reply to post by Miraj
Originally posted by Miraj
I think you see things in a different light than I. You see, in the past; People weren't entittled to the same rights that were guaranteed for all.
Women couldn't vote. Slavery was legal (Many ethnic groups here). But things have gotten better. Back in World War One, people were jailed for
speaking their minds of the war. I could rant on and on.
Nothing is ever going to be perfect. Deal with that fact. But we can always try to make it perfect.
I apologize for jumping in. I am one who certainly does see things differently than you.
You are correct about the historical facts here. You are also correct in the 'there is no perfect society' sentiment, and that to a point, we must
well... 'Deal with it'. (I believe that is ultimately what you were saying. Forgive me if I am wrong, or putting words in your mouth. and feel
free to correct me.)
However, you failed to mention or factor in, that societies tend to adjust due to circumstances. Sometimes with extraordinary measures, usually in
extraordinary circumstances... Such as war. Sometimes those measures are altered or even reversed in different circumstances, but sometimes such
measures can contribute to an overall societal evolution. In short, you begin a trend, and you don't go back... And sometimes, not only do you not
go back, but a precedent allows a government to take a little more... and a little more... etc.
In terms of establishing a gradual tyrrany, this is also historically accurate. This is the 'slippery slope' perspective if you will... That a
government begins to chip away systematically at what we now call 'civil liberties'. (Please refer to 'how to catch a wild pig' metaphor.) And
in the terms of our own legal system 'precedent' is key, and very vulnerable to abuse and manipulation in terms of changing how the law is perceived
That is what people people (including myself) fear here. The 'Right To A Trial' is an enormous factor in maintaining our rights overall. It's part
of that (usually) tacit social contract between (American) citizens and their government. It is culturally defining.
Also, regardless of your historical points, it doesn't excuse the government from abandoning the Right to a Trial before a jury of ones peers to
determine guilt. No one... Not even the President gets to say 'Wow, that really looks bad, and he/her probably did it, so kill him/her',
arbitrarily. There must be a trial or a military tribunal to determine if this person did indeed engage in the alleged activities that they may be
put to death for. That's the point.
I would also wager that no matter what historical illucidation you reference of our injustices and trampling of civil liberties throughout our own
history, they can be held up against the social acceptances, and/or extreme circumstances that would justify them (this is important) for that
Right now, we are not at war (the 'war on terror' is a boogey man, not an armed conflict. There are characteristics of war. It doesn't qualify.)
There are no social circumstances currently that are extreme enough to justify waiving the right to a trial. None. The only thing that I can think
of is that the established authority is so insecure in it's power base that they are now embarking on establishing a precedent that will allow them
to intimidate, and/or execute even their own citizens that they perceive as a threat to said power base. There is little to no social pressure
prompting this, so I smell a power play. Period.
On another note, those injustices were largely rectified (like slavery), and are no longer applicable once the circumstances changed.
Apathy does nothing for the continual effort of making a perfect society. I won't accept this. It's a step away from the ideal.