The following is what I learned at tonight’s presentation at Kingsbury Hall. The topic was on Habeas Corpus and the Courts: Individual Liberties from Joseph Smith to Abraham Lincoln to Guantanamo:
To profess that all have inalienable civil liberties, yet require that before a suspect be set free, our legal system must infallibly guarantee that he or she will do no harm. To fear or merely suspect that someone may have committed a crime is to undermine the liberty of all. For who is beyond suspicion? Who is not unfairly feared by some group, some culture, some person, some country, or some religion?
Joseph Smith, who the State of Missouri tried to extradite from Illinois as a terrorist for treason, had much in common with the Guantanamo detainees. This is because, out of suspicion and fear, he was imprisoned with no recourse to a just and neutral tribunal. However, 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 in the audience arose several times to reprimand the actors for taking the "Lord, her Savior’s name in vain," when they quoted various texts that mentioned "God." When one said something that sounded to her like "geez," she said that was a slang term for Jesus. It was bizarre. She had to be taken out.
She was, ironically, like some of the historical figures depicted in the presentation. She was 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 than 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
To profess that all have inalienable civil liberties, yet require that before a suspect be set free, our legal system must infallibly guarantee that he or she will do no harm. To fear or merely suspect that someone may have committed a crime is to undermine the liberty of all. For who is beyond suspicion? Who is not unfairly feared by some group, some culture, some person, some country, or some religion?
Joseph Smith, who the State of Missouri tried to extradite from Illinois as a terrorist for treason, had much in common with the Guantanamo detainees. This is because, out of suspicion and fear, he was imprisoned with no recourse to a just and neutral tribunal. However, 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 in the audience arose several times to reprimand the actors for taking the "Lord, her Savior’s name in vain," when they quoted various texts that mentioned "God." When one said something that sounded to her like "geez," she said that was a slang term for Jesus. It was bizarre. She had to be taken out.
She was, ironically, like some of the historical figures depicted in the presentation. She was 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 than 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