Ministry of Truth

My honorable classmate Julie asserts:

“However, the unlawful combatants (not prisoners of war as some people label them as) at Guantanamo Bay have had valid accusations of terrorism against them which could potentially harm the future of every single American citizen.”

The interesting word in that quotation is the word “unlawful”. These “unlawful combatants” are unlawful by who’s laws? By American laws. Let me remind you, my dear reader, that these alleged terrorists are only guilty of terrorism because they were caught. If the situtation were reversed, we would all be guilty. I don’t care who writes the laws; laws are not sacred or corporeal. These men in Guantanamo Bay obviously do not have unalienable rights, for if they did you would not be able to lock them up. The point is that these men are guilty and being held not because they commited crimes, not because they are “psychoes”, but because our government has more guns, and bigger guns, than these “criminals” which threaten to violate our rights. Doesn’t that seem contradictory? Jefferson says (and I have repeated this very often) that mans rights are unalienable, and yet the government is violating the rights of the men in Guantanamo Bay in order to protect our rights. Unalienable? Whatever.

The internment of Japanese citizens and Japanese Americans in the United States during world war 2 is an issue very similar to that of Guantanamo Bay. The point of debate: is it constitutional to intern Japanese Americans without a set date for trial? The supreme court says yes, but that seems strange. Is interning someone due solely to their race and nationality without due process really what happened here? Yes. That’s hard to imagine, and it shocks me that the Government would do such a thing. Roosevelt’s executive order #9066 seems to send the message that with common nationality and race comes a common interest. That’s foolish! It doesn’t make sense that there is such a thing as “national blood”. Is a man really to be held responsible for the actions that the government of his country of origin takes? If you are Korean, are you to be held responsible for Kim Jong Il’s policies? The reasonable answer is no, but the Court’s answer is yes. The point is that someone’s blood and skin color have nothing to do with their intentions, convictions, and beliefs. So why intern them based on that?

The Executive Branch of the US Government is, in the case of Guantanamo Bay, acting to preserve the safety, security, and territorial integrity of the United States.

“It has been necessary to move these individuals to an environment where they can be held secretly, questioned by experts and, when appropriate, prosecuted for terrorist acts.” -George W. Bush

However, as history has taught us time and time again, there is a difference between security and freedom. A war on terror, that is, a never-ending war,  seems a convenient excuse to consolidate one’s power and create laws such as the well-known patriot act, which compromise our rights. Guantanamo is similar. It differs only in that virtually all the detainees are not American.However, according to Jackson, these men also have “inalienable rights”. So why not give them the V amendment rights that they deserve? Maybe the rights that are mentioned in the declaration of independence and in the US constitution are not so inalienable after all. Are the rights of these prisoners not being alienated when the V amendment is torn out of their hands? The truth is that with enough fire-power any right can be alienated, and any right can be created. The US, which does 50% of the world’s military spending with 5% of the world’s population proves that. So the short answer is yes; the executive Branch is acting responsibly. Even if they weren’t, who is anyone to challenge a Government with so many guns? The apparent lesson: might makes right (and this despite Jefferson’s claims).