Thoughts Lead To Appreciation
When one makes an exception to one’s principle, one must have undergone a thorough and thoughtful process to arrive at that decision.
To establish an exception, one ought to take into cognizance any repercussions and side effects of the temporary waiving of one’s essential principle.
The final decision reached is satisfactory and enduring; satisfactory, for one is pleased with the choice and enduring, for the decision has sustainable benefits.
Despite the awareness of these perceived and actual advantages, one remains concerned that one might have violated one’s principle and might have, unwittingly, enabled future infractions.
The gravity of such an exception causes a trial of self.
If one experiences discomfort creating an exception or condition clause to one’s principle, one must exercise immense caution before creating and implementing a similar clause in legal and judicial procedures.
While principles are one’s way of life, national laws affect and are enforced on the population.
However, as with principles, with laws, one passes through the trial of self.
If one circumvents the law of which one is a symbol, the validity and objective of the law itself come into question.
One must not forfeit one’s credibility for the conviction of a suspect.
One risks one’s reputation unnecessarily to achieve what is easily attainable.
One is just as on trial as the suspect; the latter in a judicial court and the former in the court of intellect.
One ought to avoid a vote of no confidence on one’s reputation just to obtain a guilty verdict on the suspect.
Concerning the demands by some individuals and groups to declare the suspect an enemy combatant and withhold his rights for the purpose of intelligence gathering, all those they have described as enemy combatants and whose rights they have invalidated in the last 12 years have not increased the level of intelligence of these individuals and groups.
When one chooses to disregard the law mandating a suspect be informed of rights to silence and to legal representation during questioning and chooses to embrace the exception on the premise of national security, one has convicted both self and suspect with minimum efforts.
What valuable information is extractable from the suspect during the illegal questioning that is unobtainable when due process is followed?
Yes, the suspect could decline to provide self-incriminating information. Some reports claim this has already occurred.
If the reports are accurate and complete, there might be good reasons for this.
a) If one violates one’s law, one cannot expect others to uphold it.
b) It is possible that in the immediate few days after his arrest, his experiences with law enforcement agents set off a different type of adrenaline response.
He might have felt providing information was the sole means of survival.
c) Given the rights to silence and to a lawyer, he might have felt he can prove his innocence.
In any case, I was pleased to learn the US Attorney’s office and a judge have read the suspect his legal rights, albeit after 16 hours of interrogation by federal agents.
It is the responsibility of the prosecutors to prove the guilt of the suspect. It can be done with due process.
The maintenance of rule of law in cases of national security is a real-life headache which, however, does not preclude a guilty verdict.
Just as law enforcement officers sifted through the video recordings to pin down two men out of hundreds, prosecutors can examine and detect credible evidences to present in court.
I was also pleased to read Barack’s Administration, despite pressure to the contrary, will not treat the suspect as an enemy combatant.
Indeed, a crisis demands profound thoughts.