Letters To My Editor: No One Deserves A Trial Edition

So, I'm going to write about a letter to my paper's editor, and you're going to have to take in on faith I'm not making it up because in order to pull it on-line you need a user name and password. And I'm pretty sure you have to subscribe, so... Here's the letter, entitled Terrorists Don't Deserve U.S. Justice:

How does U.S. government figure the Christmas bombing attempt on Northwest Flight 259 was a failure? It accomplished what al-Qaida wanted. Whether it brought down the plane, Americans will spend millions to put the would-be bomber on trial.

He, shoe-bomber Richard Reid and those wackos in Gitmo do not deserve American justice. They should be executed as soon as the plane lands. We could use the money on more important things.

First, some minor grammatical grievances. This sentence:

Whether it brought down the plane, Americans will spend millions to put the would-be bomber on trial

makes very little sense.

It could read:

Although it did not succeed in bringing down the plane, Americans will spend millions to put the would-be bomber on trial.

An added sentence about how one of al-Qaeda's stated goals is to bleed America dry would have really improved the sentiment.

But the real problem, aside from the fact that the letter writer seems to be cribbing off of Bill O'Reilly without giving O'Reilly his proper due, lies in the philosophical assertion of the letter, that being:

He, shoe-bomber Richard Reid and those wackos in Gitmo do not deserve American justice.

I'll let Keith Olbermann - because I am into giving props when props are due - take the reins about one of the real problems with this argument (relevant part transcribed below):

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

KEITH OLBERMANN (SPEAKING AS BILL O'REILLY): "Simply put, al-Qaeda thugs have no rights, none. They should be killed on the spot. And they are being killed by the drones. So if they're captured, they should undergo harsh interrogation and be placed in military prisons."

KEITH OLBERMANN (SPEAKING AS HIMSELF): Okay, were you planning to still put them in the military prisons after you kill them on the spot, or do you need to rephrase your plan? Seriously, Bill, we need to walk you through the idea of why we have trials? Ultimately, why we ask questions first and shoot later? It's not about rights, it's not about who's a thug, it's not about how much sadistic joy you and the sickos like you from the thought of "harsh interrogation". It's so we get the right guy. Mankind figured this out thousands of years ago, and we replaced that old method of "kill them then ask them if they're guilty" because the dead men proved to be mediocre at answering questions! And then it also turned out that often we were killing the wrong guys which is inconvenient! Especially for them!

But, aside from the inconvenient aspect of killing the innocent, there is a not so insignificant fact that applying an impartial judicial system is one of those key things that sets us apart from those who wish to terrorize us. Applying our rule of law to those who would indiscriminately kill, allowing for the fact that our values system is strong enough and significant enough and, perhaps most importantly, sacred enough to try and convict those who are guilty, and try and set free those who are found not guilty.

Because even though Olbermann is right that it isn't wholly about rights, it is at least somewhat about rights. Because the judicial system isn't set up for the government to reign supreme. It has been set up in favor of the defendant. Because the guilty aren't the only ones accused; but also because the guilty have the fundamental right of due process as well. Partly, that is to protect the innocent, because if the guilty are not worthy of trial by jury then the whole process by which we decide who is indeed innocent gets a bit truncated. And then we circle back to a lot of the wrong people dying, which - again - is inconvenient.

Perhaps my Letter Writer means only al-Qaeda terrorists don't deserve American justice. Perhaps those others who break the law are still subject to the rule of law, as long as they aren't Islamic extremists. That may be where his line is drawn. But that doesn't mean that's where everyone's line is drawn. Maybe someone else's line for which crimes deserve a fair trial is less broad than "everyone who isn't engaged in terrorism for the benefit of al-Qaeda"; maybe someone else's line encompasses those who drive while texting, or who kill anyone for any reason. And that's really why denying the American system of justice to one group you personally don't like, even if it saves a bundle of cash, is one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard - because it rests predominately on the idea that everyone else will agree that this subset of criminal is the subset that does not deserve to go through due process and be subject to Amendments 5 through 8.

Let's take in that number for a sec, shall we? Our Founders felt that the whole criminal and civil trial thing was so important, they chose to utilize four whole amendments out of the original ten to explicitly setting down rules for how trials should be set up. Four. It is inconceivable to me that those who purport to love our country so much they want to kill anyone on our soil immediately who allegedly engaged in an act of terrorism could so willfully ignore the very words of our Constitution. For all the talk about how actually trying these people plays into the terrorists' hands, those same people do little to engage with the notion that ignoring those parts of our society that makes it our society because we're scared or angry or vengeful does more harm than it does good. Because it fundamentally alters our society, and not for the better. Because it ignores that the justice system isn't there to exonerate the innocent. It is there to provide rights to the guilty.

Yes, Christmas Observations WILL Survive

I've written about my insane local paper before, and I'll probably do it again before long. This time, it is Lee Garbar's Christmas Observances Will Survive. My favorite part of the opinion piece is:

At one time, television celebrated the Charles Dickens novel "A Christmas Carol" by broadcasting four different versions of the story, the most significant of which was with English actor Alastair Sim playing the part of Scrooge. Last year TV, apparently fearful of overdoing the movie because it deals with Christmas, ran just one of them.

Yes, that must be what is subduing ABC Family in their 25 Days of Christmas programming, the fear of overdoing movies that deal with Christmas. They were going to go with 50 Days of Christmas, but then were fearful going overboard with the festivities and crossing over into an all out extravaganza. Or, it is much more likely that they decided to choose from the wide array of other Christmas films (good and bad) that have been made since.

(Side note: I find it odd that Mr. Garbar is concerned with the lack of diversity in his Christmas Carol tales viewing opportunities, since A Christmas Carol is, by my measure, not exactly brimming with religiosity. Scrooge isn't changed by a visit from saints or angels, but by four ghosts.)

One of most religious of Christmas specials I know of, A Charlie Brown Christmas, generally plays on one of the major television networks during the Christmas season. The only one that is possibly more religious is The Little Drummer Boy, and I seem to remember that horrible bit of stop action animation being on ABC Family as recently as three years ago.

But Garbar goes further:

Mike Johnson, chief attorney for the ADF, remarked, "It's a sad day in America when you have to retain a lawyer to wish someone a merry Christmas."

Lee Garbar, meet Michelle Goldberg, who says:

Despite Johnson's lamentations, one can in fact offer Christmas greetings without legal counsel. Christmas trees are permitted in public schools. (They're considered secular symbols.) Nativity scenes are allowed on public property, although if the government erects one, it has to be part of a larger display that also includes other, secular signs of the holiday season, or displays referring to other religions. (The operative Supreme Court precedent is 1984's Lynch v. Donnelly, where the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that a city-sponsored Christmas display including a crèche, reindeer, a Christmas tree, candy-striped poles and a banner that read "Seasons Greetings" was permissible. "The display is sponsored by the city to celebrate the Holiday and to depict the origins of that Holiday," the majority wrote. "These are legitimate secular purposes.") Students are allowed to distribute religious holiday cards and literature in school. If the administration tries to stop them, the ACLU will step in to defend the students' free-speech rights, as they did in 2003 when teenagers in Massachusetts were suspended for passing out candy canes with Christian messages.

Here's the thing: I, personally, love Christmas. I love Christmas music and Christmas television specials. I love Christmas light displays and Christmas plays. I love seeing Santas collecting money for charity on the sidewalk. I love presents, and giving them. I love the feeling of Christmas, of good cheer and good will toward men. But, as an atheist, I can also tell you that there is no war on Christmas. Forget all of the things Goldberg cites. Walk into any mall, any store, from now until December 26th, and you will hear Christmas carols, most of which contain some kind of religious sentiment. "God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen"; "O! Holy Night"; "Little Town of Bethlehem"; "O Come All Ye Faithful"; "Christ Is Born"; "What Child Is This"; etc, etc, etc. They are beautiful songs. They hold a sometimes beautiful sentiment. They are also vibrant reminders that those of us on the outside of these faithful proclamations are still living in a Christian nation, that the Christian celebrations are still national celebrations, and that we are all inculcated with those messages of Christ the Savior is Born! whenever we step outside our house this time of year. And for those of us who do not believe Christ is, actually, the Savior, it is also a reminder that our own ideas about this time of year are less important.

Grabar also writes:

Still, the campaign against Christmas has resulted in diminished observance of the holiday. For example, schools have all but eliminated various practices of the past in observing Christmas and emphasizing the day as recognition of the Savior's birth.

Sure, because "the Savior" isn't, actually, my Savior. He isn't the Savior of a great swath of my friends, and to be taught in the secular public school system that he is would be a bit of muddling of the separation of Church and State thing. There are other people who exist in this country. They deserve to be able to go to school and not be inundated with Christian references, and to not be taught - even during a certain time of year - that the Christian way is the Right Way, with the implicit implication that all other ways are wrong. Lee Grabar can believe that; the teacher can believe that; but to use the public school system, the system paid for with everyone's money and not just Christian funds, is crossing the line. And more than warring against Christianity, it is warring for the recognition of the rest of us.

Bill O'Reilly Threatens to Come to Kent, CT

An excerpt from the Republican-American (a paper we will probably no longer be getting, as my mother refuses to not read the Opinion section, and then seethes with rage at the opinions expressed there - which is good for the NY Times, or possibly the Hartford Courant) article Fox's O'Reilly chides Kent in 9-11 Tribute Spat:

Fox News talk show host Bill O'Reilly has taken aim at the town of Kent for refusing to grant a local man's wish that a town memorial to his son, who was killed in the Sept. 11 attacks, should read: "Murdered by Muslim Terrorists."

I'm down with Kent's First Selectman Ruth S. Epstein here when she rightly points out, "He can do whatever he wants on his own property".

But what Mr. Gadiel (the local man in question) wants to do is to use the collective's money - and the collective's property - to put forth his own beliefs. If Bill O'Reilly wants to come to Kent and explain to Epstein and others why that is an appropriate use of town funds, all the more power to him. It is his First Amendment right to do so, and it is Mr. Gadiel's First Amendment right to pony up the money for his own memorial, separate from the town's, on his own lawn and with his own message. But it is not within his rights to demand the town spend its money, and donate its land, for that message. And to suggest otherwise, to suggest that the individual has a right to the collective's money, for the individual's own purpose and gain, well, that seems like an idea that runs counter to most Republican philosophy when it comes to taxation.

The Conundrum of Bisexuality

I read the Opinion page of my newspaper. I read it sometimes to get myself really angry; I read it sometimes in order to see if there are any sane people in my area writing letters to the paper - those people who don't write in to say that Obama is a Muslim socialist who is going to wreck our economy, take away our liberties, and turn us all into communists. And I read my paper because I do have a genuine interest in the conservative viewpoint. I should probably pick a better paper to read for the conservative viewpoint, but the Republican-American is easily accessible (as it comes to my door - or more accurately, my paper box) and I am heart a lazy person.

Mona Charen's "In Defense of Rick Warren" is one of those examples for why I should find some other paper to read. Barring anything else, her discussion of bisexuality is not only flawed but simplistically separated from the rest of us. She says,

"But what about bisexuals? I ask this not to poke fun or to hurt anyone's feelings, but in all seriousness. How does same sex marriage help a bisexual? I assume if you are bisexual, you believe you need to have sexual relationships with men and women."

Except, that isn't bisexuality; bisexuality isn't needing to have sexual relationships with men and women. It is being attracted to both men and women. Not all men, and not all women. Bisexuality is not only dictated by the actions a person takes but the desires a person feels. A woman can be a bisexual and never have a sexual encounter with another woman; a woman can be a bisexual and never have a sexual encounter with a man. Just like a heterosexual person can be attracted to blondes and brunettes, and yet never have a sexual relationship with a blonde.

Charen goes on to postulate:

"If you are a bisexual man married to a woman, don't you need to break the marriage bond to express your bisexuality?"

No more than a person attracted to both blondes and brunettes would need to break his marriage bond to a brunette to express his interest in blondes. Bisexuals can engage in fidelity, just like every other person sublimates their attractions once they are in a committed, monogamous relationship does. And I'd again refer to the first point, that being that one doesn't need to express bisexuality in order to be a bisexual.

I would like to assume that Mona Charen is being sincere in her ignorance of bisexuality; but that ignorance, and questions over how action is necessary for identification - along with the continued idea that bisexuals are somehow just selfish and won't choose one of the two binary positions we have allotted (one, albeit, slowly, begrudgingly, and not yet fully) - are real issues for those marginalized by these assertions.

Bisexuals are oftentimes treated as the hyenas of the sexual orientation crowd. They aren't one thing or the other, and so at times are treated suspiciously by both. There are the "bi-curious", the girls who engage in bisexual behavior for the attention, and those identifying as bisexual as a stepping stone toward fully coming out as homosexual; and those variables help delegitimize the bisexual orientation. And there is consistently present this idea of a binary code existence in almost every area of life, but definitely present in sexual matters. Then there are the obtuse wonderings of people like Charen, people who have no problem accepting and expecting fidelity and monogamous relationships even while accepting that attractions will occur outside of those heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Bisexuality is largely ignored. It gets one of those letters in the LGBTTIQ; and it is used as a ratings gimmick on shows when the gimmick involves a conventionally attractive girl - like Marissa Cooper's couple of episodes-long relationship with Alex Kelly on The O.C. - but it is quickly abandoned or ignored. After all, even Willow on Buffy the Vampire Slayer went from being in heterosexual relationships to declaring, "gay now", and this was after a long time crush on best friend Xander and a long term relationship with werewolf Oz.

But the true answer to the question that Charen asks,

"How does same sex marriage help a bisexual?"

is a simple one. It allows them to have full and legal rights with the partner of their choice. It doesn't help the world understand bisexuality any better, but it does help with some of those practical matters for the bisexuals who have found lasting love among their own gender. We don't make those entering into a heterosexual marriage take sexuality tests to make sure they are indeed heterosexual - and not homosexual, or bisexual. The same can be said for those entering into homosexual unions. And so, access to same sex marriage helps bisexuals in the same way access to marriage helps anyone and any group.

Buddhism and Inmates

Normally, my newspaper has editorials that make my blood boil. Vitriolic rants against feminists, homosexuals, liberals, global warming, and everything else that isn't inherently conservative under the sun, the paper's Opinion section is more like a long winded vision of Mallard Fillmore's comic strip than anything of intelligence or relevance. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson would fit right in. It is the lowest of the low of Republican opinions, so far to the right and so poorly written as to play into the worst stereotypes. And, as my hatred of Mallard Fillmore may suggest, I am not only unabashedly liberal but also a hater of stereotypes -even those about the people I disagree vehemently with.

I scan, and sometimes find an article to get good and angry about. But today, their rant was actually... ...funny. And true. The world is apparently coming to an end, because I agree with a Republican-American editorial. Entitled "Let them eat tofu", it discusses an inmate's "right" to vegan meals. As a Buddhist, Daniel Yeboah-Sefah, formerly Henry K. Boateng (and who picks a hyphenated name if they choose their own?), requires a strict vegan diet in order to conform to the rigors of his faith. He contends that the vegetarian meals the prison provided were not sufficient, and a US District Court judge agreed. Serving only vegetarian meals was tantamount to "cruel and unusual punishment", and Mr. Yeboah-Sefah's lawyer stated that "The statute [regarding religious persecution] is designed to protect these people who are stuck in an institutionalized setting".

I quite enjoy that statement for a number of reasons, number one being that it infers that inmates are not guilty of a crime so much as picked up off the streets and forced to live in the prison system. But I would love to know how the opposing side argued the case. Since Mr. Yeboah-Sefah was a prison-converted Buddhist, and since his crime was a particularly brutal one (he violently murdered his 5-week old son when he "threw him onto the hardwood floor, and repeatedly stomped and kicked him"), had I been the attorney for the state, I may have mentioned that Mr. Yeboah-Sefah gave up the rights to a purely vegan meal -as opposed to the vegetarian option- when he violated another person's right to life. 

I would have potentially also pointed out that the statute was to prevent religious persecution, and that Mr. Yeboah-Sefah was allowed to practice his Buddhism to the fullest extent of the state's ability, that no one was preventing him from conforming to his religious beliefs. That there are weekly meditation sessions offered to Buddhist inmates, and that at a certain point in time an inmate's rights to religious freedom are tempered by his crimes against humanity. Succinctly put, inmates should not be tortured or starved or placed in inhumane conditions themselves; but they also should not be coddled. And, if I were feeling particularly whimsical, I would point out that given the nature of the crime, it was highly unlikely that Daniel Yeboah-Sefah would reach Nirvana in this particular life anyway; so potentially eating some dairy products wasn't exactly the deciding factor here. The Buddha isn't down with the killing.

The Republican-American makes note that "[i]n a just nation, the rights of crime victims would be paramount and Mr Yeboah-Sefah would be reincarnated by now". Which, after an almost entirely reasonable editorial, was particularly funny. I guess I'm just a sucker for Buddhist-reincarnation jokes. It's a quirk. I may not fully agree with what the Republican-American thinks would make up a "just" nation; but it is rulings like this that make the left look crazy-stupid. This is the sort of thing that makes people elect conservatives; this is the sort of thing that makes me want to smack my own head into the wall, because it is just so ridiculous and makes us look bad. And it is rulings like this that make the blow-hards of the Republican American seem just a little more reasonable to many people. And that, frankly, is unacceptable.