THE WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD
(apologies to Keith Olbermann)
Sen. John McCain (R- AZ) Rep. Peter King (R-NY) Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT)
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
“I think obviously that [mirandizing Shahzad] would be a serious mistake until we’ve — at least until we find out as much information as we have, and there are ways — legal ways — of delaying that.”
One of the things that separates the United States from…oh, I don’t know…your average banana republic is a very simple and yet terribly important concept. It’s called the rule of law, and at it’s most basic it’s the idea that every American citizen is entitled to due process no matter how heinous the particular crime they’re accused of. The rule of law is what allows Americans to travel through life safe in the knowledge that the law works FOR them, not vice-versa.
The rule of law is a simple, strong, and yet perhaps the single most basic protection we enjoy as Americans. This is why I’m so upset that a sitting US Senator can so blithely propose denying an American citizen the protection guaranteed all Americans by the Constitution and 200+ years of legal precedent. Yes, Faisal Shahzad is accused of attempting to detonate a car bomb in Times Square- a heinous crime under the best of circumstances. As despicable as Shahzad’s amateurish attempt at terrorism may be, he’s a naturalized American citizen, and as such is entitled to every protection guaranteed ANY American under the Constitution.
John McCain spent more than seven years in an North Vietnamese prison. He, more than virtually anyone else, should have a highly developed appreciation for the freedoms and protections that are guaranteed under the Constitution. That he can now in all seriousness advocate for denying Shahzad those rights only indicates just how out of touch and disturbingly partisan he’s become. What truly frightens me is that McCain, under different historical circumstances, could well have been President. As blindly self-interested and unstable as McCain appears to be, we should all be thanking our lucky stars that McCain lost. Had he moved into the White House, we could well be involved in yet another war, this one with Iran. Even worse, he could be nibbling away at the Constitution when it suits his purpose.
“I hope that [Attorney General Eric] Holder did discuss this with the intelligence community. If they believe they got enough from him, how much more should they get? Did they Mirandize him? I know he’s an American citizen but still.”
Peter King may lack John McCain’s tragic POW background, but he’s long been known for his blind, partisan zealotry. His willingness to blithely ignore the constitutional rights of an American citizen is something that should alarm any right-thinking American who values the rights and protections our Constitution provides us.
If we become OK with denying certain rights to Americans because of the heinous nature of the crimes they’re accused of, how far will we head down this slippery slope before we realize there’s no going back? What other crimes will warrant denying constitutionally-guaranteed rights? Child molestation? Grand larceny? Double parking? Public urination? With what’s currently happening in Arizona, this is no mere academic exercise. There are those out there who would compromise rights and protections that Americans have enjoyed for 200+ years in the name of safety and expediency. When rights are compromised for one of us, there’s little to stop it from spreading until it impacts ALL of us.
Even more important, who will get to decide which rights and protections will be compromised? For whom? And under what circumstances? Do you REALLY want people like John McCain, Peter King, et al making these decisions? If the rights of one American citizen can be so easily and carelessly compromised, who’s to say that it couldn’t- and wouldn’t- be done in other cases? Who’s to say that it couldn’t be done to you or me?
First they came for all the swarthy, Brown Americans…but I didn’t do anything, because I’m White and I worship the right God….
Some of us have started to talk about it here, which is that there is an existing law — which hasn’t been much used — that says if an American citizen is shown to be fighting in a military force that is an enemy of the United States, then that person loses their citizenship and they no longer have the rights of citizenship. That’s an old law that was adopted during a very different time of conflict.
I think it’s time for us to look at whether we want to amend that law to apply it to American citizens who choose to become affiliated with foreign terrorist organizations, whether they should not also be deprived automatically of their citizenship, and therefore be deprived of rights that come with that citizenship when they are apprehended and charged with a terrorist act.
I won’t argue the fact that terrorism is a heinous act. The senseless murder of innocents in the name of politics or religion is an act that can only reasonably be described as monstrous. Nonetheless, Faisal Shahzad is an American citizen. Though he is charged with the attempted commission of an act of terrorism, there’s a legal process in place that must be allowed to play itself out. You shouldn’t be able to go from arrest directly to stripping one’s citizenship simply because a Senator concerned primarily with his own career prospects wants to portray himself as tough on terror.
If Shahzad is convicted (or pleads guilty) to the crime(s) he is accused of, then he should be punished to the fullest extent of the law- NOT to the fullest extent of a careerist Senator’s prejudice and partisanship. Joe Lieberman, once upon a time a Democrat (and a few hanging chads away from being Vice-President), seldom makes a statement without first working his way through the political calculus involved. In this case, he knows that there’s little downside to protraying himself as very tough on terror. No one’s going to defend a terrorist- accused or convicted- especially a swarthy Brown one like Faisal Shahzad. He’s an easy target (he LOOKS like a terrorist), but what Lieberman and those who think like him fail to realize is that they’re advocating for selective enforcement of the law. Not only is this just plain wrong, it’s also a recipe for disaster.
The one thing that protects us from reprobates like McCain, King, and Lieberman is the rule of law. It may be a simple concept, but over the course of our history, the rule of law has proven its strength time and time again. The rule of law doesn’t recognize emotion or politics. It doesn’t respect zealotry or a mob mentality. It doesn’t bend for convenience or to buttress the career prospects of self-absorbed zealots. It’s not perfect, but it’s the best we have, and it’s proved its mettle for 200+ years. To paraphrase Winston Churchill (who was talking about democracy), it’s the worst system known to man…except for every other one.
Since 9.11, many Americans and a lot of politicians have voiced a willingness to compromise the rule of law out of fear. In this sense, the terrorists have won…but it’s not as if we can’t reclaim our commitment to the rule of law. We’re better than the country people like McCain, King, and Lieberman would have us live in. Aren’t we??
WE DESERVE BETTER.
