Human Rights will be the death of us

This column in the Wall Street Journal (via Melanie Phillips) is an interesting look at the difficulties of prosecuting ye pirates, giving it proper historical context.

The column raises the interesting issue of extra-judicial trials, especially in the light of similar arrangements re: fighting 'unlawful' combatants (read: The Taliban, Al-Qaeda, other scary bearded groups, etc...) and the difficulties of prosecution and incarceration. With the news that President-elect Obama will probably close down Guantanemo, with the probable consequence of bringing the lovable and peaceful huggy-bears that are currently residing there into the US Civil court system.

This poses many problems, principally that of what do you do with them once they've "served their time". Deport them to their countries of origin? Western countries have a certain squeamishness about sending the bad guys back where they came from should their home countries infringe on their 'Human Rights' such as their right to keep breathing.

From the Wall Street Journal column

"Last April the British Foreign Office reportedly warned the Royal Navy not to detain pirates, since this might violate their "human rights" and could even lead to claims of asylum in Britain."

Nothing clearly shows the decline of the West more than that paragraph.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau articulated the idea of The Social Contract* in 1762, in that citizens of a nation, by virtue of being born there, entered into a social covenant (or contract) with society. The imperialism of the West, much like the imperialism of the Romans before it, understood this and promoted this. Ie that the societies held certain commnon values. The reason why they did this is that they felt their values were worthy. In the example of Britain and the West, principally it was the idea of individual human dignity.

Warning: Dead White Male ( picture source)

Rousseau's Contract was a notion that sought to bring together the common will, as laws were " the conditions on which civil society exist." and

"The right of laying down the rules of society belong only to those that form the society"

This is something that every individual, no matter which civilization or ethnic group they belong to understands implicitly. You could argue that International Law, if an extension of Rousseau's idea means that we are all "citizens of world" and that we are all bound by the same laws, thus everything from unrestricted immigration to tolerance of intolerable practices should prevent (mostly) Western countries from exercising their power to restrict immigration or prosecute unlawful combatants that do not follow the commonly understood laws of war (or Geneva Convention). Rousseau however has a rejoinder to this situation:

"There is undoubtedly a universal justice which springs from reason alone, but if that justice is to be acknowledge as such it must be reciprocal"

Therein lies to the answer to the hysterical lefties who protest the injustice(s) of Guantanemo, the US Army and supporters of David Hicks.

"Guantanamo is a terrible place where you get several helpings of torture a day with generous sides of beatings and it is all so injust as you are only an innocent goat-herder? How about the injustice visited of these Taliban prisoners (WARNING: Pictures of dead bodies) ? Are there reciprocal cries of injustice from the same groups?

[chirp-chirp]


To be continued....

*quoting from Rousseau, Jean-Jacques (1762) "The Social Contract", published by Penguin Books, England (2004)