The debate over whether the war in Iraq is in fact a "just war" continues, but it does so without a clear focus on the implications of what it means to the people of the United States if this matter goes unresolved. As a result, there is a lack of a sense of urgency in the multitude of forums in which this debate occurs. Despite that, the political, religious, media, and legal institutions have done a great service in keeping this issue alive at a time when there are so many who would like to sweep it under the rug and go on with business as usual. Each institution has a slightly different agenda regarding the war in Iraq and it is necessary that all these issues be vetted out, but unless we're just talking for the sake of talking, there has to be some form of conclusion.
I would like to bring all those institutions into a consensus on how the framework of our arguments should proceed in a truly free and democratic society. Whether your focus is on the political, religious, journalistic or legal aspect of this debate, we must all recognize that whatever principle we adopt as a nation, it must be applied universally. A moral and legal action is so whether it is done by a bum or by the President of the United States, by our government or that of another nation's. If we have one standard for America and another for other countries, or one standard for the President and another for for the bum, then we, as a nation have no moral or legal standards. This is where all institutions meet in a real democracy. When equality is paramount to all our institutional belief systems, every moral and legal value must be applied universally.
There is another element that must be added to the public discourse on whether the war in Iraq is just. It will surprise most Americans to learn that by law, "the defense of self-defense does not encompass a preemptive strike." This has been decided in the Wisconsin Courts where it was ruled that a preemptive strike is a first-degree intentional homicide, the most serious of all crimes. I know this because I am serving a life sentence as a result of this legal decision. It seems strange that a government that condemns me with a life-sentence for a preemptive strike should then go out and adopt it as part of its foreign policy.
Some might say that the government is entitled to use force where the individual is not. However, it is people who commit all actions on behalf of the institution of government and therefore, it goes back to an issue of what actions are moral or legal for people to engage in, on behalf of the government, themselves, or their God. Also, the government and the individual are both justified in using force to defend themselves or others. This is well established law and is known as the right to self-defense. The question therefore is whether government or individuals are acting in self-defense, or committing a crime, by engaging in a preemptive strike.
To understand the State of Wisconsin's legal decision, I will briefly summarize my case. At trial, the following facts were established; 1) The victim threatened to kill two of my friends because they owed him money for drugs. 2) The victim had a reputation of carrying a gun, being in a violent gang, and dealing drugs. 3) My friends informed me, as well as other witnesses, of these circumstances. 4) To terminate this threat, I was asked by my friends to kill the victim. 5) A gun was obtained from another mutual friend. 6) The victim was told by my friends that they'd found a sucker, me, who would pay a ridiculous amount of money for half a pound of marijuana. The amount was sufficiently in excess of the victim's regular fee that it would cover the cost of the dope plus the debts owed. 7) The victim was brought to an isolated wooded area in Milwaukee, where I shot him twice in the head. 8) Two friends and I then buried the victim in a shallow grave that was dug beforehand.
Years later, I filed an appeal on the grounds of ineffective counsel for failing to raise a third person imperfect self-defense claim. The basis of that claim was that because the victim was threatening my friends, and a reasonable person would conclude that the victim was dangerous, that I acted with the belief that it was necessary to kill the victim to save my friends from this threat. Therefore, a jury should have had the opportunity to hear this defense.
Keep in mind that a third person imperfect self-defense claim is a mitigation defense, which means we're not even talking about if a preemptive strike is a justifiable homicide. That would be perfect self-defense. The Assistant Attorney General stated in both Court of Appeals and State Supreme Court that, "The defense of self-defense does not encompass a preemptive strike." Both Courts accepted the argument, but shot down my appeals.
The reason I went with the mitigation defense claim is that I didn't expect the government to condone people taking life without a fuller materialization of a threat. Ironic, considering the same government didn't wait for Iraqi threats to fully materialize. Were the stakes higher with Iraq? Perhaps this could be argued, but the threats posed by drug dealers and gang members are quite real as evidenced by the fact that they commit a large percentage of the 14,000 plus murders in the United States each year. Despite all the tough on crime rhetoric, the government has been unable to solve this problem and I expected a little understanding by the Courts of the situation that I was in, foolish me!
Our government views a preemptive strike on a drug dealer as worse crime than; 1) The murder of innocent children. 2) Mob beating a mentally retarded man to death. 3) Killing a college student working in a video store in an armed robbery, so that the perpetrator could get money to pay back his drug dealer who'd been threatening him. Good thing he didn't just shoot the dealer or he'd be in my shoes! These are all examples of cases in Milwaukee that were plea bargained to lesser charges than what I got. I was offered no plea bargain. As a 16 year old in the county jail, I saw adults with double murders get plea bargained for less than I eventually got. The list goes on and on, and none of these people went to church to confession and then turned themselves in to the police as I did. I say all this not because I'm interested in your sympathy but rather because the public needs to understand that according to the standards of our government a preemptive strike is one of the most heinous crimes you can commit!
In the face of these facts, I sit in my cell and ponder how Americans can allow themselves to be ruled by such a two faced government. It's OK to kill innocent foreign women and children in mass bombings to take out a questionable threat, but the killing of an American drug dealer who is making threats is such an outrageous crime that 35 years to life in prison is the only thing that will do? What moral standards should the rest of the world conclude we have here?
Sure I have my self interests in this debate, but if I didn't, I would be completely ignorant of this double standard. Try to understand the position I am in of having a so called right to appeal, yet can't base my appeal on a universal set of standards to which the government adheres to, consistently. An American Court has decided that there is no nexus between self-defense and preemptive strike, even as a mitigating factor. Either the Courts were wrong and a jury should have had the opportunity to decide this case with that defense raised, or the United States government has committed an unjust war of the worst magnitude.
With my case you have a legal precedent that can be used to justify condemning the war in Iraq as mass murder, based on America's alleged belief in the system of jurisprudence. Has America committed genocide, or is Wisconsin's legal system erroneous? Furthermore, if these people in Wisconsin felt a preemptive strike was such a great crime, then why didn't they say anything when President Bush was using this as his rationalization for the war in Iraq? Do they feel that the Executive branch is above the law? Perhaps they felt their position was too ridiculous to manifest publicity?
The debate on the war in Iraq will continue, but is this double standard acceptable? The war has raised some questions which the American people should demand be answered. 1) Is a preemptive strike a form of self-defense? 2) In the future, what circumstances must exist in order to justify a preemptive strike? Unless we want to go to war whenever the president says it's a preemptive strike, we better develop a specific policy on preemptive strikes, and one which we would feel comfortable that other countries emulate. 3) How does the preemptive strike policy correlate to common law for the individual? I would suggest it as a mitigation defense and would require that the evidence shows that both a threat was in fact made and that the person making the threat would be considered by a reasonable person as able to carry out that threat.
I hope this article motivates Congress to act so that we have a consistent set of legal principles for both the government and the individual regarding preemptive strikes. Do we really want such a vague and ill defined foreign policy? If China invades Taiwan in the future and claim it's a preemptive strike, where is the moral standing going to come from to condemn that? I hope that people in American aren't so disillusioned by their government that they don't expect them to answer the tough questions.
Democracy is not something you have today simply because it was there yesterday. Democracy is an ideal with many facets that everyone in society must continually strive for if it is to be made real. Openness of government, individual privacy, truth, equality, and freedom are not just slogans to be parleyed at the appropriate moment to gain political capital. They are values that must be consistently battled for, while remaining at the forefront of our public discourse. Let these principles guide us in determining whether preemptive strikes are in fact a form of self-defense.
No comments:
Post a Comment