Perez is a first-year political science
student.
By Anna S. Perez
In extreme circumstances, the United States is entitled to take
whatever means necessary in order to protect the well being of its
citizens. While those means may be considered excessive or
sometimes unnecessary, it’s not too difficult to tell why
they may be considered appropriate or correct at their time.
Cody Cass, through various comparisons and examples, makes it
seem like the United States is unjustified in their use of military
tribunals to deal with captured terrorists and al-Qaeda members
currently being detained at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba (“Military
tribunals should apply to all,” Daily Bruin, Viewpoint, Jan.
18).
He suggests that if military tribunals should apply to
international terrorists now held as prisoners, they should also
apply to belligerent domestic groups and citizens. But this is not
correct, it’s not really a matter of fairness we’re
talking about; it’s a matter of national security.
Trying al-Qaeda members caught by the U.S. isn’t going to
be a very difficult task ““ the evidence against them is
enormous. One might say the evidence is against al-Qaeda
leadership, but it takes individuals to carry out that
leadership’s orders. Besides, it was individuals from the
network, not al-Qaeda leadership, that boarded the planes on Sept.
11; without a rapid trying of these criminals, others won’t
be deterred from doing the same.
In the past, the United States has suspended some civil
liberties and carried out questionable practices in order to secure
its citizens’ safety ““ some of these are now
scrutinized in a negative way. But with an open mind, its not too
hard to understand why they occurred.
For example, when Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during
the civil war ““ which means people could be detained without
the guarantee of a speedy trial or charges filed against them
““ those complaining were Southerners who supported
slavery.
Today we don’t think much about this historical
occurrence, largely because we realize the cause was a good one
““ it was necessary to stop slavery, and this could only be
achieved if those practicing slavery were overpowered.
But what if it were the other way around, and those detained
were Northerners fighting against slavery. Would we still support
suspending habeas corpus? It’s a matter of perspective and
only future generations who can take an objective stance can really
make the call on it.
A much more despicable event in which the United States acted
under fear is the Japanese Internment. It is pretty much agreed
this act can in no way be justified, but it’s not too
difficult to imagine why people back then might have thought it
necessary. Think about it: it was World War II, a massive war that
threw the world into a whirlwind of confusion. Couple this with
Pearl Harbor and the fear of the West Coast being attacked if the
Japanese armies made it that close, and you get a pretty scary
picture. Thus, people who were scared didn’t know any better
and saw no other alternative than supported Japanese Internment
because they thought this would increase national security.
Upon reflecting on it historically, however, we now know this
was completely erroneous.
Thus, as a society, we tend to have two seemingly opposite
opinions on the same issue: the suspension of civil liberties. We
supported it when good Ol’ Abe did it, but not when it was
used against a group of people.
Like these two instances, the military tribunals, while seeming
legitimate today, can only be judged by history. America is in a
frenzy trying to avoid future terrorist attacks and trying to find
justice for Sept. 11.
Questions abound about U.S. intentions, especially since the
Bush administration is reluctant about calling the captured men
“prisoners of war.” Many who are not fans of Bush argue
that they haven’t been declared “prisoners of
war” because it would entitle them to various rights, as
detailed in the Geneva convention.
Admittedly, this sounds a little fishy. But we must remember our
actions today will be judged in the future, in the same way
we’re judging the actions of our ancestors today.
Most Americans are comfortable with the fact that we may be
violating people’s human rights by detaining them in certain
ways, or violating their civil liberties by profiling them. But
consider our current mentality ““ we know no other way to keep
ourselves safe, and national security is our number one
concern.
If we’re doing the wrong thing, history will judge it
accordingly. And hopefully it will remember that we do some things
because we simply have no better idea of how to do it, even with
historical precedent.