January 15, 2003

Steven den Beste writes: "And you can quote the Founding Fathers for days on end with examples of them supporting citizens taking up arms against the government." And you can also see where, in the Constitution, they wrote the rules about Treason, and stated that "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Which sounds a hell of a lot to me like what Hamdi was found doing. I think that SDB is talking past the other guy here: obviously waging war against your own government makes you guilty of treason, but what the Founding Fathers would have said was that in some cases, such treason is necessary and justified: the men of the American Revolution were indeed labelled traitors by the British, but they felt that the oppression they experienced under British control was such that revolution was justified. So I think the pertinent question here is not whether or not Hamdi's actions were treasonous, but rather whether or not they were justified. And the tough question: if they were justified, what should our reaction be? Fortunately, the tough question can be sidestepped, because as it happens, I do not think that his actions were justified. He was not fighting against oppression; he was fighting for the power to oppress. (Most rebels in today's world are actually fighting for oppression rather than for freedom, sadly enough.) His was pretty much a textbook case of treason: he travelled to a foreign country and took up arms against the country of his birth and citizenship. I have very little sympathy for him. The objection raised by the person SDB was responding to was actually that Hamdi was entitled to First Amendment protection of 'freedom of expression,' which, in this case, took the form of him killing a U.S. soldier. This is a ludicrous argument: violent acts have never been protected under the First Amendment. That would be like claiming that Timothy McVeigh should have been immune from prosecution because blowing up a medical clinic was actually a protest against abortion and thus protected political speech. But I think an interesting 'what if' question is, what if Hamdi's actions had been justified? If we take the view that I believe the Founding Fathers held, which is that rebellion became acceptable when the government had broken its obligations under the social contract, obviously Hamdi doesn't fall here. But in some cases, violence is justified against an oppressor (whether or not it is as useful as peaceful protest is another question); suppose that Hamdi was in this category. What should citizens of an oppressive country do when a weak group of subversives fighting for a just cause has been captured? They are still traitors, after all, even if they might be said to be patriots in some more abstract sense. So, even if we are an enlightened bunch and decide that we have been awfully oppressive, and we reform our system, and everything's just wonderful and peachy and just, what do we do with the traitors? Pardon them? But they took up arms against their country! Punish them? But they were in the right; they're patriots and heroes! We would pardon them, I think. Treason, then, is acceptable under some circumstances. thus ranteth Pericles v. 2.0 at 2:04 PM | Permalink |