Friday, August 21, 2009

On Sovereignty

I feel compelled to put down a few thoughts on the compassionate release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi from a Scottish prison. There has been quite an uproar against the release of this man, the only convicted perpetrator of the Lockerbie bombing in 1988. Al-Megrahi was released because Scotland has a clause which allows the release of an inmate when they are shown to be in the last months of their lives, so that they can spend their dying time with family in their home. This release of a terrorist has sparked great debate, some people even going so far as to claim al-Megrahi may become a suicide bomber once he is back in Lybia. The few pictures I have seen of al-Megrahi do not appear to be someone who would be capable of any terrorist act in his current condition. He is suffering late stages of prostate cancer, and is estimated to have three months to live. The issue was even important enough for President Obama to speak out against this action by the Scottish legal system.

The upset is not at all the issue of where one should spend their last months of life. The latest number that I have heard is around 70% of Americans want to die at home with family (what this compassionate release allows for), although only about 25% actually do. In theory, we don't have a problem with dieing at home, although functionally it seems we don't know how to make this wish a reality. But let's save that conundrum for another occasion, shall we?

The inconsistency I want to talk about today, as the title suggests, is that of sovereignty. In the last few years especially, the US has exercised our right to sovereignty many times. Wiretapping of questionable legality? It's our sovereign right. "Secret" interrogation sites in various countries? Our sovereign right. Holding individuals without charge and possibly outside Geneva conventions? Our sovereign right. Aggressive interrogation methods, the same as those for which we have charged other countries with war crimes in the past? Our sovereign right. Preemptive strike? Our sovereign right. See a pattern here?

However, when we look at the US's interactions with other countries just in the past few weeks, the picture is very different. The ability to exercise one's own laws without interference from another country? Not a sovereign right. The current administration has "expressed repeatedly...that Megrahi should serve out his sentence in Scotland" and Secretary of State Clinton and the White House have both been putting pressure on Scotland not to abide by Scotland's own laws on this matter. There's also the recent Swiss banking to-do which basically gets UBS to disregard Swiss laws in favor of helping the US collect names of Americans who have funds at the Swiss bank UBS. Of course, we can't forget the incursion on Iraq's sovereignty in 2003 as well. Apparently, only the US has sovereign rights that deserve protection from outside influence. I had hoped that our method of relating to out nations would change after the election of Obama, but that hope is starting to wear thin.

12 comments:

  1. Awesome post!

    Maybe that is the SINGLE LARGEST reason why foreign nationals do not trust the intentions of the American government.

    Also, I have hopes with Obama, maybe he will turn the page of American diplomacy and supposed effin-sovereign rights.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Very well said! Why does America have to stick its head into everyone's business? "My way or the highway" mentality is scary!

    ICLW
    www.brandysheaif.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think Obama and Clinton are just saying they should use better judgment when releasing a convicted terrorist because terriosm is an international issue. They aren't violating Scottish sovereignty. Sending a convicted terrorist home to a hero's welcome hardly shows good judgment.

    This is hardly the same thing as the other things you have listed.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If all the administration had done was to say "We disagree with this decision" then I would agree with you, but they actively campaigned against al-Megrahi's release and against Scotland following their own law, for some time. It's a difference of expressing an opinion and trying to exert influence.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well said.

    It's not just a Scottish Law but a UK Law that allows for compassion. Megrahi is not the only 'famous' prisoner who has been released on these grounds in the past few weeks.

    It's a shame that the release happened when it did. Had it happened this coming week - there probably would not have been the 'celebrations' at the airport.

    Interesting on the UK news there have been interviews with people who live in Lockerbie (and lost loved ones) who agree with the release!

    ReplyDelete
  6. That's a great point. At times we do very much act like the bully on the world's playground.

    ICLW

    ReplyDelete
  7. The extending of grace is a powerful thing;more powerful than retribution.

    Thank you for your comment on WHS. I'm glad it led me here!

    ICLW

    ReplyDelete
  8. Wow - you are a deep thunker ... I hate politics but I actually read all that and enjoyed it - made me think... so... kudos to you!! :) LOL...

    Happy ICLW :)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thanks for your comment on my blog! I enjoyed reading this post, very thought provoking. The double standards are just crazy.

    ReplyDelete
  10. What a thought provoking post. I don't agree with everything you say here but I do agree that we, as a country, have a tendency to disregard the sovereign rights of other countries.

    ~ICLW

    ReplyDelete