At What Price?

This post was provoked by a comment on an online forum that I frequent about the closing of Gitmo.

First the comment:

I know I'm in the vast minority on this forum, and I have no interest in getting in a pi**ing match with any of you, but I do find it insulting as an American, that the first thing Pres. Obama does in office is to start the process to free a bunch of terrorists.

Really. Wow. How in the world do some people come to have such strong opinions when they are so woefully uninformed?

It got me thinking about a myriad of feelings about our former and our current president and the policies in place that soon will hopefully in large part be set right. I am hopeful. I am waiting. I know the poor man has only been in office 34 hours, but change has been a long time coming.

So I know for the most part I am preaching to the choir here, but ... well anyway.

A moratorium doesn't mean these people will never be tried, just that there first needs to be a procedure in place to try them. Many of the detainees, most, have been held for over 6 years. I am not sure what the preferred course of action is, but it doesn't seem that Bush was on a particularly speedy path to bringing them to justice. 6 years is a long time to be in the process of coming up with charges and holding someone accountable.

I am not such a bleeding heart liberal that I don't think those responsible for planning and executing terrorist attacks on the US should not be punished. I do. Whole-heartedly. I just don't think our basic fundamental principles should be ignored in the process. If there is proof that the detainees have terrorist connections then by all means put them on trial and punish them to the full extent of the law, US or International. Put them to death. I am all for it.

My problem is the holding of them, without charges and apparently with no inclination to charge or try them. 98% may be guilty. What about the 2% who are not? Is that an acceptable sacrifice? To some it is. Others would say that it is not. I am not even arguing that point.

Maybe I am naive, but I don't think so, I live less than 10 miles from the Pentagon. I witnessed, first hand, 9/11. As I left my office building that day, after waiting there for hours for traffic to clear, I could smell the smoke hanging in the air. I had no idea if all of my family and friends were ok. It was tragedy for this entire country, a blow to our sense of security, but NYC and DC bore an excruciatingly high price. Even in light of the fact that I or someone close to me could have been murdered or maimed on that day, still I believe to my core of my being that our nation should stand for the basic fundamental human rights of all, even those who may have perpetrated heinous crimes. Not their freedom, not their comfort, but their right to stand trial. Their right to due process.

This is why, since our founding, we have been THE democracy to be emulated. For better or worse, and I am not trying to judge Bush here, but for better or worse, it goes without argument that diplomatically bridges have been burned. Many alliances are weak or completely broken. Those who had a distaste for the US and our way of life before, now hate us even more. We are, in many cases, rightfully seen as having at least partial, if not primary, responsibility for the deaths of hundreds of thousands in the name of defending ourselves. To put that in perspective the 9/11 attacks killed just under 3000 and we have lost a little over 4000 troops. 100,000s of lives lost in the crossfire. Can we even imagine something like that? Can you wrap your head around that number of people?

Some may think that is an acceptable price to pay. I am not arguing it is or it isn't. But can we not get outside of our own perspectives even just a little bit and see the perspective of others? To try on their shoes and walk a few steps? Some believe all is black and white, others see the world in shades of grey. Some say our safety is worth any price. Others believe there are fundamental principles that must never be sacrificed.

I, personally, do not feel that alientating the world is in our best interest - not in the short or longterm, not financially speaking or in terms of our safety. To be so alienated from former allies and to stoke the hate of so many potential foes can not serve us well. Our nation is strong and powerful, but even a nation as strong as ours, if the entire world – or even a large portion of the world – turns against us, will be in big trouble. It wouldn't be the first empire to fall. Our memories are terribly short.

When we subvert or outright discard the very freedoms our military is fighting and dying to defend, I think we defeat the very purpose. If we no longer extend basic human rights to people who may or more importantly MAY NOT have been involved in terrorist activity, then they have won. When we choose closure vs. openness, suspicion over good faith, then our way of life, the fundamental tenants on which this country was founded, have been lost. We become what it is we deplore.

I fully understand that there are those who will always hate us. Hate what we stand for. But we should not stoop. We should never give anyone the ability to make an argument that we are as morally bankrupt as they are. As was included in his speech on Tuesday, I agree that we should "reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." We can be safe and we can uphold the ideals on which this nation was founded. Just as some have felt more secure with Bush in office for the last 8 years, I feel tremendous relief to have a man in office who does believe that there are fundamental principles that make this nation what it is and that those principles are unwavering and nonnegotiable.