Do It, Don't Revel In It.
Oct. 21st, 2011 11:33 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
danieldwilliamI hope I’m not alone in finding the death of Gadaffi distasteful.
I hope I’m not alone in finding the death of Gadaffi another precident in an unwholesome change in our views on the rule of law.
I think due process of law and the presumption of innocence taken together are two of the most important political innovations in Western society and two of the most important rights we have. Combined, they mean that if the state can not persuade a disinterested person that you have done a bad thing the state (or its officials) can not deprive you of your life, or your liberty or wound you in your body. From this stable platform of being able to go about your business free from arbitrary vexation by the state or persecution flow all our civil liberties and all the material and political benefits that come from living in a free society.
If the Rule of Law does not apply to everyone than it applies to no one. If one person can be outlawed, then anyone can be outlawed.
When sanctioning the death of outlaws or approving of the killing of outlaws by others I hope our leaders would remember John Rawls’ veil of uncertainty and the maxim that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. If it is okay for our leadership to kill without trial or approve of the killing without trial of their leadship how are we to distinguish terrorism from police action? What makes the IRA attack on Downing Street morally different from the killing of Osama Bin Laden?
I’m concerned that it seems to be okay for extra judicial killings to happen to Arab men who dislike the West. I fear that it will encourage Arab men who dislike the West to continue to think that it is okay to kill Westerners. I fear that the class of people whom it is acceptable to kill without due process may be widened to include African men who dislike the West, Western men who dislike the West, women and children who just happen to be standing near men who fall into the category of outlaw, Western women who have breached planning conditions on their own property and then atheists, Jews, Non-Conformists, Dissenters and supporters of Manchester United.
I think when the Americans insisted that we have proper trials for alleged Nazi war criminals and that we didn’t just string them up from the nearest lamppost that was the right thing to do. I don’t think justice tempered by angry vengance is an appropriate model for us to endorse.
Not just because the rule of law is a good thing but because important practical liberties and material benefits flow from the rule of law. You can not have the benefits of a free and democratic society if you remove one of the foundations of that society.
I don’t want it to be okay to kill without trial Gadaffi or Bin Laden because I don’t want it to be okay for someone to do that to Obama or Cameron, or me. I don’t want to live in a world where just killing people is okay for either side.
I hope I’m not alone in finding the death of Gadaffi another precident in an unwholesome change in our views on the rule of law.
I think due process of law and the presumption of innocence taken together are two of the most important political innovations in Western society and two of the most important rights we have. Combined, they mean that if the state can not persuade a disinterested person that you have done a bad thing the state (or its officials) can not deprive you of your life, or your liberty or wound you in your body. From this stable platform of being able to go about your business free from arbitrary vexation by the state or persecution flow all our civil liberties and all the material and political benefits that come from living in a free society.
If the Rule of Law does not apply to everyone than it applies to no one. If one person can be outlawed, then anyone can be outlawed.
When sanctioning the death of outlaws or approving of the killing of outlaws by others I hope our leaders would remember John Rawls’ veil of uncertainty and the maxim that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. If it is okay for our leadership to kill without trial or approve of the killing without trial of their leadship how are we to distinguish terrorism from police action? What makes the IRA attack on Downing Street morally different from the killing of Osama Bin Laden?
I’m concerned that it seems to be okay for extra judicial killings to happen to Arab men who dislike the West. I fear that it will encourage Arab men who dislike the West to continue to think that it is okay to kill Westerners. I fear that the class of people whom it is acceptable to kill without due process may be widened to include African men who dislike the West, Western men who dislike the West, women and children who just happen to be standing near men who fall into the category of outlaw, Western women who have breached planning conditions on their own property and then atheists, Jews, Non-Conformists, Dissenters and supporters of Manchester United.
I think when the Americans insisted that we have proper trials for alleged Nazi war criminals and that we didn’t just string them up from the nearest lamppost that was the right thing to do. I don’t think justice tempered by angry vengance is an appropriate model for us to endorse.
Not just because the rule of law is a good thing but because important practical liberties and material benefits flow from the rule of law. You can not have the benefits of a free and democratic society if you remove one of the foundations of that society.
I don’t want it to be okay to kill without trial Gadaffi or Bin Laden because I don’t want it to be okay for someone to do that to Obama or Cameron, or me. I don’t want to live in a world where just killing people is okay for either side.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-10-21 11:15 am (UTC)I couldn't agree more about the rush to approve his death over here, with graphic pictures splashed all over the frontpages. And I couldn't agree more with the hypocrisy of sucking up to him for oil one moment, and celebrating his death at the next.
One thing to give slight pause, though, is that Gadaffi wasn't killed by Obama, or Cameron, or Western troops. He was killed by his countrymen, by Arabs who thought it was ok to kill this Arab man. I'm not saying that makes it more or less wrong, but it's at least worth recording that the West didn't kill him, his own people did.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-21 11:21 am (UTC)This is true.
He was killed by some of his own people and it's possible but unlikely that they were just acting on their own behalf and not acting on orders from their own leaders (which would make this a plain murder rather than an extra judicial execution I think.)
But I am noting that our leaders aren't making much of the lack of a trial and seem to be approving of the convenient extra-judical death of an enemy.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-21 11:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-10-21 01:11 pm (UTC)I suspect we'll never know what actually happened, unless some mobile phone footage turns up.