The True American Spirit

Posted by: Melinda

Tagged in: Untagged 

I've copied off the words of Judge William Young who presided at the trial of the pathetic 'Shoe Bomber".  This is what America and our institutions should look like.  Not the pathetic, terrified Republicans, and the man who embraced and continues to embrace torture -- Richard Cheney.

"We are not afraid of any of your terrorist co-conspirators, Mr. Reid. We are Americans. We have been through the fire before.
There is all too much war talk here. And I say that to everyone with the utmost respect. Here in this court where we deal with individuals as individuals, and care for individuals as individuals, as human beings we reach out for justice.
You are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist.
You are not a soldier in any war. You are a terrorist.
To give you that reference, to call you a soldier gives you far too much stature. Whether it is the officers of government who do it or your attorney who does it, or that happens to be your view, you are a terrorist. And we do not negotiate with terrorists. We do not treat with terrorists. We do not sign documents with terrorists. We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice.
So war talk is way out of line in this court. You're a big fellow. But you're not that big. You're no warrior. I know warriors. You are a terrorist. A species of criminal guilty of multiple attempted murders. In a very real sense Trooper Santiago had it right when first you were taken off that plane and into custody and you wondered where the press and where the TV crews were and he said you're no big deal.
You're no big deal...
It seems to me you hate the one thing that to us is most precious. You hate our freedom. Our individual freedom. Our individual freedom to live as we choose, to come and go as we choose, to believe or not believe as we individually choose. Here, in this society, the very winds carry freedom. They carry it everywhere from sea to shining sea.
It is because we prize individual freedom so much that you are here in this beautiful courtroom. So that everyone can see, truly see that justice is administered fairly, individually, and discretely. It is for freedom's seek that your lawyers are striving so vigorously on your behalf and have filed appeals, will go on in their, their representation of you before other judges. We care about it. Because we all know that the way we treat you, Mr. Reid, is the measure of our own liberties.
Make no mistake though. It is yet true that we will bear any burden; pay any price, to preserve our freedoms. Look around this courtroom. Mark it well. The world is not going to long remember what you or I say here. Day after tomorrow it will be forgotten. But this, however, will long endure. Here, in this courtroom, and courtrooms all across America, the American people will gather to see that justice, individual justice, justice, not war, individual justice is in fact being done.
The very President of the United States through his officers will have to come into courtrooms and lay out evidence on which specific matters can be judged, and juries of citizens will gather to sit and judge that evidence democratically, to mold and shape and refine our sense of justice.
See that flag, Mr. Reid? That's the flag of the United States of America. That flag will fly there long after this is all forgotten. That flag still stands for freedom. You know it always will. Custody, Mr. Officer. Stand him down."

Trackback(0)
Comments (6)Add Comment
0
irrational quote
written by J. Paul, February 04, 2010
I find it strange that someone who wrote a nuanced book like the Edge of Reason could quote the above drivel with approval. A flag that stands for freedom? Terrorists are afraid of freedom? If we're talking about a country that was built through slavery and the genocide of millions of indigenous inhabitants, and is now one of the strongest centres of world imperialism, then any use of the word "freedom" in conjuncture with its existence is, well, absurdly humorous at best. As for the whole defining a "terrorist" vs. "soldier" idiocy, I'm reminded of the following exchange in Gillo Pontecorvo's seminal film "Battle of Algiers."

"Journalist: M. Ben M'Hidi, don't you think it's a bit cowardly to use women's baskets and handbags to carry explosive devices that kill so many innocent people?
Ben M'Hidi: And doesn't it seem to you even more cowardly to drop napalm bombs on defenseless villages, so that there are a thousand times more innocent victims? Of course, if we had your airplanes it would be a lot easier for us. Give us your bombers, and you can have our baskets."

In the context of Howard Zinn's recent death, I still find it strange that people can find the above quotes admirable and not in the least bit irrational and, yes, "superstitious" [where an ahistorical concept of freedom is mystified].
0
...
written by Melinda Snodgrass, February 04, 2010
I think you're being blinded by the patriot flag references, and missing the real money quote in this statement by the judge.

It is because we prize individual freedom so much that you are here in this beautiful courtroom. So that everyone can see, truly see that justice is administered fairly, individually, and discretely. It is for freedom's seek that your lawyers are striving so vigorously on your behalf and have filed appeals, will go on in their, their representation of you before other judges. We care about it. Because we all know that the way we treat you, Mr. Reid, is the measure of our own liberties.

The reason I copied this statement is to counter the screaming by the insane and cowardly Right, that these men are too dangerous to be dealt with under our justice system. That we must use secret prisons, torture and military tribunals to deal with them. That we dare not try Khalid Sheikh Mohammaed in a courtroom in NYC because if he's allowed to speak it will somehow sway others to follow this nihilistic cult.

Among all their other sins the Bush administration is guilty of undermining the American spirit to face adversity. Personally, I think all this security theater at the airports is idiotic. We would be better served if these efforts were directed at cargo and luggage, and forget about inconveniencing travelers. Yes, there are a handful of crazy people who would like to kill Americans. The truth is that nothing can be done against a person who is willing to die in order to kill others. Sometimes they slip through. But to react by undermining our own institutions or make our lives so much more unpleasant is not the solution.

That is what made me spark to this judge's statements. Out of fear our government tortured in my name. Denied due process to hundreds if not thousands, incarcerated the innocent and probably turned them into terrorists. And the GOP is using this as a political club, and claiming that trying the Undie Bomber in open court is somehow weak. I think it shows strength and that's what the judge was talking about.
0
but it's couched in so much frightening ideology
written by J. Paul, February 04, 2010
Fair enough, but it's still couched in the same ideological framework of "freedom" that renders that one part of the quote somewhat suspect. Moreover, it tends to valorize the fact that those of us at the centers of world capitalism can only joy certain freedoms (and limited liberal freedoms rather than truly social freedoms) at the expense of the global peripheries - hence the reason why the export of capital (monopoly capitalism) was able to permit Keynesian reforms, etc. So when I read quotes where freedom is unproblematically linked to Americanism - and United States policy has been active, since its inception, with *some* of the greatest genocides in modern history - I tend to get very suspicious. Now with increased rise of white supremacy in both America and Canada (Democracy Now had a good documentary on this), where the same uncritical and polemic use of "freedom" (and terrorists as not being the same as soldiers, etc.) is evident, I think quotes like this one, regardless of what it might say at some points, should be critically examined as part of the ideological discourse that promotes a view of America as "the land of freedom", etc. without any recourse to actual history. That is why I'm always alarmed when well-meaning folks speak of an authentic America, a return to a less war-mongering and "free" America, as if such a place ever existed.

Indeed, airport security is ridiculous. But why can't we go further and wonder why people in the world are angry with the wealthiest countries, most specifically the US? It's not because they hate freedom, though they tend to get drawn to whacky religious groups who, like whacky religious groups in this part of the world, are indeed freedom-hating (for all their talk of freedom). But yes, it is good that he was actually tried and the neo-con arguments were proved baseless.
0
...
written by Melinda Snodgrass, February 04, 2010
Yes, we do have a tendency as a country to go through these periods of insane paranoia where we afflict ourselves with Joe McCarthy, and the John Birch Society, etc. etc. Usually the pendulum swings back, but this time I'm really worried. The fear and hate level -- particularly with Obama's election seems to have reached a new level.

Look, I'm not whitewashing American behavior on many fronts -- my great grandmother was a full blood Cherokee -- but I do think our ideals (though we often fall short) have been an inspiration to people around the world. Right now there is just this toxic blend of politics and religion all around the world that I think makes us all very vulnerable.
0
True enough
written by J. Paul, February 04, 2010
True enough, although I would argue that this toxic blend is a superstructural (but obviously also influential) element and that capitalism, especially global capitalism, is the main problem...

In any case, I never expected to see your responses to a single/errant comment I posted on this blog. I actually found my way here because I had just finished (in one and a half days) "The Edge of Reason" - which I loved - and was looking to find out more about the author (it was an impulse buy). It was a good antidote, in my opinion, to some of the other urban fantasy novels I've read recently, especially those that make these bizarre claims that "reason" is destroying the world and killing all the magic, etc. All of which, as your novel does a very good job demystifying, is anti-enlightenment thinking: I have always been uncomfortable with this appeal to superstition, considering that much of my academic work is based on examining the break from "metaphysical alienation" and how this is both progressive (reason, science, etc.) but at the same time can possibly lead to new superstitions (science as a "natural force" rather than human actiity, etc.); the enlightenment project is still open. So I much appreciated the reverse position that was taken in "The Edge of Reason." It was a breath of fresh air and I'm looking forward to reading the follow-up novel.
0
...
written by Melinda Snodgrass, February 04, 2010
Thank you very much for the kind words. That's means a lot to an author. We write alone, and then the book goes out into the world, and most of the time we have no idea if it connects with anyone.

We may have to agree to disagree regarding capitalism. I'm an unrepentant capitalist smilies/smiley.gif though I believe in _regulated_ capitalism. Unregulated it only leads to the misery we're witnessing now. I also believe in a powerful social safety net. I think it's what a country owes its citizens. Alas, it seems the country has become ungovernable, and no legislation that actually addresses our problems is likely to be passed -- whether financial reform or heath reform. I'm glad I never had children. I dread to see the world we are leaving to them.

And I always respond to comments. I've tried to make this a place where people can discuss issues. As long as it remains civil I have no problem engaging in discussion whether about writing, religion or politics. So grab some salsa and a margarita, and welcome.

Write comment

busy