had dialogued with some Muslim students about faith issues. They were not arrested and charged with proselytizing which would have involved due process of law. Instead, the ISA gave the authorities the power to detain them without charges and without public disclosure of any kind.
The law was, at face value, set up to allow the government to deal expediently with threats. Individual rights could be compromised in the interest of national security. Whether or not the law was justified to begin with is beside the point.
This convoluted thought comes to this: Reduction in human rights for the benefit of national security puts discretion into the hands of a few who, historically speaking, never use this authority and decreased accountability without abuse. Recent events in our own history show that, in fact, the authorities will flirt with the edge of any limitations put up for them and, as recently evident, overstep those limits if there's a chance they can get away with it.
I do not trust anyone in a position of authority to benevolently take away freedoms in order to protect the freedoms that are left over. I don't trust anyone in authority to know who is "good" and who's "bad" with 100% accuracy. Accountability and oversight are ALWAYS needed. Extreme circumstances call for INCREASED ACCOUNTABILITY and OVERSIGHT rather than the DECREASE our illustrious vice-president would like to see take place.
My hope is that Americans would never stand for the government to use these tactics against US citizens. Once given these discretionary powers, however, how many of us would ever know that they were being utilized? How much abuse would have to take place before the public became interested enough to take action? I am very skeptical given that we are currently engaged in torturing detainees and our right to do so is being debated on who technically is and isn't covered under treaties rather than what is moral or in line with our historical defense of human rights. Our administration is detaining people in secret prisons in countries where there will be no oversight. All of this gives me little confidence in the discretion of the military, CIA, and anyone associated with the executive branch of government. Our country is step by step establishing our character in the face of threats that other countries have lived with all along. Our standards for human rights, justice, transparency, and accountability found most of these other countries lacking as they dealt with perceived external and internal threats. Are we going to lower the bar now that we feel threatened or are we going to accept that a free and just society has costs that must be counted and then accepted. I don't say this flippantly. But we must seriously consider this beyond the trappings of politics. We hail the reforms in places like South Africa and Indonesia as triumphs for human rights and democracy. Why would we want to do anything that moves us closer to from whence they came?
FYI:
Here's some more info on Malaysia's ISA and the special branch of government that used it:
backed the president's power to indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen captured on U.S. soil without any criminal charges, holding that such authority is vital during wartime to protect the nation from terrorist attacks.At the risk of sounding alarmist, I think this is very disturbing, and I'm concerned that it will stay under the radar for the average citizen. The basic right of every citizen to due process of law can now be circumvented based on the judgement of the president. Please understand, my concern is not that law breakers have been arrested. My concern is that the administration feels that due process of law, with all of the checks and balances and oversight that are a part of the system, is inadequate.
Governments all over the world have instituted provisions to allow for secret, extra-judiciary branches of government to deal with what they claim to be extraordinary circumstances. For Americans, the threat of terrorism has put the US into a "new" kind of war. In answer to this threat we have been told that some of our rights and freedoms (the ones for which the terrorists hate us so much) need to be sacrificed. Now we're keeping secret prisons in other countries, the names of which have been withheld due to the probability that our actions would be considered illegal in those countries. Globally and historically this is nothing new. Unfortunately, however, these policies, when instituted elsewhere, are often, if not always, abused and held up as obstacles to those governments entering the mainstream global community.
Malaysia met the threat of communism during its youth after WWII with the Internal Security Act (ISA). The communists have been gone for a while now, but the ISA is still in place. In addition, the ISA has given the government carte blanche to "legally" get rid of any political threats. I have personally spoken with a Malaysian Christian who narrowly missed getting rounded up during college. He was out of the country at the time interviewing for graduate school, but a number of his friend were rounded up and detained for months. Their crime: they had a Bible study in their room and had dialogued with some Muslim students about faith issues. They were not arrested and charged with proselytizing which would have involved due process of law. Instead, the ISA gave the authorities the power to detain them without charges and without public disclosure of any kind.
The law was, at face value, set up to allow the government to deal expediently with threats. Individual rights could be compromised in the interest of national security. Whether or not the law was justified to begin with is beside the point.
This convoluted thought comes to this: Reduction in human rights for the benefit of national security puts discretion into the hands of a few who, historically speaking, never use this authority and decreased accountability without abuse. Recent events in our own history show that, in fact, the authorities will flirt with the edge of any limitations put up for them and, as recently evident, overstep those limits if there's a chance they can get away with it.
I do not trust anyone in a position of authority to benevolently take away freedoms in order to protect the freedoms that are left over. I don't trust anyone in authority to know who is "good" and who's "bad" with 100% accuracy. Accountability and oversight are ALWAYS needed. Extreme circumstances call for INCREASED ACCOUNTABILITY and OVERSIGHT rather than the DECREASE our illustrious vice-president would like to see take place.
My hope is that Americans would never stand for the government to use these tactics against US citizens. Once given these discretionary powers, however, how many of us would ever know that they were being utilized? How much abuse would have to take place before the public became interested enough to take action? I am very skeptical given that we are currently engaged in torturing detainees and our right to do so is being debated on who technically is and isn't covered under treaties rather than what is moral or in line with our historical defense of human rights. Our administration is detaining people in secret prisons in countries where there will be no oversight. All of this gives me little confidence in the discretion of the military, CIA, and anyone associated with the executive branch of government. Our country is step by step establishing our character in the face of threats that other countries have lived with all along. Our standards for human rights, justice, transparency, and accountability found most of these other countries lacking as they dealt with perceived external and internal threats. Are we going to lower the bar now that we feel threatened or are we going to accept that a free and just society has costs that must be counted and then accepted. I don't say this flippantly. But we must seriously consider this beyond the trappings of politics. We hail the reforms in places like South Africa and Indonesia as triumphs for human rights and democracy. Why would we want to do anything that moves us closer to from whence they came?
FYI:
Here's some more info on Malaysia's ISA and the special branch of government that used it:
Once individuals were taken into custody, they were interrogated by officers from the Special Branch, which, although part of the police bureaucracy, functions as Malaysia’s domestic security service. During the political unrest in the 1970s and during Operation Lalang in the 1980s, Special Branch officers were called upon to interrogate, intimidate, and silence political detainees who were perceived as a threat to the Malaysian government. Because Special Branch officers are completely free of outside oversight when they interrogate ISA detainees, they have developed a reputation for abusive and coercive tactics.
Relevant sections of the legislation are as follows:
Section 73(1) Internal Security Act 1960: "Any police officer may without warrant arrest and detain pending enquiries any person in respect of whom he has reason to believe that there are grounds which would justify his detention under section 8; and that he has acted or is about to act or is likely to act in any manner prejudicial to the security of Malaysia or any part thereof or to maintenance of essential services therein or to the economic life thereof."
Sect 8. Power to order detention or restriction of persons. "(i) If the Minister is satisfied that the detention of any person is necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of Malaysia or any part thereof or to the maintenance of essential services therein or the economic life thereof, he may make an order (hereinafter referred to as a detention order) directing that that person be detained for any period not exceeding two years."
posted by Bootleg Blogger at 8:07 AM
1 Comments:
Good Job! :)
Post a Comment
<< Home