Republican presidential candidate Governor Mitt Romney promised one thing in last week's GOP candidate debate; that this would be an American century.
The economy, used to soaring now sinks slowly lower like a forgotten balloon. Two wars reach their twilight but at extraordinary cost, and America fails to shape or even properly support Middle East affairs.
Despite these realities, Mitt Romney and I have something in common. We believe in American exceptionalism. Born out of our intrinsic idealism mentioned in the previous post, many of us still subscribe to the idea that America should be the guiding light on a dark trail of moral ambiguity and lost values. Surely we can show the way.
The country will have to make great strides on many fronts in order to secure the coming century. Education and health care are not least among them. But as others jockey for position the best way to maintain our grip on the reigns of leadership is to adhere to principled policy. This includes how we treat terrorists, convicted and otherwise.
Thus far in my course on terrorism we have looked at varying definitions of terrorism. Perhaps the most surprising element in discussing a definition is why we need one at all. As my professor explained, terrorism needs an operating definition not to soothe the curious minds of academic theorists, but to allow us to decide how to react, punish, and prosecute terrorism and terrorists. The subject is steeped in moral judgment and uncertainty but the fact remains that as terrorism takes its course, we must take action.
I argue that the actions America takes in combating evil will define our role in the world. We alone can gild our pedestal or draft our obituary.
The last couple of years and even the past few months have entertained debate on how to handle terrorism. For example, how best to try convicted terrorists - either in military tribunals or civilian courts - and how to handle American citizens who choose to pursue terrorist goals. The recent incident in which the President ordered the targeted killing of an American-born terrorist is the best example of what I argue is dangerous policy.
Situations involving terrorists, both foreign and American born, will always be unique. There will always be reason and urgency in taking certain action. Leaders will find ways to send suspected and convicted terrorists to what physicists have surely discovered to be a black hole on Earth, Guantanamo. There are valid and compelling arguments to take aggressive and extra-judicial action against terrorists.
None of these reasons outweigh the value of precedent.
If we disregard the rule of law in favor of "national security" interests, we will be digging our own grave. Yes, Americans can pose a serious threat to their homeland. Yes, military tribunals exist. Yes, Guantanamo is still open for business. But sacrifice in the name of principle must be made today if we are to lead tomorrow. In the case of Anwar al-Awlaki many deemed it appropriate that he be targeted and killed. But tell me what precedent does this set? Today it is the justified, targeted killing of a known terrorist, but tomorrow it is just a suspicion, a black list, a McCarthy state.
If there was one thing worth repeating from the latest GOP debate it was Ron Paul's answer to the question on supporting torture. He stated simply that torture is illegal, immoral, and un-American. This is the kind of clear principled thinking that we need to practice in order to ensure our longevity.
Terrorism is a new phenomenon, one policy makers will continue to grapple with. As they make their decisions and decide which precedents to set, I hope they ask themselves that if one day we do reach the end of history, what will it say on our tombstone?
The economy, used to soaring now sinks slowly lower like a forgotten balloon. Two wars reach their twilight but at extraordinary cost, and America fails to shape or even properly support Middle East affairs.
Despite these realities, Mitt Romney and I have something in common. We believe in American exceptionalism. Born out of our intrinsic idealism mentioned in the previous post, many of us still subscribe to the idea that America should be the guiding light on a dark trail of moral ambiguity and lost values. Surely we can show the way.
The country will have to make great strides on many fronts in order to secure the coming century. Education and health care are not least among them. But as others jockey for position the best way to maintain our grip on the reigns of leadership is to adhere to principled policy. This includes how we treat terrorists, convicted and otherwise.
Thus far in my course on terrorism we have looked at varying definitions of terrorism. Perhaps the most surprising element in discussing a definition is why we need one at all. As my professor explained, terrorism needs an operating definition not to soothe the curious minds of academic theorists, but to allow us to decide how to react, punish, and prosecute terrorism and terrorists. The subject is steeped in moral judgment and uncertainty but the fact remains that as terrorism takes its course, we must take action.
I argue that the actions America takes in combating evil will define our role in the world. We alone can gild our pedestal or draft our obituary.
The last couple of years and even the past few months have entertained debate on how to handle terrorism. For example, how best to try convicted terrorists - either in military tribunals or civilian courts - and how to handle American citizens who choose to pursue terrorist goals. The recent incident in which the President ordered the targeted killing of an American-born terrorist is the best example of what I argue is dangerous policy.
Situations involving terrorists, both foreign and American born, will always be unique. There will always be reason and urgency in taking certain action. Leaders will find ways to send suspected and convicted terrorists to what physicists have surely discovered to be a black hole on Earth, Guantanamo. There are valid and compelling arguments to take aggressive and extra-judicial action against terrorists.
None of these reasons outweigh the value of precedent.
If we disregard the rule of law in favor of "national security" interests, we will be digging our own grave. Yes, Americans can pose a serious threat to their homeland. Yes, military tribunals exist. Yes, Guantanamo is still open for business. But sacrifice in the name of principle must be made today if we are to lead tomorrow. In the case of Anwar al-Awlaki many deemed it appropriate that he be targeted and killed. But tell me what precedent does this set? Today it is the justified, targeted killing of a known terrorist, but tomorrow it is just a suspicion, a black list, a McCarthy state.
If there was one thing worth repeating from the latest GOP debate it was Ron Paul's answer to the question on supporting torture. He stated simply that torture is illegal, immoral, and un-American. This is the kind of clear principled thinking that we need to practice in order to ensure our longevity.
Terrorism is a new phenomenon, one policy makers will continue to grapple with. As they make their decisions and decide which precedents to set, I hope they ask themselves that if one day we do reach the end of history, what will it say on our tombstone?
This is good stuff. The moment we start using "enhanced interrogation" techniques is the moment we start to lose the war on terror. Unlike the many wars that have been declared before the war on terrorism, this one can be won but only if its done in a moral fashion.
ReplyDelete