Law, Politics, and Principle.mp3

In preparing a comment on the legal and ethical issues emerging from the detention and interrogation of suspected terrorists held at the U.S. military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, I was surprised at how hard it was to find positive quotations on American law and justice. After all, our laws and legal system, however imperfect, are among our most noble and admirable qualities.

Our greatest contribution to world civilization is the Constitution and Bill of Rights, documents deeply rooted in core moral values demanding respect for human dignity and the right to justice, due process, and maximum personal liberty.

Although the Founding Fathers did a magnificent job balancing public needs and individual rights, controversial judicial interpretations are inevitable.

Those who say they’re strict constructionists, for example, generally support laws outlawing obscenity, libel, and death threats instead of insisting that the First Amendment, which declares that “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech,” is absolute.

Similarly, while many people favor strict interpretation of the right to bear arms, they support Supreme Court interpretations limiting the right to exercise one’s religion by upholding laws against polygamy and animal sacrifice.

If sticking to the exact letter of the law is impractical or undesirable, therefore, what principles should guide the Court’s interpretation of laws that deal with claimed violations of civil and human rights by non-citizen detainees? Do such individuals have the right to challenge the legality of their confinement and harsh interrogation methods?

These are legal issues with huge political implications. They’re also ethical issues that will test our commitment to the underlying principles that define us – to ourselves and the world.

More on that tomorrow.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.