Question for the United States of America
TM
I have a question for the United States of America, the country I was
born in, the country that I love, and I want you to know, no matter what anyone
else tells you, it is because of my love for her that I ask it.
Are “all men created equal” (all persons, all human beings?) Do we really believe that? Do you? If so, why are persons held at a prison in Cuba (or Eastern Europe) not entitled to the same rights they would be if they were held in the United States? If “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” should those rights change based on geography? And you might say to me, they are terrorists, they are “enemy combatants”, and perhaps they all are, but what if even one of them is innocent? How would you know? If they are perpetually deprived “of the benefit of Trial by Jury”, how would you know? Or do we no longer believe in such high-minded ideals? Do we not even care if these persons are innocent or guilty? Have we been changed since we’ve been attacked? Have our principles changed?
What if your child, your son or daughter, was captured by a foreign power, transported and detained overseas, and never given the right to defend himself, to prove her innocence? What if he or she were subjected to “enhanced interrogation techniques”, a term we now know to be a euphemism for what are widely considered acts of torture? (I believe our own military considered them torture before they started using them.) And you might tell me that in certain cases such techniques are justified, if an individual might have knowledge of an impending attack that could kill hundreds or thousands of innocent people. And I’ll admit, that argument is compelling, but what about our soldiers fighting in foreign lands; they might have knowledge of impending attacks against our enemies. And it is undeniable that we have conducted bombings and missile strikes in which many innocent people have been killed, and while that is not our intention, someone certainly must know in advance, in many cases, that such deaths will occur. Would that not justify, in our enemies minds, the use of torture against our soldiers? Is that not why there are international agreements, some of which the United States has signed, prohibiting the use of torture on prisoners of war?
If we argue that these people should continue to be detained because the organizations they fought for are still “at war” with us (and that argument is not without merit, if the accusation is true), shouldn’t we consider them prisoners of war? Why do we call them enemy combatants? Is it simply to deny them the rights that should be afforded to prisoners of war? And you might tell me, we designate them enemy combatants because the groups they fought for are not sovereign nations and their method of war is attacking civilians, but does that justify torturing them? If we’re accusing them of war crimes or acts of terrorism, they should be given a trial (either military or civilian depending on the charge and circumstances.) That’s what civilized nations do; that is justice. And of course, treating our prisoners humanely will not guarantee that our enemies will treat our soldiers or citizens they capture similarly, but doesn’t our not doing so guarantee that our enemies will not? And beyond that, shouldn’t we treat prisoners, even terrorists, humanely simply because we believe it is right? Isn’t that what makes us different from them?
And what about these air strikes in which innocent people, including children, have been killed? If our target were a military base, a camp where soldiers were housed or trained, or a factory where weapons were made that would be used against our soldiers or our lands, and innocent people living nearby were killed (despite efforts to get them to leave perhaps) that could be justified, while still deeply regretted. But if such an attack occurs on a busy street, or at a market, or just at somebody’s home, a home amongst many other homes, if our target is an individual or individuals we suspect are or will be planning attacks against us, the type of individuals who would intentionally immerse themselves among innocent people to discourage an attack, can those assaults still be reconciled? Do those innocent people, those children, not have the right to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” ? If the first of those rights is taken away the second and third, and all others for that matter, don’t amount to much. Are innocent lives in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, or any where else in the world not as important as those in the United States? Is that what we believe? Have we given up on the principles and ideals that would tell us otherwise, the ones we’ve sworn to be committed to for so long, out of fear? Are we ready and willing to sacrifice their lives for some added security for ourselves and our children? I tell you plainly, our continued support for the air strikes I speak of certainly makes it seem that way.
And make no mistake, relinquishing our support for these strikes and adhering more strictly to our principles could indeed make us less safe—though I question if it would be by so much as we’ve been led to believe—but I would argue that the hatred that is bred every time an innocent life is lost in these attacks is a much greater threat to our security. It’s a threat to our future, not solely because of the attacks that might come as a result of such hatred (we can defend ourselves from those), but because of what we will become. I tell you plainly, if we are to be hated I would prefer it be for doing or trying to do what is right, as we often are, not for the deaths of innocent children. One could argue that we deserve to be hated for that.
And know this too; a person can be very safe and not free. In fact, it can hardly be argued that restricting one’s freedom by greater and greater measure is the most effective way to insure their security. Given a choice between supreme safety and supreme freedom, which do you suppose our forefathers and mothers would have chosen? Which would they have chosen for us? What makes us the United States? What defines us as Americans? Some might once again propose geography, but is it not the very principles and ideals that some of the same would say we can no longer afford. I tell you plainly, if we give up our principles and ideals, we are giving up America. Who will want to come here when there’s no freedom, no matter how safe it is? Who will look to us for wisdom and morality if we’re willing to sacrifice others lives to shield ourselves from danger? The United States will be defeated; our enemies will have won.
And now I’ll ask my question. In the past, I’ve used the name Usama Bin Laden for this question, but since he’s now deceased, I’ll ask it this way. If you knew who the next Usama Bin Laden was, if you knew where he was at this very instant, if you had the power to fire a missile and kill him, and the knowledge that if you didn’t fire it he would escape and possibly plan a future attack that, if successful, would cause the deaths of innocent Americans, but you also knew that at this same location were the people you love the most, your friends and family, lovers or spouses, brothers and sisters, children and grandchildren, nieces, nephews, or parents, and that if you fired your missile they would all be killed as well, would you do it? If you would not, if we would not be willing to sacrifice our loved ones to kill our most dangerous enemy, how can we justify sacrificing somebody else’s loved ones? Is it because they live in Afghanistan or Pakistan? I tell you plainly, if we can, if we do, we do not believe that all people are created equal. We have the right to defend ourselves; that is true, and it is equally true that we will have to defend ourselves if we are to survive. How we are to accomplish that, what we are and are not willing to do, is something we must discuss and resolve. What we resolve, what we do going forward, will determine who and what this nation will be, what it will become.
I want all of you to know that what I’m about to say next is the absolute truth, no matter what anyone else tells you. If we, the people of the United States, now believe that our lives are more important than those of all the other people living everywhere else in the world, that we are entitled to rights that they are not, we might be safer for now, but we are not a just and moral nation; we are not a great nation in the eyes of God and Nature. As long as we adhere to such beliefs, we never will be again.
Are “all men created equal” (all persons, all human beings?) Do we really believe that? Do you? If so, why are persons held at a prison in Cuba (or Eastern Europe) not entitled to the same rights they would be if they were held in the United States? If “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” should those rights change based on geography? And you might say to me, they are terrorists, they are “enemy combatants”, and perhaps they all are, but what if even one of them is innocent? How would you know? If they are perpetually deprived “of the benefit of Trial by Jury”, how would you know? Or do we no longer believe in such high-minded ideals? Do we not even care if these persons are innocent or guilty? Have we been changed since we’ve been attacked? Have our principles changed?
What if your child, your son or daughter, was captured by a foreign power, transported and detained overseas, and never given the right to defend himself, to prove her innocence? What if he or she were subjected to “enhanced interrogation techniques”, a term we now know to be a euphemism for what are widely considered acts of torture? (I believe our own military considered them torture before they started using them.) And you might tell me that in certain cases such techniques are justified, if an individual might have knowledge of an impending attack that could kill hundreds or thousands of innocent people. And I’ll admit, that argument is compelling, but what about our soldiers fighting in foreign lands; they might have knowledge of impending attacks against our enemies. And it is undeniable that we have conducted bombings and missile strikes in which many innocent people have been killed, and while that is not our intention, someone certainly must know in advance, in many cases, that such deaths will occur. Would that not justify, in our enemies minds, the use of torture against our soldiers? Is that not why there are international agreements, some of which the United States has signed, prohibiting the use of torture on prisoners of war?
If we argue that these people should continue to be detained because the organizations they fought for are still “at war” with us (and that argument is not without merit, if the accusation is true), shouldn’t we consider them prisoners of war? Why do we call them enemy combatants? Is it simply to deny them the rights that should be afforded to prisoners of war? And you might tell me, we designate them enemy combatants because the groups they fought for are not sovereign nations and their method of war is attacking civilians, but does that justify torturing them? If we’re accusing them of war crimes or acts of terrorism, they should be given a trial (either military or civilian depending on the charge and circumstances.) That’s what civilized nations do; that is justice. And of course, treating our prisoners humanely will not guarantee that our enemies will treat our soldiers or citizens they capture similarly, but doesn’t our not doing so guarantee that our enemies will not? And beyond that, shouldn’t we treat prisoners, even terrorists, humanely simply because we believe it is right? Isn’t that what makes us different from them?
And what about these air strikes in which innocent people, including children, have been killed? If our target were a military base, a camp where soldiers were housed or trained, or a factory where weapons were made that would be used against our soldiers or our lands, and innocent people living nearby were killed (despite efforts to get them to leave perhaps) that could be justified, while still deeply regretted. But if such an attack occurs on a busy street, or at a market, or just at somebody’s home, a home amongst many other homes, if our target is an individual or individuals we suspect are or will be planning attacks against us, the type of individuals who would intentionally immerse themselves among innocent people to discourage an attack, can those assaults still be reconciled? Do those innocent people, those children, not have the right to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” ? If the first of those rights is taken away the second and third, and all others for that matter, don’t amount to much. Are innocent lives in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, or any where else in the world not as important as those in the United States? Is that what we believe? Have we given up on the principles and ideals that would tell us otherwise, the ones we’ve sworn to be committed to for so long, out of fear? Are we ready and willing to sacrifice their lives for some added security for ourselves and our children? I tell you plainly, our continued support for the air strikes I speak of certainly makes it seem that way.
And make no mistake, relinquishing our support for these strikes and adhering more strictly to our principles could indeed make us less safe—though I question if it would be by so much as we’ve been led to believe—but I would argue that the hatred that is bred every time an innocent life is lost in these attacks is a much greater threat to our security. It’s a threat to our future, not solely because of the attacks that might come as a result of such hatred (we can defend ourselves from those), but because of what we will become. I tell you plainly, if we are to be hated I would prefer it be for doing or trying to do what is right, as we often are, not for the deaths of innocent children. One could argue that we deserve to be hated for that.
And know this too; a person can be very safe and not free. In fact, it can hardly be argued that restricting one’s freedom by greater and greater measure is the most effective way to insure their security. Given a choice between supreme safety and supreme freedom, which do you suppose our forefathers and mothers would have chosen? Which would they have chosen for us? What makes us the United States? What defines us as Americans? Some might once again propose geography, but is it not the very principles and ideals that some of the same would say we can no longer afford. I tell you plainly, if we give up our principles and ideals, we are giving up America. Who will want to come here when there’s no freedom, no matter how safe it is? Who will look to us for wisdom and morality if we’re willing to sacrifice others lives to shield ourselves from danger? The United States will be defeated; our enemies will have won.
And now I’ll ask my question. In the past, I’ve used the name Usama Bin Laden for this question, but since he’s now deceased, I’ll ask it this way. If you knew who the next Usama Bin Laden was, if you knew where he was at this very instant, if you had the power to fire a missile and kill him, and the knowledge that if you didn’t fire it he would escape and possibly plan a future attack that, if successful, would cause the deaths of innocent Americans, but you also knew that at this same location were the people you love the most, your friends and family, lovers or spouses, brothers and sisters, children and grandchildren, nieces, nephews, or parents, and that if you fired your missile they would all be killed as well, would you do it? If you would not, if we would not be willing to sacrifice our loved ones to kill our most dangerous enemy, how can we justify sacrificing somebody else’s loved ones? Is it because they live in Afghanistan or Pakistan? I tell you plainly, if we can, if we do, we do not believe that all people are created equal. We have the right to defend ourselves; that is true, and it is equally true that we will have to defend ourselves if we are to survive. How we are to accomplish that, what we are and are not willing to do, is something we must discuss and resolve. What we resolve, what we do going forward, will determine who and what this nation will be, what it will become.
I want all of you to know that what I’m about to say next is the absolute truth, no matter what anyone else tells you. If we, the people of the United States, now believe that our lives are more important than those of all the other people living everywhere else in the world, that we are entitled to rights that they are not, we might be safer for now, but we are not a just and moral nation; we are not a great nation in the eyes of God and Nature. As long as we adhere to such beliefs, we never will be again.
