They Could Be Dead As You Read This

SOCIAL STUDIES - February 18th 2008

They could be dead by the time you read this.

The purported terrorists who allegedly destroyed the twin towers in New York, that is.

It will probably come as breaking news; and the news will probably be old before it hits the stand. It seems far more likely that the military junta who is in control of the so called trial will just have them shot and sometime later in a memo declare it to have happened.

It is not that I am for terrorism, or even a big fan of our current legal systems, it is just that I cannot believe how far from accepted social practice the United States is willing to move for the sake of public safety.

Even at ball games the entire country sings lustily about it being "the home of the free," but has anyone really stopped to think about what they are saying?

Pretty much the main freedom you have as a citizen of the union is the freedom to tell other people what they cannot be free to do. What with everyone and their dog hopping on the bandwagon of freedom, it is a wonder that anyone can make any decisions for themselves.

Thomas Hobbes the political philosopher worked from one main premise; life is "nasty, brutish, and short." Once we realize that, he argued, we need to start curtailing freedom in order to be safe. You simply cannot kill people because you do not want them to kill you. Therefore you cannot commit crimes because it would make someone mad enough to want to kill you. The same goes with slander, hearsay and the rest of it; we make moral decisions, and force others to live by our decisions to insure the common good.

Of course, Hobbes wrote this during the Civil War in England during the mid-17th century and it was perhaps easier to curtail freedom back then.

The problem is that the social contract is a contract one enters into by mutual assent.

My neighbour and I agree not to shoot our shotguns across the disputed fence because we don't want anyone to shoot our dog. The social contract Hobbes had in mind was not one that could be enforced by the state.

There is another word for enforced social and moral rule: fascism, which Webster's defines as "A political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)."

Laurence Britt, writing in the Free Inquiry Magazine defined 14 characteristics of fascism from which I leave you to draw your own conclusions:

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.

5. Rampant sexism.

6. A controlled mass media.

7. Obsession with national security.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together.

9. Power of corporations protected.

10. Power of labour suppressed or eliminated.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.

14. Fraudulent elections.

Down in Guantánamo there are six people facing charges in the death of the more than 3,000 victims of an act of terrorism in New York City. I have seen the death certificates of two of those victims, as I knew them, and they truly do list cause of death as murder -- so there is no doubt some sort of criminal investigation should ensue.

Those six people are also not your average run of the mill people; one is Khalid Shaikh Mohammed a former senior aide to Osama Bin Laden. Still. . .

They are being tried under the Military Commissions Act as war criminals with far fewer rights than any citizen of the United States would be afforded. They are faced with the very real threat of a death sentence which has been abolished in every western country except the United States. They are being tried for all intents and purposes in a foreign penal colony outside of regular jurisdiction. They are also being defended by U.S. military lawyers and judged by a U.S. military tribunal. There will be no press, no family, no advocates; and the evidence was, it is rumoured, obtained with the use of torture.

An interviewee on the CBC also made the interesting observation that they have waited almost 3,000 days after the fact to begin the trial. Curiously choosing a time corresponding with a national election in which the Democrats are poised to sweep the rug out from under them to show how tough the Republicans can be on terrorism by ushering the 9/11 perpetrators to their final resting place.

The General in charge says they will get a fair trial; so hey, why should we be upset? Perhaps because from the very first trial ever held over there, the Bush administration has tried to go around the basic freedoms afforded by their government; arguing, for example, that prisoners should not be granted the right to appeal because that is a U.S. legal statute and they are being tried outside of U.S. jurisdiction.

They may be guilty for all I know. They may be horrific, terrible, even evil people who should be shot at sunset. But it worries me that I will never really know.

I would like to think I live in a world where people really are innocent until proven guilty and that even the least of us have some sort of protection under the law. If for no other reason, then because I think human rights evoke a Hobbesian sort of reciprocity in which others will treat us with respect and civility when we can muster the courage to do the same.

Of course, they are probably dead already.

Watch out; you never know who could be next.