“We all feel and understand the hearts of children, but on the other hand, there are Zionist considerations and ensuring the Jewish character of the state of Israel. The problem is that these two components clash.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
Dear Mr. President,
I agree with Lou Dobbs. That's actually too weird for me to feel comfortable saying out loud, so let me say instead, Lou Dobbs agrees with me about the growing number of GOP senators who want to repeal the 14th amendement, in that we both think they're ridiculous. It reminded me of an article I'd read recently about the Israeli decision to deport 400 children born in Israel to foreign laborers. While the decision made could have been much worse, the idea that it was done, as PM Netanyahu stated, to ensure "the Jewish character of the state of Israel" did not sit well with me. In general, I'm opposed to systems of government where a person's religion determines their rights. The idea that several of my friends born in America have a birthright to Israeli citizenship that these children (not to mention the millions of Palestinians forced out in 1948 and 1967) born in Israel do not have, it just doesn't seem right. It's not a debate I'm likely to win, and I do understand the need for Jews to have a protected place and the means to defend themselves against another holocaust. I just don't think that denying the rights of non-Jews born in Israel is an acceptable cost.
I wonder, what character of our nation would we be trying to preserve in repealing 14th amendment rights? Our white, English-speaking character? Or, perhaps, the illusion that white Americans who took this land from the native people have a superior right to its resources than the descendants of non-white populations that have lived on this continent for generations before Europeans knew its name? I, for one, do not think that character, or that illusion, is worth protecting at all, but especially not if it means devaluing our constitution. I think that the rights guaranteed in our constitution, the spirit of freedom and equality enshrined in its words, that lofty and yet to be perfected ideal is the only character we ought to fight to ensure. Denying these basic values to persecute immigrants and minorities for the sake of keeping our white, English-speaking, Christian majority is simply not what this country stands for.
And I'm glad to know that Lou Dobbs agrees with me.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Showing posts with label Bill of Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill of Rights. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Day 184- Privilege
Just as this day serves as a reminder of the immeasurable bravery of those who have made America what it is today, it also renews in us the solemn duty we share to ensure our Nation lives up to its promise. We must not simply commemorate the work begun over two and a quarter centuries ago; we are called to join together, hoist their mantle upon our shoulders, and carry that spirit of service into tomorrow
President Barack Obama, July 2, 2010, Message regarding Independence Day
Dear Mr. President,
Two years ago, on July 4th, I was not feeling particularly patriotic. The group of travelers I was with had just arrived in a small Palestinian village after a full day of hiking; several people were sick, we were all hot and exhausted, and, while the village offered us the same legendary Palestinian hospitality that we'd received in other villages, there was an undercurrent of tension and sadness. The night before, in the darkness, IDF soldiers had arrested several young boys known to have been friends with another boy, already arrested for throwing rocks at a tank. Some of the boys had been very young, and no one knew when, or even if, they would be returned to their families. It was hard, that night, to feel anything but sadness at the situation my country had helped create and continued to perpetuate for these people.
I don't lie awake at night afraid of the soldiers coming. I don't worry about the door breaking down, or tear gas or bullets or bombs. Even the airport security seems like a breeze, by comparison. I am grateful for this security, these protections, and for the history of those rights we celebrate on Independence day. But I am a lucky one. I live in an America that still recognizes the paramount importance of these rights. Many of my neighbors, because they have dark skin, do not live in this America. Many of my fellow citizens have these rights violated, still. Even more undocumented immigrants in this country are kept from these basic rights because they were not born here. Untold numbers of so-called enemy combatants in Guantanamo bay and in military prisons around the world are denied these rights as a matter of policy. In places like Palestine, and Egypt, and Saudi Arabia the echo of America's foreign policy is the deprivation of these rights by regimes we call allies. Still greater in number are the people living in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan where these rights are a distant dream, a pretense for the wars that have brought them nothing but suffering and destruction.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.
All men. Not just those rich, white and lucky enough to have been born here. All men. Tonight I will lie awake wondering at the possibility of a world that reflects more completely the mighty ambitions of the founding we celebrate tomorrow. I don't think it is a lack of patriotism, on my part, to look at our current state and see all of the promise yet to be fulfilled. I am lucky, and grateful, to be an American citizen of privilege, and I can think of no better use for that privilege than to demand that the same be given to all.
Happy 4th of July, Mr. President.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
President Barack Obama, July 2, 2010, Message regarding Independence Day
Dear Mr. President,
Two years ago, on July 4th, I was not feeling particularly patriotic. The group of travelers I was with had just arrived in a small Palestinian village after a full day of hiking; several people were sick, we were all hot and exhausted, and, while the village offered us the same legendary Palestinian hospitality that we'd received in other villages, there was an undercurrent of tension and sadness. The night before, in the darkness, IDF soldiers had arrested several young boys known to have been friends with another boy, already arrested for throwing rocks at a tank. Some of the boys had been very young, and no one knew when, or even if, they would be returned to their families. It was hard, that night, to feel anything but sadness at the situation my country had helped create and continued to perpetuate for these people.
I don't lie awake at night afraid of the soldiers coming. I don't worry about the door breaking down, or tear gas or bullets or bombs. Even the airport security seems like a breeze, by comparison. I am grateful for this security, these protections, and for the history of those rights we celebrate on Independence day. But I am a lucky one. I live in an America that still recognizes the paramount importance of these rights. Many of my neighbors, because they have dark skin, do not live in this America. Many of my fellow citizens have these rights violated, still. Even more undocumented immigrants in this country are kept from these basic rights because they were not born here. Untold numbers of so-called enemy combatants in Guantanamo bay and in military prisons around the world are denied these rights as a matter of policy. In places like Palestine, and Egypt, and Saudi Arabia the echo of America's foreign policy is the deprivation of these rights by regimes we call allies. Still greater in number are the people living in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan where these rights are a distant dream, a pretense for the wars that have brought them nothing but suffering and destruction.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.
All men. Not just those rich, white and lucky enough to have been born here. All men. Tonight I will lie awake wondering at the possibility of a world that reflects more completely the mighty ambitions of the founding we celebrate tomorrow. I don't think it is a lack of patriotism, on my part, to look at our current state and see all of the promise yet to be fulfilled. I am lucky, and grateful, to be an American citizen of privilege, and I can think of no better use for that privilege than to demand that the same be given to all.
Happy 4th of July, Mr. President.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Day 126- Timothy McVeigh died an American
Dear Mr. President,
Joe Lieberman's bill aiming to revoke the citizenship of anyone who associates with foreign terror groups who attack the the US or its allies makes me more fearful of my government than I have ever been before. To begin with, Senator Lieberman has made it clear that his bill targets those joining Islamic groups above all others; Timothy McVeigh, were he alive today, would have nothing to fear from this bill. Neither would the Hutaree militia. Why should plotting to overthrow our government be more of a crime, or some one suspected of it be eligible for less legal protection, if it involves foreign terrorist organizations and not domestic ones? This bill doesn't even require proof that the citizen is planning an act of violence; affiliation is grounds enough to revoke a person's citizenship.
Our citizenship is not based upon our behavior. Child molesters, rapists, serial killers, Neo-Nazis, Klansmen, even Dick Cheney all get to keep their status as citizens, regardless of the scale of their crimes against this country or their intent to commit more. The true test of the rights and legal protections we have as citizens is when they must be applied even to the worst among us. The bill Mr. Lieberman is proposing would do more to harm the fabric and character of our national values than any act of violence ever could.
Moral arguments aside, I fail to see the legal or political advantages to this bill. For starters, isn't prosecuting non-citizens who commit crimes against the United States infinitely more complicated than prosecuting our own citizens? Any trials and convictions are far more likely to withstand legal challenge if the utmost precaution was taken to avoid infringing upon the legal rights of the defendant. Having those legal rights clearly defined helps prevent them from being violated. Yes, it's easier to break down the door of a murder suspect and start looking for evidence than to wait and obtain a search warrant. But if the evidence is thrown out in court or on appeal, a killer goes free. We're all made safer when the rights and protections guaranteed to us by the constitution are respected for every one.
Perhaps this legislation upsets me so much because I see how, with only the smallest stretches, it could be applied to me. I've traveled to Palestine, and I've sent money, both to charitable organizations and educational institutions. The way Palestinian groups are viewed by my government is often quite extreme; you yourself had to circumvent some of the more draconian anti-Palestinian legislation in the service of our own national security interests. I have little doubt that Senator Lieberman and my own definition of appropriate groups to affiliate myself with may be different, in this part of the world. In addition, I have written, both in letters to you and in other places, about doubting the morality of remaining in America while my tax dollars pay for the Israeli occupation. Would this be grounds enough to demonstrate intent to renounce my citizenship? I'm not a lawyer, Mr. President, but it seems to me that this bill might easily be applied to mean that, without a shred of violent intent towards any American, I could be viewed as unworthy of my rights as an American citizen.
Please, sir, do not support this legislation. Walk back the support of those in your administration, like Secretary Clinton, who would, in their zeal to fight terror, do more harm to this country than any they bomb ever could. We cannot turn on our own citizens; the greatest threats to civil liberties have historically come in the name of protection from enemies inside and out. Remember, Mr. President, your power, and Senator Lieberman's power, comes from the citizens of this country who granted it to you. We trusted you to defend and uphold those codified rights that are older than any of us and will outlast us all. No amount of fear will ever make it acceptable for those rights to be taken away.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Joe Lieberman's bill aiming to revoke the citizenship of anyone who associates with foreign terror groups who attack the the US or its allies makes me more fearful of my government than I have ever been before. To begin with, Senator Lieberman has made it clear that his bill targets those joining Islamic groups above all others; Timothy McVeigh, were he alive today, would have nothing to fear from this bill. Neither would the Hutaree militia. Why should plotting to overthrow our government be more of a crime, or some one suspected of it be eligible for less legal protection, if it involves foreign terrorist organizations and not domestic ones? This bill doesn't even require proof that the citizen is planning an act of violence; affiliation is grounds enough to revoke a person's citizenship.
Our citizenship is not based upon our behavior. Child molesters, rapists, serial killers, Neo-Nazis, Klansmen, even Dick Cheney all get to keep their status as citizens, regardless of the scale of their crimes against this country or their intent to commit more. The true test of the rights and legal protections we have as citizens is when they must be applied even to the worst among us. The bill Mr. Lieberman is proposing would do more to harm the fabric and character of our national values than any act of violence ever could.
Moral arguments aside, I fail to see the legal or political advantages to this bill. For starters, isn't prosecuting non-citizens who commit crimes against the United States infinitely more complicated than prosecuting our own citizens? Any trials and convictions are far more likely to withstand legal challenge if the utmost precaution was taken to avoid infringing upon the legal rights of the defendant. Having those legal rights clearly defined helps prevent them from being violated. Yes, it's easier to break down the door of a murder suspect and start looking for evidence than to wait and obtain a search warrant. But if the evidence is thrown out in court or on appeal, a killer goes free. We're all made safer when the rights and protections guaranteed to us by the constitution are respected for every one.
Perhaps this legislation upsets me so much because I see how, with only the smallest stretches, it could be applied to me. I've traveled to Palestine, and I've sent money, both to charitable organizations and educational institutions. The way Palestinian groups are viewed by my government is often quite extreme; you yourself had to circumvent some of the more draconian anti-Palestinian legislation in the service of our own national security interests. I have little doubt that Senator Lieberman and my own definition of appropriate groups to affiliate myself with may be different, in this part of the world. In addition, I have written, both in letters to you and in other places, about doubting the morality of remaining in America while my tax dollars pay for the Israeli occupation. Would this be grounds enough to demonstrate intent to renounce my citizenship? I'm not a lawyer, Mr. President, but it seems to me that this bill might easily be applied to mean that, without a shred of violent intent towards any American, I could be viewed as unworthy of my rights as an American citizen.
Please, sir, do not support this legislation. Walk back the support of those in your administration, like Secretary Clinton, who would, in their zeal to fight terror, do more harm to this country than any they bomb ever could. We cannot turn on our own citizens; the greatest threats to civil liberties have historically come in the name of protection from enemies inside and out. Remember, Mr. President, your power, and Senator Lieberman's power, comes from the citizens of this country who granted it to you. We trusted you to defend and uphold those codified rights that are older than any of us and will outlast us all. No amount of fear will ever make it acceptable for those rights to be taken away.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Day 110
Dear Mr. President,
I’m sorry about Arizona. Not any legislation that they may have passed lately, but really about the entire state. If they try to secede from union, please let them.
Tonight I'm having a heated discussion with friends about the Supreme Court's decision on animal cruelty videos. I made Hollandaise sauce for the first time, so maybe I was feeling just a bit arrogant. Anyway, I quickly realized it might be a mistake to start such a conversation in this group of people. None of us knows what to think, and the few that started out certain of their opinions are not so any longer. I only know that I don't know anything completely. I'm a big advocate of free speech; I'm also a big advocate of people not being allowed to profit from or get off on animals being tortured and killed. Maybe this is a real test of my first amendment advocacy. After all, it's easy to defend speech that you don't find objectionable. The real test is when some one's behavior crosses your personal threshold for acceptable expression.
I don't disagree with the Supreme Court about this specific law; it was overly broad and clearly problematic in several ways. I think that the cruelty toward animals practiced by many agricultural companies and even some hunters has no place in our society, but I recognize that I'm among the most extreme in these views. Still, I think there's some common ground to be found in the worst cases of violence against animals. Try as I might, articulating that in legal terms has been difficult. Could we ban the sale, distribution or possession of pornographic videos that involve live animals? Defining pornography, of course, becomes problematic.
How do you feel about this decision, Mr. President? Do you feel that the law struck down should be re-written in a way that doesn't pose a threat to the first amendment? Is this an area of expression that warrants some restriction? Or should we accept this horrifying material as the unavoidable by-product of living in a free society?
I don't think any one, even the 8 Justices who voted with the majority on this, feel good about today's decision. It is one of those haunting reminders of the frightening and even dangerous complexities of our society; our complete inability to be safe, free, and morally upright all at once, all the time.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Monday, April 19, 2010
Day 109- Who's afraid of April 19th?
Dear Mr. President,
Today was a good day. I was off work, I observed my one weekly holy day, Pancake Monday, with my best friend. We walked around a lake bantering about gun control with a republican friend, discussing our plans to go to Africa and ogling cute dogs. We went to the grocery store and spent way too much money on food, but then, as my friend wisely noted, you have to treat yourself, sometimes. This is our life; we work, we sleep, we make pancakes. This isn't particularly important, or even, I'd imagine, interesting, but I wanted to provide some context. April 19th, as a significant date, may have passed largely unobserved by all but those still mourning lost relatives from Oklahoma city, or the protesters along the Potomac, but it has made me pause, a moment, to reflect on my own feelings about government.
I often disagree with my government's policies and actions. During the years under President Bush, I even wondered at the legitimacy of his election in 2000. I see anti-government sentiment even more these days, from the Tea Party, to the birthers, to the absurdity of elected officials speaking out against the census. My libertarian friends are often quick to rail against taxes, gun control, and, of course, government health care. Maybe I idealize government, believing that it can change, it can grow more flexible and wise and just, that as it grows it can represent and include more of us. I'm not afraid of my government, because I believe I can change it. Am I arrogant? Am I deceived? Should I be stockpiling ammunition? Of course not.
I don't understand the rhetoric that depicts the people and the government as opposing forces. As though government were an independent entity that imposes its will upon us, and not our own representatives, our own elected leaders who are meant to be of us, by us and for us. When did we decide it was too much work? To show up at the polls, to write letters to the editor, or to congress, or to the White House, to run for office and keep our integrity? When did it become easier and more expedient to hold up signs and stock up on weapons, to treat fellow citizens like enemies? The disconnect between those with power and those with none has often bred violence, which is why our government is structured the way that it is. It's funny, I think, that those historically left behind, even assaulted by their own government- African Americans and other ethnic minorities, women, the poor, gay and lesbians; have little presence in the Tea Party or other anti-government groups. Why is it that the white, male, upper-middle class, the one constituency that's controlled and counted on the government's protection for the entirety of American history, makes up the majority of those groups calling for secession and insurrection? If any one has to fear their government, shouldn't it be those who've been enslaved, interred, ignored, or disenfranchised?
It seems as though the decrease in our injustice toward marginalized groups corresponds to the rise in anti-government sentiment; as though granting more freedom to those who had none makes every one else less free. I suppose there is some truth to this argument; the 13th amendment curtails my freedom to enslave another human, the 19th reduced the voting power of the male population to solely decide elections; but I don't think even the craziest of the Tea Party would call for a repeal of either of these extensions of government. I don't think that arguing with the anti-government protesters will change their mind; I think accepting the dichotomy of their accusations is granting them too much power. It isn't the people vs. the government, its the people who are willing to work for change vs. the people who'd be willing to see it all burn down to keep the cold consolation of being right from the start.
The government isn't all well-intentioned and it isn't always right. But the government is still my own, for better or worse, it represents me, and I represent it. I'm responsible for its actions, and it is responsible to me, as an informed and politically active citizen. Why can't that be enough? Our government is big and slow and frustrating and imperfect. But it keeps us safe and it keeps us free. Today should be a day when we're reminded of the power that we have, without violence, to make it better.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Today was a good day. I was off work, I observed my one weekly holy day, Pancake Monday, with my best friend. We walked around a lake bantering about gun control with a republican friend, discussing our plans to go to Africa and ogling cute dogs. We went to the grocery store and spent way too much money on food, but then, as my friend wisely noted, you have to treat yourself, sometimes. This is our life; we work, we sleep, we make pancakes. This isn't particularly important, or even, I'd imagine, interesting, but I wanted to provide some context. April 19th, as a significant date, may have passed largely unobserved by all but those still mourning lost relatives from Oklahoma city, or the protesters along the Potomac, but it has made me pause, a moment, to reflect on my own feelings about government.
I often disagree with my government's policies and actions. During the years under President Bush, I even wondered at the legitimacy of his election in 2000. I see anti-government sentiment even more these days, from the Tea Party, to the birthers, to the absurdity of elected officials speaking out against the census. My libertarian friends are often quick to rail against taxes, gun control, and, of course, government health care. Maybe I idealize government, believing that it can change, it can grow more flexible and wise and just, that as it grows it can represent and include more of us. I'm not afraid of my government, because I believe I can change it. Am I arrogant? Am I deceived? Should I be stockpiling ammunition? Of course not.
I don't understand the rhetoric that depicts the people and the government as opposing forces. As though government were an independent entity that imposes its will upon us, and not our own representatives, our own elected leaders who are meant to be of us, by us and for us. When did we decide it was too much work? To show up at the polls, to write letters to the editor, or to congress, or to the White House, to run for office and keep our integrity? When did it become easier and more expedient to hold up signs and stock up on weapons, to treat fellow citizens like enemies? The disconnect between those with power and those with none has often bred violence, which is why our government is structured the way that it is. It's funny, I think, that those historically left behind, even assaulted by their own government- African Americans and other ethnic minorities, women, the poor, gay and lesbians; have little presence in the Tea Party or other anti-government groups. Why is it that the white, male, upper-middle class, the one constituency that's controlled and counted on the government's protection for the entirety of American history, makes up the majority of those groups calling for secession and insurrection? If any one has to fear their government, shouldn't it be those who've been enslaved, interred, ignored, or disenfranchised?
It seems as though the decrease in our injustice toward marginalized groups corresponds to the rise in anti-government sentiment; as though granting more freedom to those who had none makes every one else less free. I suppose there is some truth to this argument; the 13th amendment curtails my freedom to enslave another human, the 19th reduced the voting power of the male population to solely decide elections; but I don't think even the craziest of the Tea Party would call for a repeal of either of these extensions of government. I don't think that arguing with the anti-government protesters will change their mind; I think accepting the dichotomy of their accusations is granting them too much power. It isn't the people vs. the government, its the people who are willing to work for change vs. the people who'd be willing to see it all burn down to keep the cold consolation of being right from the start.
The government isn't all well-intentioned and it isn't always right. But the government is still my own, for better or worse, it represents me, and I represent it. I'm responsible for its actions, and it is responsible to me, as an informed and politically active citizen. Why can't that be enough? Our government is big and slow and frustrating and imperfect. But it keeps us safe and it keeps us free. Today should be a day when we're reminded of the power that we have, without violence, to make it better.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Day 75- Sunshine Week
Dear Mr. President,
I can't begin to tell you how much I appreciate the importance you've placed on transparency in government. Having an administration I can trust to be open and honest about their conduct is even more important to me than having an administration that agrees with me. In fact, 6 of the 10 form letters I've received from your office have included sections on the importance of transparency in government. The whitehouse.gov website is easier to navigate and full of more relevant content than it's ever been. Thank you for your efforts to these ends.
As some one who clearly appreciates the difficulties of balancing the need to protect the powers of the executive with gaining the trust of the people who empowered you in the first place, I hope that this logic can be extrapolated to other sectors of administration policy. National security is important, and some secrecy will always be required in order to protect ourselves, but, especially when it comes to the detention, treatment, and trials of our enemies, I hope we move toward greater openness with the public. Our reputation as a place that respects the rights of all, even those who hate us, must be restored. It is the true promise of America; upholding these principles in full public scrutiny is the only way to defy those who would scare us back into darkness.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
I can't begin to tell you how much I appreciate the importance you've placed on transparency in government. Having an administration I can trust to be open and honest about their conduct is even more important to me than having an administration that agrees with me. In fact, 6 of the 10 form letters I've received from your office have included sections on the importance of transparency in government. The whitehouse.gov website is easier to navigate and full of more relevant content than it's ever been. Thank you for your efforts to these ends.
As some one who clearly appreciates the difficulties of balancing the need to protect the powers of the executive with gaining the trust of the people who empowered you in the first place, I hope that this logic can be extrapolated to other sectors of administration policy. National security is important, and some secrecy will always be required in order to protect ourselves, but, especially when it comes to the detention, treatment, and trials of our enemies, I hope we move toward greater openness with the public. Our reputation as a place that respects the rights of all, even those who hate us, must be restored. It is the true promise of America; upholding these principles in full public scrutiny is the only way to defy those who would scare us back into darkness.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Day 70 - For you, Liberalviewer
Dear Mr. President,
While it has lately become a rallying cry for the right to oppose jury trials for terror suspects, I'm writing today to ask you to respect the constitution- a document I know you revered even before you swore to uphold and protect it as President- and ensure that all suspected criminals are given the due process our constitution outlines. The constitution is not a suicide pact, but nor was it written for easy, peaceful times. It was written to see us through trying times such as these, to remind us that the value of our idealism is greater than our fear. The rights codified within it were not to protect the innocent, but the guilty, as well as the credibility and integrity of the system itself. Denying even the worst criminals their rights jeopardizes the soundness of the entire legal system, and is a risk I beg you not take.
Trials are slow, trials are expensive, trials can be frustrating. But the swift, secret justice being called for is not justice at all. I would rather bear the expense, the risk, and the wait, to ensure that the constitutional rights of all involved were respected. Do not bend to political pressure from those looking for vengeance or for the impossible illusion of safety. These trials must be held in the light of day, subject to public scrutiny, and must respect the letter & spirit of the law. I believe we can and should protect the constitution above all else- even our personal safety. This may sound extreme, but I think that, in a world as unpredictable and dangerous as ours, we cannot ever truly guarantee our safety. We can take precautions, we can foster awareness, and we can prosecute and punish criminals to the full extent of the law; but we can never become safer by giving up our rights to proper legal procedure and protection for all. Please, sir, do not allow this essential American institution to be suspended for any one, regardless of their crimes.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
While it has lately become a rallying cry for the right to oppose jury trials for terror suspects, I'm writing today to ask you to respect the constitution- a document I know you revered even before you swore to uphold and protect it as President- and ensure that all suspected criminals are given the due process our constitution outlines. The constitution is not a suicide pact, but nor was it written for easy, peaceful times. It was written to see us through trying times such as these, to remind us that the value of our idealism is greater than our fear. The rights codified within it were not to protect the innocent, but the guilty, as well as the credibility and integrity of the system itself. Denying even the worst criminals their rights jeopardizes the soundness of the entire legal system, and is a risk I beg you not take.
Trials are slow, trials are expensive, trials can be frustrating. But the swift, secret justice being called for is not justice at all. I would rather bear the expense, the risk, and the wait, to ensure that the constitutional rights of all involved were respected. Do not bend to political pressure from those looking for vengeance or for the impossible illusion of safety. These trials must be held in the light of day, subject to public scrutiny, and must respect the letter & spirit of the law. I believe we can and should protect the constitution above all else- even our personal safety. This may sound extreme, but I think that, in a world as unpredictable and dangerous as ours, we cannot ever truly guarantee our safety. We can take precautions, we can foster awareness, and we can prosecute and punish criminals to the full extent of the law; but we can never become safer by giving up our rights to proper legal procedure and protection for all. Please, sir, do not allow this essential American institution to be suspended for any one, regardless of their crimes.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Monday, January 4, 2010
Day 4
Updating from work on my lunch break.. I really should have written this earlier in the day.
Today's letter:
Dear Mr. President,
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Today being January 4th, and the type of day that requires me to type this up quickly during my lunch break, I am going to write about my favorite constitutional amendment, the 4th. Don’t get me wrong- I think the 1st is the most important- but the 4th is my favorite, (and not just because it features so prominently in Jay-Z’s 99 problems).
While returning from my trip to Palestine in the summer of 2008, I was flying out of the Tel Aviv airport. I’d already had an amazing trip- punctuated of course by run-ins with the IDF at checkpoints and while hiking, though these encounters had been relatively easy for me, as an American. Once in the airport, however, I was on my own and had no idea what to expect. While I’d entered the country with ease, my companions had each been detained, interrogated, searched and grudgingly allowed entrance. During our hike, Palestinian Arabs had to use separate lines through checkpoints, and the IDF soldiers stopping us to check ID often tried to “sort” us, (“Arabs on one side, every one else on the other.”) Our group began as strangers but became fast friends and our response quickly became “We are all Palestinians. You cannot separate us.” Once in the airport I was instructed by my guides to tell any one who asked that I’d spent the whole trip in Jerusalem, and that any items I had purchased (olivewood carvings, jewelry, flags, t-shirts, etc) were also from Jerusalem. I did so, but became uncomfortable lying during a more in-depth search of my belongings.
The woman shouting questions at me wanted to know who I’d been with, their names, their professions, where we had gone and if I had been “alone with any Arabs.” She seemed to think me horribly naïve, and kept insisting that I had been in danger. “Don’t you know what they do to women?” “How do you know they did not try to give you a bomb?” This whole process, while mildly offensive, was still a bit amusing to me, as my backpack was full of the clothes I’d been wearing for 2 weeks of hiking in the summer heat.
I’d heard stories about a British traveler who, growing weary of the endless questions he’d encounter on his trips through Tel-Aviv, would start to remove his clothing at the first question. I’d had a professor experience a truly invasive search at the Allenby bridge crossing, and so I was prepared by these anecdotes that a more invasive search was not impossible. I was dressed modestly, again, on the advice of the trip organizers, but at one point my jacket slipped down to reveal a tattoo I have in Arabic. This caught the attention of one of the security offices and I was ordered to remove my jacket, read the tattoo and explain what it meant. She said “Why would you get that language tattooed on your body?” I was then asked to proceed to a back room for a “metal detector test”, (though I did not encounter a metal detector but instead was asked to remove my clothing,) and frisked. The girl conducting the search seemed mildly embarrassed about the ordeal and apologized to me several times before checking between my toes and in my hair. I passed this strange test and the girl led me through security and escorted me to my gate, even intervening with her supervisor to allow me to keep my asthma inhaler in my carry-on.
After an uneventful day in Prague, I made it to customs at JFK. The man looked at my passport, looked at my tattoo, and said “Welcome to New York.” In that moment, sir, I loved my country more than I had the rest of my years. Knowing that I could have a tattoo of anything and not be interrogated about it, knowing that I could have my belongings kept private unless there was reasonable cause for suspicion, knowing that my constitution protected me in this way made me incredibly grateful. I’m sorry that so many of us have to experience a loss of our freedom to appreciate what we have.
This brings to mind the tightened security and more elaborate searches faced by many Americans since the attempted attack. While I am genuinely happy to have my belongings searched before bringing them aboard a flight- I have no wish to die in an airplane and would cede even my beloved 4th amendment rights, to some degree, for this safety- I wish there were ways to ensure that these measures were being conducted in a such a way as to respect the individuals being searched. I hope that passengers are not being profiled by their race, religion or personal appearance. We have to find a way to balance personal safety with personal freedom and the inevitable mistakes along the way will need to minimized, admitted to and apologized for. I only hope that we do not allow fear to shape our country into something unrecognizable.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Today's letter:
Dear Mr. President,
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Today being January 4th, and the type of day that requires me to type this up quickly during my lunch break, I am going to write about my favorite constitutional amendment, the 4th. Don’t get me wrong- I think the 1st is the most important- but the 4th is my favorite, (and not just because it features so prominently in Jay-Z’s 99 problems).
While returning from my trip to Palestine in the summer of 2008, I was flying out of the Tel Aviv airport. I’d already had an amazing trip- punctuated of course by run-ins with the IDF at checkpoints and while hiking, though these encounters had been relatively easy for me, as an American. Once in the airport, however, I was on my own and had no idea what to expect. While I’d entered the country with ease, my companions had each been detained, interrogated, searched and grudgingly allowed entrance. During our hike, Palestinian Arabs had to use separate lines through checkpoints, and the IDF soldiers stopping us to check ID often tried to “sort” us, (“Arabs on one side, every one else on the other.”) Our group began as strangers but became fast friends and our response quickly became “We are all Palestinians. You cannot separate us.” Once in the airport I was instructed by my guides to tell any one who asked that I’d spent the whole trip in Jerusalem, and that any items I had purchased (olivewood carvings, jewelry, flags, t-shirts, etc) were also from Jerusalem. I did so, but became uncomfortable lying during a more in-depth search of my belongings.
The woman shouting questions at me wanted to know who I’d been with, their names, their professions, where we had gone and if I had been “alone with any Arabs.” She seemed to think me horribly naïve, and kept insisting that I had been in danger. “Don’t you know what they do to women?” “How do you know they did not try to give you a bomb?” This whole process, while mildly offensive, was still a bit amusing to me, as my backpack was full of the clothes I’d been wearing for 2 weeks of hiking in the summer heat.
I’d heard stories about a British traveler who, growing weary of the endless questions he’d encounter on his trips through Tel-Aviv, would start to remove his clothing at the first question. I’d had a professor experience a truly invasive search at the Allenby bridge crossing, and so I was prepared by these anecdotes that a more invasive search was not impossible. I was dressed modestly, again, on the advice of the trip organizers, but at one point my jacket slipped down to reveal a tattoo I have in Arabic. This caught the attention of one of the security offices and I was ordered to remove my jacket, read the tattoo and explain what it meant. She said “Why would you get that language tattooed on your body?” I was then asked to proceed to a back room for a “metal detector test”, (though I did not encounter a metal detector but instead was asked to remove my clothing,) and frisked. The girl conducting the search seemed mildly embarrassed about the ordeal and apologized to me several times before checking between my toes and in my hair. I passed this strange test and the girl led me through security and escorted me to my gate, even intervening with her supervisor to allow me to keep my asthma inhaler in my carry-on.
After an uneventful day in Prague, I made it to customs at JFK. The man looked at my passport, looked at my tattoo, and said “Welcome to New York.” In that moment, sir, I loved my country more than I had the rest of my years. Knowing that I could have a tattoo of anything and not be interrogated about it, knowing that I could have my belongings kept private unless there was reasonable cause for suspicion, knowing that my constitution protected me in this way made me incredibly grateful. I’m sorry that so many of us have to experience a loss of our freedom to appreciate what we have.
This brings to mind the tightened security and more elaborate searches faced by many Americans since the attempted attack. While I am genuinely happy to have my belongings searched before bringing them aboard a flight- I have no wish to die in an airplane and would cede even my beloved 4th amendment rights, to some degree, for this safety- I wish there were ways to ensure that these measures were being conducted in a such a way as to respect the individuals being searched. I hope that passengers are not being profiled by their race, religion or personal appearance. We have to find a way to balance personal safety with personal freedom and the inevitable mistakes along the way will need to minimized, admitted to and apologized for. I only hope that we do not allow fear to shape our country into something unrecognizable.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
