Clod of War

[vovat]

Today, I once again heard someone complaining that we shouldn't be treating terrorists like "common criminals," this time with regards to trying them in civilian courts. Putting in the word "common" seems like a trick to make it sound silly, like, "You can't prosecute terrorists the same way you do some bozo who holds up a liquor store!" Aren't there plenty of UNcommon criminals who go through the same justice system, though? Really, I'm not sure that way of thinking has to do with justice so much as it does vengeance. It's like how some of the same people insist that torture works, despite all the evidence that what you usually get when you waterboard someone is whatever you want to hear. I don't know that it's even about torture working, but about thinking terror suspects need to suffer. And while I can understand this desire, it's not really supposed to be how our justice system works, is it? Sure, there's often a punitive component, but isn't it primarily about protecting the innocent? And what if some of these suspects turn out not to be guilty? I'm not sure that even matters so much to the vengeance-obsessed, just so long as someone who could possibly be guilty gets hurt. Hey, go to war with a country that has nothing to do with what you're trying to avenge, and Congress will be hunky-dory with it (but NOT with minor changes to the health care system; THAT'S a huge deal). But even in a just war, there's a lot of fighting that doesn't actually involve anyone with any power to do anything, but simply people who happen to live in the same country. Just because the war itself is for a good cause doesn't mean everything done within that war furthers the cause.

You know, as much as I hate warmongers blathering on about Jesus as if he would be on THEIR side, there's a certain connection to Christianity in there. Not to anything Jesus himself taught, mind you, but to the idea of Jesus dying for the sins of humanity. HE didn't commit those sins (in fact, many Christians insist he was sinless), but his dying somehow still satisfied God. I'm not even going to get into the Trinity issue here, as that isn't what this post is about. Rather, how can it be considered just for someone who DIDN'T do anything to be killed, and how does this atone for what anyone else did? It just seems like kind of a similar idea. As long as people's bloodlust is satisfied, it isn't that important to know what actually happened and who really did it.

Comments

[kevenn.livejournal.com]

Our country has gone batshit insane with clouded rage and emotions since 9-11. I really hate that. :(

I wish everyone could be logical like you're being here.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

I guess it's difficult to be logical if you believe all the tales of terrorist threats.

[suegypt.livejournal.com]

What was Timothy McVeigh but a terrorist, homegrown?

Did we not try and convict and incarcerate Ramzi Yousef in, uh, New York City?