To profess that all have inalienable civil liberties, yet require that before a suspect be set free that our legal system must infallibly guarantee that he or she will do no harm when we fear that they may or merely suspect that they have committed a crime is to undermine the liberty of all. For who is beyond suspicion? Who is not unfairly feared by some person, some group, some religion, some culture, or some country.
That is what I learned at the presentation tonight at Kingsbury Hall on Habeas Corpus and the Courts: Individual Liberties from Joseph Smith to Abraham Lincoln to Guantanamo.
Joseph Smith, who the State of Missouri tried to extradite from Illinois for trial as a terrorist for treason, had much in common with the Guantanamo detainees. This is so because out of suspicion and fear he was imprisoned with no recourse to a just and neutral tribunal. Yet he was able to avail himself successfully of the rights of a Writ of Habeas Corpus--that is until he was killed by a mob at Carthage Jail.
During the presentation a women arose in the audience several times to reprimand the actors for taking the "Lord, her Saviors name in vain," when they quoted various texts that mentioned "God" and when one said something that sounded to her like "geeze," that she said was a slang term for Jesus. It was bizarre. She had to be taken out.
Yet, she was ironically like some of the historical figures depicted in the presentation and like so many in our legal system today who focus on their version of proper decorum and formality as sacrosanct and as more important and more all consuming then the substance of what is being said or the purpose behind the law or legal procedures.
It's the adherence to inconsequential formality and succumbing to fear that keeps those who know better and who have the power to act from releasing at the very least the 76 men at Guantanamo who have been cleared of all charges but who linger in prison as their lives drain away.
Loren M. Lambert © March 26, 2014
That is what I learned at the presentation tonight at Kingsbury Hall on Habeas Corpus and the Courts: Individual Liberties from Joseph Smith to Abraham Lincoln to Guantanamo.
Joseph Smith, who the State of Missouri tried to extradite from Illinois for trial as a terrorist for treason, had much in common with the Guantanamo detainees. This is so because out of suspicion and fear he was imprisoned with no recourse to a just and neutral tribunal. Yet he was able to avail himself successfully of the rights of a Writ of Habeas Corpus--that is until he was killed by a mob at Carthage Jail.
During the presentation a women arose in the audience several times to reprimand the actors for taking the "Lord, her Saviors name in vain," when they quoted various texts that mentioned "God" and when one said something that sounded to her like "geeze," that she said was a slang term for Jesus. It was bizarre. She had to be taken out.
Yet, she was ironically like some of the historical figures depicted in the presentation and like so many in our legal system today who focus on their version of proper decorum and formality as sacrosanct and as more important and more all consuming then the substance of what is being said or the purpose behind the law or legal procedures.
It's the adherence to inconsequential formality and succumbing to fear that keeps those who know better and who have the power to act from releasing at the very least the 76 men at Guantanamo who have been cleared of all charges but who linger in prison as their lives drain away.
Loren M. Lambert © March 26, 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment