This is the second of three essays on how Ed Snowden has been very helpful in bringing matters to our attention outside of the area which he intended, e.g. surveillance. In this part we discuss the issue of how the death penalty is perceived in the world, something brought up because of Snowden's applications for amnesty in which he mentioned his concerns about being tortured or executed should he return to the United States.
Ah, the death penalty. What could be
more American? An eye for an eye! Hang the bastard. String em up. Hang em high! A
necktie party. A rough frontier justice. "And may God have mercy
on your soul.... you may proceed", said the preacher.
There are regional differences of
course. My favorite is Texas' "Justifiable Homicide" laws.
In Texas you can get away with murder if you can
convince a jury that 'he needed killing'.
"You
remember Jack. He was always drunk. Never did a day's honest work in
his life. When he ran over Sam's dog, I had enough and I shot the
good-for-nothing sonofabitch until he was dead".
So all is well and good, after all
cultural diversity works many ways. Some countries have spicier
food, we have the death penalty. Each to his own, I say.
What could be more American than a good hangin'?
But the world is filled with a bunch of
damn foreigners. Damn it, its true, I have seen them myself. And
many of them look on in horror at our death penalty, seeing it as
barbaric, as "cruel and unusual punishment" and drawing far too many conclusions from the trivial and irrelevant detail that it
is only the poor people who get executed while the rich go free. Oh
yes, and that there *may* be a correlation, some say, between race
and wealth and therefore of who gets the axe and who does not. Of
course this isn't true! P'shaw I say! Certainly not in Florida!
How do I know that much of the world
does not share our appreciation of the death penalty? Well it is due
to that savior of modern man, that icon of all that is moral and
pretentious in America, everyone's favorite martyr and photographic
opportunity, Ed Snowden.
Yes, you see, in order to apply for
amnesty in various countries it is useful, perhaps even required,
that you articulate the case that if you were returned to the country
you were trying to flee from, that you would be subjected to cruel
and unusual punishment. For example, you might be tortured or put
to death. So Ed made that case and many countries responded well to
the argument.
Because, you see, the fact is that this
country is now famous for torturing people. Yes, we can thank the
illegal Bush administration for that. But its not all Bush's fault,
imho, because you see when Obama came in he refused to have members
of the Bush administration tried for their crimes. Had he done so,
then he would have made the clear statement that American's found
torture to be unacceptable. But he didn't and instead made the point
that people of one Presidential Administration can commit any crime against
humanity and get off.
On top of that, famously there was one
way to get shot in America, legally that is, and that was to commit
what was called "treason" back in the day. But since one
can easily use that word, and people do, they went to the trouble of
defining it. Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1 of the US Constitution
defines treason as giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy
during time of war. And war is defined as being declared formally by
Congress, none of this namby pamby "police action" or "humanitarian mission" stuff back then. Therefore, someone who may or may not be considered to
have given "aid and comfort" during a time when Congress
has not declared war could not be considered for treason. On paper,
that is.
In fact, you can try anyone for
anything and leave it up to the courts to decide.
Which is why, when Snowden got
international sympathy for the fact that if he returned to the US he
might be tried for treason and shot, the US Department of Justice
went out of its way to say that they would not seek the death
penalty.
They would not have done so had not the
argument that we are a cruel and murderous country rang true in the
eyes of people of the world. Two thirds of the countries of the
world have outlawed the death penalty (which is different of course
from whether or not their government kills people, oh by the way).
The USA is the number 5th country in the world for executions, coming
in after China, Iran, North Korea and Yemen. Now that is a list
right there to give one pause and wonder just what is going on.
I was not aware of how we were seen in
this area by many people of the world until it was Snowden who
brought it to my attention. Well, I knew a little about it I guess, but hadn't given the issue much thought.
Is there a possible way out of this dilemma? A solution that lets us keep our death penalty, so important to so
many Americans, yet avoids the onus that accompanies "stringing someone up"?
I believe that there is. What if we amended the law so that only the rich would be at jeopardy to being sent to "Ol' Sparkey" (the electric chair) for their crimes? Its only fair after all, they are the only ones who can afford the legal system in this country; a poor man or woman certainly can not.
I think that world opinion would respond to this change and recognize that we had significantly made progress on the issue of the death penalty and furthermore that we were taking a very progressive step on the issue of the very wealthy people in a world filled with unbelievable poverty.
I hope that all good Americans will
join me in calling for the death penalty for the rich.
Thank you.
____________________________________
