May 22, 2009
Solving Obama's Gitmo dilemma
Scott Ott reveals Pres. Obama's solution to the vexing problem of what to do with the Gitmo prisoners.
In an effort to shut down the U.S. Naval Detention Center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, thereby restoring America's moral standing in the world, President Barack Obama today declared some 240 enemy combatants held at Gitmo to be 'human fetuses'.
In an executive order, the president said, "Since I ordered Gitmo shut down, and people don't want us to bring the inmates here, the only way to extract them from the facility is to change their legal status to one that offers us more choices."
While accused terrorists have access to attorneys, and nearly-limitless legal appeals, a fetus has no legal standing, cannot speak for itself, and is subject to the death penalty without regard to guilt or innocence.
Civil rights advocates have pressured Obama to follow through on campaign promises to shutter Gitmo, but even Democrats in Congress have resisted bringing the inmates to U.S. soil for trials and incarceration.
"We can debate whether enemy combatants have access to protections under the U.S. Constitution," said Obama. "However, no serious person would grant such protection to an embryo or fetus. The loss of 240 fetuses wouldn't raise an eyebrow in a nation where more than 3,000 of them hit the Dumpster daily."
The president noted that America's global reputation has been devastated by U.S. treatment of terror suspects, but that "our treatment of a million fetuses each year earns us nothing but admiration, and requests for clinic-funding from those who aspire to be like us."
Sources acknowledged continuing White House debate about whether a terrorist who escapes from Gitmo alive can still be treated as a fetus.
Brilliant.
It's interesting how the answer changes, depending on the question.
Death penalty for convicted murderers? It's a human rights violation.
Aggressive interrogation of terrorists? It's a human rights violation.
Detaining captured jihadis? It's a human rights violation.
Outlawing partial-birth abortion? It's a human rights violation.
Aborting late-term pregnancies? It's a privacy issue.
Now, I know some people will take offense to this, but the inconsistencies really are pretty remarkable, don't you think?
As a prosecutor, the categorical opposition to the death penalty from people who support unfettered access to abortion has always left me nonplussed. That's why Ott's savage Swiftian satire seems so on-point.
Check out Scott Ott's other essays at ScrappleFace.
Posted by Mike Lief at May 22, 2009 11:01 PM
| TrackBack
Comments
As a former fetus, I'm against abortion.
Posted by: Marsy at May 24, 2009 12:04 AM
David Hasselhoff is amazing, AMAZING!
Posted by: james at May 24, 2009 09:23 PM
James --
Hasselhoff? Amazing?
Okaaaaay.
(sigh)
Posted by: Mike Lief at May 24, 2009 09:40 PM
"As a prosecutor, the categorical opposition to the death penalty from people who support unfettered access to abortion has always left me nonplussed."
You're bewildered by somone who might see a distinction between capital punishment and abortion? Have you really thought about this topic so little as to be unable to see this none-too-subtle nuance?
Really? I mean, I'm happy to ignore most of your Kaczynski-like screeds on a variety of political issues because we can agree to be friends even though we disagree on a wide-range of topics where, even though I disagree with you, I find your views to be well-reasoned. But when I read this post, I just could not remain silent.
Surely you can see how someone might view a fetus differently than a living, sentient adult. You might well disagree with that position. You might well believe that a fetus is a human being, entitled to all of the societal protections due any other human being, but surely you can see how some people might feel differently about that.
And if one doesn't believe that a fetus is entitled to the same protections due to a human being, then surely it ought not leave you bewildered why someone might afford greater protection to a human being than to a fetus. Again, you might not believe that a fetus is less than a human being, but how bewildering can it be that others do.
And that's not even getting to the issue of the distinction between an individual deciding to terminate the life of a fetus versus the state terminating the life of a human being. Even if you think that a fetus is a human being, there is still the none-too-subtle distinction between an individual deciding whether or not to continue to allow that human life to exist within her body versus the state sanctioning and then performing an execution on someone.
Personally, my greatest qualm with the death penalty is not the taking of a human life; it's the taking of the human life by the state. I often have no sympathy whatsoever for the murderer and would shed no tear if he suffered a brutal, tortuous death at the hands of a family member of one or more of his victims. But I do not want the state performing that task. I find it repugnant that the state acts in such a manner.
And I'd feel similarly repulsed if the state imposed forced abortions on fetuses. Among the many things I don't want the state performing on my behalf, killing of human beings and fetuses, is high on the list.
Nonplussed indeed...
Posted by: BullButz at May 24, 2009 10:25 PM
BullButz --
You've put me in the dock for allegedly "be[ing] unable to see [the] none-too-subtle nuance" that differentiates capital punishment from abortion, and were that my position, I suppose I might plead Nolo Contendere.
However, a closer read of what I wrote might reveal a -- what does one call it? -- more nuanced position than the one you attribute to me.
Let's review the tape, shall we?
I wrote:
Outlawing partial-birth abortion? It's a human rights violation.
Aborting late-term pregnancies? It's a privacy issue.
And, in the passage that seems to have put a bee in your bike bonnet, I said:
As a prosecutor, the categorical opposition to the death penalty from people who support unfettered access to abortion has always left me nonplussed.
"Unfettered access" to "late-term" or "partial-birth" abortion is at the heart of my comment. Where you and I part company is in characterizing a late-term abortion or partial-birth abortion as being no different from taking the morning-after pill, ending a pregnancy in its most nascent stages, as opposed to at the very end, when a fully-formed child is ready to enter the world.
If I understand your point correctly, it's that the state ought to play a part in executing neither criminals nor fetuses. You are, however, consistent, in that both terminal dispositions are less troubling if carried out by or at the behest of non-state actors, as you "would shed no tear if [a murderer] suffered a brutal, tortuous death at the hands of a family member of one or more of his victims," or, presumably, the request of the unenthusiastic mother-to-be.
As you well know, I am not a big fan of the death penalty, for a variety of reasons, some of which we share in common. I'd like to think that, upon further thought, you might agree that there is some merit to the more nuanced version of what I'm saying about abortion and the death penalty.
Posted by: Mike Lief at May 24, 2009 11:12 PM
At the risk of hurting BullButz' brain by giving him something to think about . . .
How is it different to the baby whether the state kills it or its mother kills it?
Posted by: The Little Coach at May 25, 2009 09:42 AM
My primary criticism of your post is not your stated position. I honestly don't believe that what you wrote actually is your position. I suppose my criticism is more about how you've expressed yourself as opposed to what I suspect is your actual belief. I believe you to be far too intelligent to actually be nonplused by those who categorically oppose the death penalty, but who support unfettered access to abortion.
Adding in your additional "subtlety" of late-term abortion and partial-birth abortion changes my criticism slightly, but not significantly. For anyone who believes that the sanctity of life does not emanate from the life itself, but rather from its relationship to other, sentient life, the value of a life is based upon its value to others, not its intrinsic worth. As such, a life not yet born has a primary value only to those who anticipate its existence ex-utero. And when that life is not wanted by the expectant mother, I place relatively little value in preserving that life. So, yes, an unfettered access to abortion makes sense to me, whereas the death penalty does not.
I realize that my view is not necessarily in the mainstream, but it is internally consistent and based in my life philosophy. Others may reach the same end result for different reasons, that may or may not be sensible. Regardless of how they get there though, being pro-choice and anti-death penalty, is not on its face, contradictory. I'm sure lots of people are pro-choice and anti-death penalty for bewildering reasons, but many have reached that result as a result of well-though out reasoning. Perhaps not well-liked reasoning, but reasoning nonetheless.
To the extent that you actually are nonplused by contradictory viewpoints, how do you feel about people who are anti-abortion in all instances, from conception onward, but who believe that the death penalty is not meted out nearly often enough and not for nearly enough types of crimes?
Posted by: BullButz at May 25, 2009 02:39 PM
Little Coach - Are you trying to be merely insulting or are you trying to engage in a genuine dialogue? If it's the latter, we might need to start again with a less insulting opening before you can expect much in the way of relevant responses versus in-kind insults.
Posted by: BullButz at May 25, 2009 03:08 PM
BullButz: Please write another wordy comment. Your "not well-liked reasoning" does not shimmer quite so well in your shorter pieces.
Posted by: LT at May 25, 2009 03:43 PM
Folks, please, let's have a civil debate. I have a hard enough time getting anyone to comment as it is; personal attacks will kill off the discussion just when it was starting to get interesting.
Posted by: Mike Lief at May 25, 2009 03:49 PM
If I somehow have insulted The Little Coach it was unintended, since I didn't even address him/her until after I became the focus of his/her insults. Having said that, if I've somehow insulted The Little Coach, albeit inadvertently, I apologize.
Posted by: BullButz at May 25, 2009 04:28 PM