If Americans are to continue their belief that our country leads the way in political morality, we need to take a close and careful look at how we treat the criminals in our society.  How we treat the "other" defines ourselves.

Some politicians are up-in-arms over the fact that the Boston bomber was read his Miranda rights. They claim that it's because the public safety exemption applied in this situation. This is an interesting sticking point, since it is not mandatory and actually not very common that suspected criminals are read their Miranda rights.  It seems that the true reason that some senators have been so vocally  upset about this is because they don't like Muslims and they want to have a good old-fashioned lynching.

One of the main issues for conservatives is fighting to ensure that the Federal government does not become too powerful, and does not abuse its power to oppress.  As evidenced by the recent failure of our government to pass any kind of gun restrictions in the wake of such tragic mass shootings on our  home soil, it seems that politicians will fight hard for Americans to have the right to kill other Americans.  However, in a case involving anyone born in another country, especially someone who aligns themselves with Islam, these same politicians are ready to deny them any and all rights.

The Boston bomber was a citizen.

The difference between this and the other cases is that he's a Muslim foreigner, and this is a religiously motivated attack. For conservatives, this appears to override the fact that he is in fact a legal citizen, and there are calls for him to be treated as an enemy combatant, (which is a legal stretch and goes directly against the Right's beliefs in protecting citizens from the big-bad abusive government). The Right appears to be so angry that he was read his rights and that this somehow represents an over-reaching government. If the whole argument against big government is that it can't be trusted to make exceptions to it's rules fairly, then that means that the rules MUST be followed, not only when we're really angry, but ESPECIALLY when we are.

There's no question that we're all upset about this and that we all want justice to be served, but when we let emotion allow us to subvert the laws that protect us, we lose the the moral high ground and we lose that which all Americans prize above all else, the belief that we really are the good guys.

We the Sheeple, the blog of a fellow classmate, brought up another interesting point within the current debates surrounding gun control.  Here are my comments on that post:
Can You Name the Slain Sheep?

This is a very important article and an idea that needs to be spread. I agree that the attention and fame given to mass murders is way out of place. I appreciated that the author of the commentary, John R. Lot Jr. refrained from using any names in his article. It is a tragedy that the names of the murderers are more recognized than their victims. Think of the hour long documentaries on various channels that chronicle the lives and horrible murders of these people. It is certainly a point the media should consider.

I also agree, however, that the freedom of the press should be upheld. Any attempts to regulate what is newsworthy and what is not puts our country onto a precarious path. I believe this about the first amendment, however when it comes to the second amendment, I do lean toward wanting tighter rules and legislation concerning the type of guns citizens may own and how they go about requiring them. It seems to me that while I understand that "guns don't kill people, people kill people", if assault rifles like the ones used in these latest shootings were not available, would we be spared such horrible tragedies? If a gun was not kept in the home, how many fewer suicides would occur because the means to carry through with a split second decision would not be there? 

My first instinct with regards to regulating gun ownership is to think it is a reasonable proposal. This article has got me thinking though. I can see supporters of no gun control using the same "slippery slope" argument and I can agree that they have a point. I appreciate articles like these that challenge my thoughts. It's certainly an important debate and far from black and white. This article and my colleges comments have been helpful in providing more food for thought.

ReplyDelete