What the Boston Bomber Taught us About the Indefinite Detention of United States Citizens

I wish to write today on the topic of the indefinite detention of U.S. Citizens. This is a subject that has recently come to the forefront of national discussion with the tragic events of the Boston bombing. Upon the capture of the second suspect in the bombing two Republican United States Senators (John McCain and Lindsey Graham) began advocating for the indefinite detention of the suspect as an enemy combatant. They argue that under the provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, U.S. Citizens may be detained indefinitely as enemy combatants when it is deemed that they have taken up arms against this country. I wrote to my senators and representatives against this provision in the NDAA back when it was up for a vote last year. I was assured by the office of two senators that the indefinite detention provision could not and would not ever be used against an U.S. Citizen.

Now it is clear, that despite the choice of the current administration to proceed with the case through traditional criminal justice means, the indefinite detention of a U.S. Citizen arrested on U.S. soil for a crime committed on U.S. soil is a possibility. I am distressed. While I am thankful that the Obama administration has not decided to invoke the ability to indefinitely detain suspect number two without trial, I should not have to be thankful for this. The indefinite detention of a U.S. Citizen without trial should never be on the table unless the citizen in question was captured on a battlefield while engaged in hostilities against the United States. No matter how heinous their crimes, citizens of the United States are entitled to due process of law under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and a right to a speedy and public trial under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Some have argued that the suspects in question should never have been allowed to become U.S. Citizens. This is a matter that will no doubt be debated for some weeks but has no effect on whether or not they actually are citizens. Some have even argued that because they became citizens only in the last couple of years (or possibly in bad faith) they should not enjoy the rights of United States Citizens. Were these arguments successful, this would make all immigrants to the United States second class citizens, their status as “true” citizens would be up for debate, as would their access to the fundamental protections of the U.S. Constitution. This is a dangerous line of reasoning and it is troubling to me that two U.S. Senators seem so eager to set this sort of precedent. Regardless of the immense amount of evidence against suspect number two, under the law he is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

I am thankful that the Obama administration has decided to pursue the prosecution of the second suspect (who has now been officially charged) through normal means. But what about next time? What about when we have a less scrupulous president that is less concerned with upholding the constitutional rights of citizens? The constitution is supposed to limit the government’s power so that when democracy inevitably fails, and we elect a potential tyrant, their ability to damage this country irreparably will be curtailed.

I would ask you to set aside your emotions. The anger and rage we all feel at the killing of three and maiming of hundreds, to think about the greater implications of such drastic actions. Think about the implication of even having the potential to deny American Citizens their fundamental rights under the “appropriate” circumstances. The danger is that if there are appropriate circumstances under which to deny American Citizens their fundamental rights, then in the end there is no true protection of those rights, and our free society is lost.

A Short Interview With Myself Regarding the Motivations Behind my Desire to Engage in Philosophy

Why attempt to engage in philosophy when by modern standards, you are unqualified? You lack any demonstrable credentials, you have no degree.

Well there are no qualifications necessary to be a philosopher except the possession of a curious mind, and the desire to think critically. Whether or not people in modern culture will listen to somebody that lacks the credential of socially approved education is another question. The point of philosophy, however, is not to be heard. Qualifications can actually be a hindrance to philosophers. People in modern society rarely challenge somebody that possesses superior qualifications to their own on a subject in public, and being challenged is absolutely necessary in philosophy. In some ways, my lack of a college degree is an asset to me as a philosopher because people will challenge me frequently in a more strident manner. I welcome being challenged as that is the only way to grow intellectually. "Experts" are too often affronted by people challenging their authority on a subject about which they are ostensibly qualified to speak. They seek to shut down questioners with the weight of their years of study, and not the content of their arguments.

Why should anybody consider to what you have to say? Why not read Plato, or Kierkegaard or other established philosophers instead of spending time reading you?

Well it depends on whether the person is seeking to be a student of philosophy, or a philosopher. I would recommend reading established philosophers to anybody. I would never want somebody to choose between reading my writing and reading the writings of any great philosopher. However the only person for whom it a legitimate choice to just read past philosophers is the person that seeks to be a student of philosophy, and not a philosopher. Ludwig Wittgenstein said it best when he said “A philosopher who is not taking part in discussions is like a boxer who never goes into the ring.” The main advantage I have over the great dead philosophers is that I am alive. You can interact with me, we can discuss things, you can challenge me. You don’t have to ask an expert on me what I would have said, you can simply ask me, and we can have a discussion. That is the difference between doing philosophy, and studying philosophy.

Why do you wish to be a philosopher? You don’t have a degree, likely nobody will publish your philosophical essays or dialogues. What do you gain from this?

Few of the great philosophers of old were known in their time anywhere outside a few small intellectual circles. Most of these philosophers never made money from their philosophizing. It’s not really that sort of field. The great thing about intellectual circles is you don’t have to go to a college to find them, you can create them by finding other intellectual people that want to have conversations and do philosophy. Being a philosopher isn’t about being famous, it’s not about people 500 years from now reading my writings, what does that matter to me? I will be dead. No, what matters to me is getting the most out of life by thinking about the mysteries of human existence, our place in the universe, my purpose as a human being, my responsibilities to other human beings. Philosophy all goes back to Socrates, it is simply valuing the examined life over the unexamined life. I didn’t choose to do philosophy, I have to do philosophy. There is no other way for me to be fulfilled in this life. So I will philosophize and hope others will join me because as great as this conversation with myself has been, it gets boring all by yourself.

Philosophy is a big place, what aspects most pique your interest?

Right now it would have to be the distinct lack of concern with philosophy in our culture, and the damage the compartmentalization caused by modern education is doing to our society. I want to make the case for philosophy, and for changing cultural perceptions by changing how we teach our children to learn, and how to interact with each other and the world. Most of all I want to talk about things that other people want to talk about with me. I want to have conversations about everything, and write down my thoughts, share them with others and receive their thoughts on the subject in return. I love philosophy because it is such a big place, because the universe is a big place, and discovering how things are connected is the greatest adventure I can imagine.

Modern Entitlement: The Government as a Resource

Today I want to talk about what I believe to be one of the most dangerous trends in modern society. The view of the government as a resource. When one hears the terms “entitlement” or “welfare state” political rhetoric has trained us to think of the poor. Our minds have been trained to perceive welfare and entitlement as the domain of the welfare queen, a lazy person that pursues the life strategy of suckling at the teat of the government. These people do exist, though I would argue that the majority of those in need receiving some form of government aid take it in good faith, and why should they not? After all, entitlement is not, as we have been led to believe, solely the domain of the poor. Many of the wealthy, indeed some of the largest corporations in the world, also believe themselves to be entitled to free money. This is because the culture of entitlement in this country is far more pervasive than we have been led to believe. The poor are not the only people out there that seek government assistance to maintain the state of their existence.

The more extreme of the conservative pundits shout loud and long about all of the awful poor people that want the government to pay for luxuries such as housing and food. These same conservative pundits seem to ignore the other side of the coin, the entitled rich. We must ask ourselves why so much hullabaloo is made about one kind of entitlement, and not the other. Why are the poor not deserving of help and food, but few cry foul when the government subsidizes massive energy conglomerates, banks, oil companies, and agriculture corporations? This says nothing of our nation’s habit of propping up dictators and fellow democracies alike with foreign aid.

So, just how pervasive is this entitlement state of mind? How much money do corporations receive every year compared to the amount spent on social welfare programs? Which of the two types of entitlements is the most insidious? A study performed by conservative think tank “The Cato Institute” found that the cost of corporate welfare, while difficult to calculate, to the taxpayer totals at least $100 billion annually http://www.cato.org/publications/congressional-testimony/corporate-welfare-spending-vs-entrepreneurial-economy. The cost to the U.S. Taxpayer of social welfare programs? $422 billion according to http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/. This number includes assistance for families and children, unemployment, the unemployment trust, worker’s compensation, housing, and the earned income tax credit which goes only to the working poor.

What does this mean? The welfare programs for families and children cost taxpayers $110 billion, tax credits for the working poor cost around $160 billion. The rest of the programs are mostly temporary assistance programs to keep people from falling off a ledge. Family assistance programs cost the U.S. Taxpayer just $10 billion more than corporate welfare. Thus far the entitlement mindsets seem to be fairly equal monetarily, but which is more insidious? Lets look at the purpose of a family versus the purpose of a corporation.

The purpose of the family is to raise children, to provide them with opportunity and moral guidance, to love and care for each other. What happens when a poor family cannot sustain itself? They can become homeless, children can be taken and put into the foster care system which is already overloaded to the breaking point (and, by the way, also costs billions of dollars to operate). So the bulk of the cost of family assistance welfare, which goes to families caring for children, would likely be transferred to the foster care system when parents lose their children due to being unable to support them. What do we get in return for the investment? Fewer starving and homeless children, and more children in a loving family environment.

The purpose of a corporation is to provide customers with products and services, and thereby make a profit. What happens when a corporation cannot sustain itself? It goes bankrupt, the products and services it provided, if there is demand for them, will be provided by other corporations, often more efficiently, often at lower cost, benefiting everybody except those that ran the bankrupt corporation poorly.

Corporate welfare props up defunct corporations that do their jobs poorly and could be replaced by better and stronger corporations. We should not have a problem with this because corporations are not people. A corporation is not a child that is dependent on others for its existence. Corporations are not entitled to life. People are, if our declaration of independence is to be believed, entitled to life. We are not giving the poor a rich or lavish existence with our social welfare programs. We’re enabling them to eke out a meager existence in the hope that in the future, they, or their children, will become successful. This is a worthy investment. Propping up corporations that have failed at their only purpose, is not a worthy investment.

We, as a civilized society, must embrace the idea that we value human life enough to support those that cannot support themselves. However, I see no reason to continue to support bloated and defunct corporations so that their tired, outdated leadership can continue to pretend to be successful and buy another yacht. The most destructive entitlement mindset of today is that of those who possess more than any human being needs, and ask the government to keep intact the means by which they support their lavish lifestyles. The wealthy corporate welfare queen treats the government as a resource to be used to prop up a lifestyle to which they feel entitled and it’s time for that to stop.

Here we go.

God help us all, another blog. I haven't had a "blog" for years. Back then it was a stupid, self indulgent internet version of a journal or diary. Arrogant as we all are in youth, not realizing that diaries and journals are generally private because the world does not deserve to be subjected to a 16 year old's sycophantic musings on daily life. While all blogs are on some level self indulgent, you have no need to worry about being subjected to my musings on my private life. Instead I will post about writing, politics, culture, and life's great mysteries. Here are the blog's goals in a concise list.

1. This blog is for me, a place to flex my writing skills, facilitate conversation, and get easy feedback from friends and anybody else that might find me.

2. To begin the process of putting work into the public eye and provide prospective clients with a convenient place to sample my writing.

3. To provide myself with a place to express my thoughts in an organized and coherent manner and eschew the internet hell that is Facebook.

So, the motive, the goal in constructing this blog, is self indulgence, on purpose, with purpose; which makes it better, that's just science.