One of the more compelling pieces of talk radio I have recently heard involves the tale of a man named Mark Fiorino. Fiorino openly carries a holstered handgun. Recently, while walking in Philadelphia, he was challenged and then put under arrest by police suspicious of his gun possession. The police were pretty rough with him, and he captured the dialogue (or, rather, confrontation) on a voice recorder.
I've heard Fiorino interviewed and he sounds very well spoken and very knowledgeable of the law. Even the city's police commissioner has stated that Fiorino had the right to carry his firearm and that the police were wrong.
Unfortunately, the incident that transpired between Fiorino and the police sounds like a civilian looking for a fight and a police officer too quick to become aggressive with a potential problem. There's good coverage of it on The Daily News website and on Michael Smerconish's website.
I'm not opposed to one's right to own a handgun. I can't say, however, that I find the open carrying of a firearm tactful and comforting. Toting firearms is something I'd rather see law enforcement and the military do. So few of us have training in the use of them, and when one is not comprehensively trained, the likelihood of something bad occurring multiplies.
I'm glad I don't feel compelled to walk around with a gun on my hip. It seems more important to trust one's neighbors, one's police, and one's faith to protect them rather than instinct and lethal force.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Due Process
It would appear as if the 24/7 news cycle has moved on to debating the ethics of what President Obama ordered last week when he sent in American armed forces personnel to kill Osama bin Laden. On Michael Smerconish's afternoon show, for instance, I heard of how Rosie O'Donnell has held forth that the assassination of bin Laden was unethical in that it denied him his due process rights.
I'm not admitting that O'Donnell is a journalist.
However, her viewpoint has been expressed by others.
Bin Laden represented a threat that occupies a gray area between crime and war. Criminals are deserving of due process. A police officer who has an alleged criminal in his crosshairs can't just drop him if there is any chance of apprehending the subject. To do so would be criminal, ammoral, and a violation of . . . due process.
Meanwhile, we don't normally wage assassination campaigns against the heads of state of nations with which we are at war. The nations of the West agreed on standards, some codified and some unwritten, about conduct in times of war. Heads of state are, for some reason, off limits. Perhaps to prevent a descent into barbarity. Enemy soldiers captured in uniform are accorded specific rights. Enemy combatants not in uniform are not. Though war is savage, war has custom that in some ways, ironically, protects some life.
Bin Laden, meanwhile, committed an act of war against the U.S. but did not represent or lead a state. He led an amorphous entity that carried out policy and war, but has no recognizable population, borders, or government. It claims no sovereignty.
But Al Qaeda was, without doubt, a threat. And citizens of a nation look to its head of state to protect them from threats. When threats aren't recognized and met, more threats emerge. President Obama had a moral obligation to the American people to confront the threat bin Laden represented. Bin Laden did not lead (or even pretend to lead) a state. He did not claim U.S. citizenship and he was persona non grata through most of the world. Obama had no choice. The American people can't afford hesitation over resolving a threat that so defies the customs of international relations and the life of American citizens.
Though I believe our president did the right thing, there's a sadness that he had to do it. One doesn't like wishing ill (or death) on another. One of the grave responsibilities our presidents take on is the power to order the likely death of others. In some ways, what President Obama did last week was no lighter than what Truman decided to do in August 1945 or Lincoln in April 1861. A somber awakening for me is that one of many prices one must pay to be president is that as president one is tasked with dilemmas that push the boundaries of what is ethical and just. Perhaps this is why churches often pray for our elected leaders.
I'm not admitting that O'Donnell is a journalist.
However, her viewpoint has been expressed by others.
Bin Laden represented a threat that occupies a gray area between crime and war. Criminals are deserving of due process. A police officer who has an alleged criminal in his crosshairs can't just drop him if there is any chance of apprehending the subject. To do so would be criminal, ammoral, and a violation of . . . due process.
Meanwhile, we don't normally wage assassination campaigns against the heads of state of nations with which we are at war. The nations of the West agreed on standards, some codified and some unwritten, about conduct in times of war. Heads of state are, for some reason, off limits. Perhaps to prevent a descent into barbarity. Enemy soldiers captured in uniform are accorded specific rights. Enemy combatants not in uniform are not. Though war is savage, war has custom that in some ways, ironically, protects some life.
Bin Laden, meanwhile, committed an act of war against the U.S. but did not represent or lead a state. He led an amorphous entity that carried out policy and war, but has no recognizable population, borders, or government. It claims no sovereignty.
But Al Qaeda was, without doubt, a threat. And citizens of a nation look to its head of state to protect them from threats. When threats aren't recognized and met, more threats emerge. President Obama had a moral obligation to the American people to confront the threat bin Laden represented. Bin Laden did not lead (or even pretend to lead) a state. He did not claim U.S. citizenship and he was persona non grata through most of the world. Obama had no choice. The American people can't afford hesitation over resolving a threat that so defies the customs of international relations and the life of American citizens.
Though I believe our president did the right thing, there's a sadness that he had to do it. One doesn't like wishing ill (or death) on another. One of the grave responsibilities our presidents take on is the power to order the likely death of others. In some ways, what President Obama did last week was no lighter than what Truman decided to do in August 1945 or Lincoln in April 1861. A somber awakening for me is that one of many prices one must pay to be president is that as president one is tasked with dilemmas that push the boundaries of what is ethical and just. Perhaps this is why churches often pray for our elected leaders.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
