Epistemological Relativism

After hearing of the Supreme Court’s decision regarding detainee’s rights at Guantanamo Naval Station I decided it was time to read their opinion. No, I have not read the entire 125 page document. I just finished reading the eight page syllabus. For those that are living under a rock, the detainees at Guantanamo Bay have been held there without the entitlement of the Writ. This basically means that they have not been given the opportunity to question the legality of their imprisonment. As a result, many of the detainees are held there indefinitely. Now, this is a gross oversimplification. There are many other factors at play such as the location of the detention center, it’s status as a territory, the citizenship of the detainees and their status as “enemy combatants”. Based on these and other factors the court ruled that the detainee’s rights to the Writ cannot be suspended. I have to say at first, because of the “at war” considerations, I thought this was a bad decision. After reading, some reflection and a few interesting conversations I now think this was a good decisions. It is, of course, not without difficulties, but the decision heads in the appropriate direction.

One of the main themes touched on in the Syllabus is the Writ’s ability to ensure individual liberty. If the conditions by which the Writ may be suspended are broadened our liberties will have been significantly curtailed.

That the Framers considered the writ a vital instrument for the protection of individual liberty is evident from the care taken in the Suspension Clause to specify the limited grounds for its suspension: The writ may be suspended only when public safety requires it in times of rebellion or invasion.

The problem is that the Guantanomo scenario is unique. Some argue that because Guantanamo isn’t a United States territory that the Constitution has little influence or power. The Court does agree that this uniqueness presents challenges for effectively resolving the dilemma.

None of the cases the parties cite reveal whether a common-law court would have granted, or refused to hear for lack of jurisdiction, a habeas petition by a prisoner deemed an enemy combatant, under a standard like the Defense De- partment’s in these cases, and when held in a territory, like Guantanamo, over which the Government has total military and civil control.

The Court, thankfully, does not agree that the location of the detention center determines where and when the Constitution applies. We cannot simply claim that because Cuba is sovereign over Guantanamo that we must obviate the entitlements to the Writ.

but it does not accept the Government’s premise that de jure sovereignty is the touchstone of habeas jurisdiction.

Furthermore, to draw a clear line in the sand, it is not the place of the Executive or Legislative branches to determine where the law should be applied.

The Constitution grants Congress and the President the power to acquire, dispose of, and govern territory, not the power to decide when and where its terms apply.  To hold that the political branches may switch the Constitution on or off at will would lead to a regime in which they, not this Court, say “what the law is.”

The Court, through the Syllabus, understands that there are other considerations when extended the entitlements to Writ to detainees. “Due process” in this context takes time. It may be the case that the governement and/or military have very good reasons for detaining individuals. At the end of the day, at some reasonable point in time and in this context they must be allowed to understand why they are being held.

This holding should not be read to imply that a habeas court should intervene the moment an enemy combatant steps foot in a territory where the writ runs.

I think the Court understands the complexity of the situation. This isn’t a straight-forward case of a citizen being withheld certain rights. This isn’t a straigh-forward case of detention on U.S. soil. There are aspects terrorism, intelligence information, “aliens” that are intertwined in this case. We have to protect the country from foreign hostilities, but it cannot come at the expense of the liberty of citizens or, worse still, at the expense of our countries heritage of preserving liberty through due process.

 In considering both the procedural and substantive standards used to impose detention to prevent acts of terrorism, the courts must accord proper deference to the political branches.  However, security subsists, too, in fidelity to freedom’s first principles, chief among them being freedom from arbitrary and unlawful restraint and the personal liberty that is secured by adherence to the separation of powers.

Yesterday while browsing the children’s books at my local Borders I spotted Rumpelstiltskin. While it is not the version I am used to, it is very nice to look at and captures the major plot points quite simply. I’m trying to figure out why it has taken me this long to get this tale and share it with my children, but I have no answer. When I read it last night my children gasped in horror at the king’s ultimatum given to the miller’s daughter. They gasped even louder as the straw-filled rooms grew in size after each night. It was great fun and I’m sure it will become a common bedtime request.

Stories, real or imagined, have incredible power. While I’m certain that the lectures I give my oldest are quickly forgotten, I know with equal certainty that after just one reading of Rumpelstiltkin that the story will be forever locked away in her memories. This is instructive in a number of ways. Using stories to communicate moral messages, values and beliefs can be found in some of the oldest documents in antiquity. I think that as a modern society where we are surrounded by “facts” and “laws”, we quickly forget the power of story. This is especially the case when we forget that most young children are not developmentally ready to hang “facts” and “laws” onto their neural hooks and use them appropriately. Stories have this magic ability to bypass the developmental requirements and plant themselves firmly within the child’s mind with all the associated moral messages. Are stories that contain the messages we value most more effective than other methods? I don’t know, but it would seem quite foolish to completely ignore the wisdom and traditions of previous generations.

I took the test which allegedly tells you whether or not you have high-functioning autism. I guess I don’t. I scored 25. Unfortunately, I’m not sure whether that score is good or bad or meaningless. Perhaps that is part of the test? Try it and post your answers.

http://www.piepalace.ca/blog/asperger-test-aq-test/

I’m not sure what category to file this in, but I have to share. Perhaps this isn’t anything new to most, but this was the first time I saw anything like it. I guess in many places throughout the world public objects are modified to prevent people from sitting on them. This link will take you to photos of these modifications. Wow, I need to get out more often..as long as I bring my own chair.

http://www.usemenow.com/web-log/archives/the_antisit/

I was thinking how odd it must be for the few people that find their way to this blog to see such a mix of topics. Typically, at least from my experience, you find blogs that have some sort of focus. Whether this focus is a person’s professional life, life at home, philosophical musings or specific interests there is some guiding principle that attempts to bring some coherence to the parts. I have deliberately, and perhaps I will regret this someday, attempted to resist such compartmentalization. Life is seldom so neatly divided as we’d like to present in a blog. I’m sure it isn’t the intention of many to hide other facets other their lives from their readers. I imagine it has more to do with not wanting to bore a reader with vacation exploits when what they’re expecting is a recipe of the day. So, it is with an apologetic attitude that I must inform anyone who is reading that you’ll have to scroll past what is of little interest to you on this blog to find what does interest you. I know it is terribly inconvenient.

I’m constantly amused by the romanticism surrounding the transition and transformation of Colonial America into the collection of united states. We’ve all (those who have been educated in the U.S.) been exposed to the themes of oppression, misrepresentation and tyranny that are found throughout the writings of the period. In some ways this romanticism is well-founded. We witness a loose collection of colonies fight and scrape their way toward independence. Following on the heels of this new found independence they manage to construct and implement a system of government that was an amalgam of incredible ideas and ideals. The Enlightenment, the earlier Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution were the fertile seedbeds from which the founders harvested. All of these events, which seem trivialized by my meager coverage, are worthy of respect and study regardless of your political and religious views. Despite all of this, there is this irony just below the surface; the type of irony contained within a tragedian’s masterwork.

This tragedy was not, however, written by a poet attempting to craft a contemporary version of a Homeric epic replete with fatally flawed characters. Instead, this is the story of the truly tragic. Yet, in school, in our romanticism and admiration of the great and fantastic accomplishments all that is dark and gone awry is obscured or hidden away. There can be numerous reasons and explanations of why this is the way it is. How, though are we to learn from our mistakes and improve ourselves and our nation except through gazing long and hard at our past in all its greatness and imperfection?

Very early on we see the expansion and colonization (if I can use that word) of the west. As a newly united and sovereign nation there appears some implicit expectation of entitlement. We can see the transformation of the once oppressed into the oppressor. The Thrasymachian undercurrents can be seen when battle after battle is fought to annex more territory. Might makes right is what we can read between the lines. But, how can this be? Surely there are some foundational, unalienable rights that should not, no cannot, be violated. And yet by some weird twist of fate the new republic dons the mantle of tyranny.

What entitles a sovereign nation of any size to seize or purchase territory? What entitles a sovereign nation to marginalize an indigenous population in such a way as to sell the land that they live upon? This question raises a host of complex questions, that we loathe to address. Deep down we all know the answer. But to answer the question requires a great shift in thinking and action. Could this be why we don’t think about how our lovely land was formed?

To add additional irony, I am writing this from a chair in a state that was ceded to the United States after the Spanish-American War. Without a U.S. victory, I may not have been born here or anywhere for that matter. I enjoy the freedom to write and live as peacefully as possible. I enjoy what all the wars and innumerable deaths have provided. I am truly thankful, but it sounds odd or morbid to offer any sort of thanks for these events. The founders did great things in constructing a country such as this. It is unfortunate that it came at such an incredible price both before and after the founding of our nation.

Note: This isn’t some crazy anti-war polemic. I try to resist such polarization and classification, but if you must label me, consider me a supporter of patriotism, freedom and reform. Consider me optimistic that we can be truly human by improving ourselves through honest reflection.

As a parent who is always proud of my children’s successes, their best efforts despite failure and the ability to laugh at a moments notice, I have to say that I was particularly impressed this afternoon. I was reading my new copy The Dangerous Book for Boys (more on that in another post) when I turned to a page with a picture of Gaius Julius Caesar. I had been showing my children page after page of all the cool things in this book. I asked my seven-year-old daughter who she thought the person in the picture might be. She nonchalantly replied that it was Julius Caesar. Now, I don’t know about you and maybe I don’t get out enough, but I sure didn’t know who Julius Caesar was when I was in 2nd grade. Another proud moment for a parent.

I just couldn’t resist this one. I love the ever so gentle chastisement upon my completion.

I thought I’d share some of the “in your face”-ness of John Locke. Never a man to pull his punches, his observations are always painful for some, especially when they are true.

It is in vain for any man to unsurp the name of Christian, without holiness of life, purity of manners, benignity and meekness of spirit.

It would, indeed, be very hard for one that appears careless about his own salvation to persuade me that he were extremely concerned for mine. For it is impossible that those should sincerely and heartily apply themselves to make other people Christians, who have not really embraced the Christian religion in their own hearts.

For if it be out of a principle of charity, as they pretend, and love to men’s souls that they deprive them of their estates, maim them with corporal punishments, starve and torment them in noisome prisons, and in the end even take away their lives- I say, if all this be done merely to make men Christians and procure their salvation, why then do they suffer whoredom, fraud, malice, and such-like enormities, which (according to the apostle) manifestly relish of heathenish corruption, to predominate so much and abound amongst their flocks and people?

Does this look or sound familiar?

- John Locke, A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689)

I’ve received many comments (not on the actual blog of course) that my posts are bit too dense and complex. While I take that as sort of a back-handed compliment I can also appreciate where these folks are coming from. I consider much of what I write about critical and foundational to the creation of a rational, pragmatic and mutable (yes, this is a good thing within reason) world view. Because of this, I think it is important to communicate these issues in such a way that readers of all backgrounds are able to engage in this process. This is going to be new territory for me, but I’m going to give it my best shot. Any feedback when I need to do extra unpacking of concepts or when a post is hopelessly confusing would be helpful.