It came to this

I cannot think of an American President who would have allowed a flagrant violation of fundamental human rights under his own watch to carry on with the Supreme Court finally putting an end to it.

But Mr. George W. Bush is such a President. What a shame. And what a relief.

Of course it serves our sense of justice that some – but only some – of the evident legal mishaps in the present Admninistration’s conduct of affairs has now been stalled. And even if it is ‘only’ a 5-3 ruling – with the Chief Justice Roberts conspicuously opting out because of his prior involvement in defending the Administration’s position – there is no lack of clarity in the Supreme Court’s condemnation of the handling of terrorist cases without due process.

Also, those who have spoken out against the Guantanamo Bay violations of both national military law and international conventions have been given a massive impetus, and it is reassuring that their voices are not silenced in any respect.

The entire episode – so far – nevertheless continues to cause grave concern. It still remains possible for people in high offices to hold opinions such as the one expressed in the minority opinion by one of the Justices, saying that the ruling would "sorely hamper the president's ability to confront and defeat a new and deadly enemy." It is the opinion of someone who is willing to submit to arbitrary government and lawlesness whenever he or she is intimidated by something or someone fearsome. So many people still hang around in responsible positions who have sympathy with this kind of opinion.

So let’s hang out and remain vigilant. The shame should never be ours.

Humans are destined to become the Extra Terrestrials of our Universe

The survival of the human race depends on its ability to find new homes elsewhere in the universe because there's an increasing risk that a disaster will destroy Earth, world-renowned physicist Stephen Hawking said (CNN June 15, 2006). Professor Hawking in particular referred to disasters caused by global warming, nuclear warfare, genetically engineered viruses and the like.

I believe that Professor Hawking, whom I greatly respect, holds an unnecessarily dark view of the destinies ahead for humanity. I do agree that the greatest challenges we currently face very much arise from the way the human race has started to tinker with the elements prevailing on Earth. And indeed, we run the risk of a massive disruption of our entire ecological system, threatening the key conditions for our survival on this planet.

But, first of all, I do not believe that this in itself will drive us out to other planets. Secondly, I believe we will successfully face these challenges in our own environment, perhaps at great cost, but nevertheless with sufficient resourcefulness and common sense to secure ample prosperity here on Earth for countless generations to come.

I see another main force urging us to embark on the great voyage outerspace. In essence it is the same force that created the Egyptian Pyramids and the Roman Empire. It is the force that brought about Christianity, or the Islam, and it is the same force that nearly forty years ago took us to the Moon, that created the Hubble telescope, or the unmanned voyagers to Mars and Saturn.

Humanity has not been created for any particular purpose. Our kind has developed its own purpose, with or without a God to sanction it. That purpose is to seek new frontiers and to achieve greatness in their conquest, every time and again, forever.

Our journey to the Universe is a future history - a story of mankind far beyond our current imagination. And they will not be guided by darkness. Their greatest brightness will rocket humans through the vast expanse, out to the distant stars and unknown worlds. Our Universe, sooner or later, is the prime destiny of the human race, whether or not there still remain some troubling issues on our own planet.

It is the destiny of mankind to become the Extra Terrestrials of our Milky Way – and beyond. Not because we have problems here, but because we will continue to cherish dreams about the impossible – and make them come true.

Justice, Mr. Bush?

In all likelihood Mr. Al-Zarqawi - by any reasonable standard - was a bad guy. In all likelihood, it was a good thing to try and hunt him down.

In the process Mr. Zarqawi was killed. From the point of view of Justice, this must be considered an accident, not a victory.

Without any presidential restraint Mr. George W. Bush claims the event as a delivery of Justice. From every reasonable viewpoint, this is a greater outrage than many so far committed by terrorists.

In fact, Mr. Bush proclaims an order in which Justice can be delivered at any doorstep, at any moment, at whim.

No due process, no representation, no nothing will save you from being dead even before you become a regular suspect. In my view, it is impossible to call this Justice. And I find it even more difficult to hold the line between shere revenge and proper conviction.

A President of the United States, especially the President, should caution its citizens in events like this. Yes, perhaps we should not mourn the death of Mr Al-Zarqawi, but we should greatly deplore the circumstances in which this death has come about and the entire context of it. The President should also warn his citizens that this death alone can never be seen as a victory, from any viewpoint. It may have been inevitable, and possibly desirable, but never should a civilisation celebrate the mere end of a mortal adversary, if the cause - and thrust - of the adversity itself is not diminished.

Iraq will remain in turmoil, and the US has yet to provide a better prospect for the Iraqi people.

State vs. Conviction

How come a US President gets away with claiming moral hegemony?

President George W. Bush again has taken up his crusade for a constitutional gay marriage ban. His arguments are rather less presidential, let alone constiutional, than fit for a pope. ‘Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society." And he adds: "Marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening this good influence on society."

In the good old European tradition of strict separation of Church and State, any similar declaration of a public official would be considered a blasphemy. But in the US, or at least in a substantial (southern) part of it, the President gets away with it.

The reader should not misunderstand me. In my own social, cultural and religious life I am not particularly enthusiastic about the idea of gay marriage. I cannot possibly see it as an equivalent to the public institition of marriage which is mainly geared to protect (women and) children. In fact, I consider any marriage other than between a man and a women perfectly silly.

However, as a regular civilian (and as a lawyer) I would never even contemplate to deny my fellow human beings the bonds they wish to create with one another. If two guys or two women wish to make promises and call this ‘marriage’, well so be it. My sense of equality precedes any distinction that I make according to my societal values.

Not so Mr. Bush - and not so quite a few of his followers. Either Mr. Bush is not clever enough to understand the various distinctions that can – and can not – be made depending on one’s responsibilities or one’s perspectives. Or he is turning back – on purpose – on one of the essential foundations of our Western democracies. This is not merely the separation of Church authority versus State authority; it includes the wider responsibility never to let public legitimacy become the hostage of one single morality.

Mr. Bush is asserting a position that no US citizen with a sound mind should allow him to retain at any time, for any cause.
------
Post scriptum 7th June 2006:
Today the US Senate blocked the proposed gay marriage ban. It is a relief that common sense apparently still prevails in American politics.