This is an emotionally laden topic and it should not surprise anyone that parties on both sides find themselves quite wound up over it. The conflict touches on many issues not directly related to the actual bombing, but nonetheless brought to the foreground by the events surrounding his release and the furor which ensued because of it. What should, in a perfect world, be a simple disagreement over the disposition of a convicted terrorist has become enflamed by a culture clash of long standing which will not be unraveled anytime soon.
All that being said, I am writing in response to a particular set of statements made by Edinburgh’s Cardinal Keith O’Brien during an interview with BBC Scotland. I feel that some of the conclusions the Cardinal made about US culture were presented as if they were facts, instead of his personal opinions, and that he failed to correctly interpret some of the information he presented in his argument – thus rendering his conclusions specious.
Let me start by briefly stating that I have no objection to the Cardinal’s stated opinion that, “…the Scottish government was right to free Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi last year on compassionate grounds.” [All quotes attributed to Cardinal O’Brien are taken from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-10905562] This was, I believe, the thrust of his purpose in giving the interview. He wanted to weigh in on the argument in favor of the decision made to free the man and the reasoning behind that decision.
His next statement did not surprise me. Cardinal O’Brien stated, “…US lawmakers want Scots politicians to explain their decision to a committee, but the cardinal said ministers should not go "crawling like lapdogs".” His is not the first voice to complain about the manner in which many US politicians and officials try to get their way in international conflicts. It is well established that the US government aggressively pursues its agenda throughout the world on a consistent basis, regardless of the particular culture with which it is dealing or the diplomatic history that is shared. I seek neither to deny nor to defend this tendency. I believe that every nation and/or culture has an innate sovereignty and its inhabitants will no doubt chafe when outside forces attempt to bend their governing bodies to their will. This is a natural reaction and Cardinal O’Brien’s sentiments in this regard are completely understandable to me.
The above referenced article continues with, “In an interview with BBC Scotland, Cardinal O'Brien said Americans were too focused on retribution.” My reaction to this was rooted in strong emotion. I’m not entirely sure that I agree or disagree with the Cardinal. Viewing it from the inside out, I would have phrased it differently. I will admit that I am afflicted with a wide spread attitude in the US that it is important to never take any assault “lying down”. It is not only “an eye for an eye” at work here (as the Cardinal alluded to later on in the article). It is, instead, the notion that a bully will continue to terrorize anyone who offers no resistance. However, if, at every turn, you confront anyone who injures you, other bullies will very likely think twice about messing with you. The Cardinal may feel this is not the best attitude and might very well adjure Americans to “turn the other cheek”. I don’t think he would find many converts to that position, however.
So far, I don’t seem to be in any significant disagreement with the Cardinal. However, I do actually have a couple of bones to pick with him. Cardinal O’Brien has every right to argue that American citizens and US officials who object to the early release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi are wrong in their thinking and/or actions. But I feel strongly that it is important for all parties to have a clear understanding of the difference between fact and opinion. Otherwise civil discourse is abandoned.
My first objection is that he stated that “Americans” were too focused on retribution. Not “some Americans” or “many Americans”. Without some word used as a qualifier, the reader or listener is left to assume that the Cardinal was referring to all Americans. It seems to me that the Cardinal has fallen victim to a failure of logic that many, many others have before him. That failure being the idea that America is a completely homogenous culture and that all Americans think and feel and act alike. There are more than 300 million people living in the United States. It is simply not logical, and frankly rather naïve, to assume that any group of people numbering more than 300 million would all agree on any single issue. Why is this important, you may ask? Isn’t it splitting hairs? Not really. By not recognizing the distinction between a very probably factual statement about the attitudes of some Americans, and an assumed attitude of all Americans, the Cardinal’s statement segues straight from verifiable fact to erroneous and ill-informed opinion – rendering his argument moot.
Secondly, what prompted me to write in response to Cardinal O’Brien’s statements was not actually his assessment of US culture, flawed as it may be, but the reasoning he offered to support it. The article immediately continues with the following which illustrates this reasoning to be defective: "In many states - more than half - they kill the perpetrators of horrible crimes, by lethal injection or even firing squad - I say that is a culture of vengeance…”
What the Cardinal failed to glean from this information is the fact that capital punishment is a deeply controversial issue in the United States and is hotly debated on an ongoing basis. America is profoundly divided over this issue. The very fact that we have come from a default state of capital punishment being universally applied throughout all US territory to that of just “more than half” implies a significant shift in philosophy over the past four hundred years. I submit that this lack of unanimity with regard to capital punishment is itself evidence that the US is not “too focused on retribution,” but is actually illustrative of a nation that continues to struggle mightily over the question of the best way to preserve the peace and ensure the safety of its citizens. A true “culture of vengeance” would not take the time to contemplate the justification of capital punishment. The question would simply not be entertained.
Some may argue that Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi is no longer a direct threat to anyone, due to his illness. The Cardinal may believe that this is the case. But many may not have considered the impact that this now seemingly harmless man has had since his [from http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/20100811/ts_dailybeast/9388_lockerbielovestorychildrenofvictimstomarry], “…abrupt departure from a Scottish prison, which abridged a life sentence for mass murder, [and] was garishly celebrated with a televised hero’s welcome in Tripoli orchestrated by Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi.”
His deeds have been "celebrated" throughout radical fundamentalist circles around the world. This not only increases the likelihood that someone will seek to emulate him, but also serves to paint the picture that his actions were entirely justified and admirable. All of which results in quite understandable outrage and fear among the friends and families of the Pan Am flight 103 victims.
The article stated that the cardinal said, “…Americans should "direct their gaze inwards"…” -- I would like to ask the Cardinal to look into his own heart and see if he can’t find some small measure of empathy for those who have objected so vociferously to Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi’s early release. I wonder if, when he gave this interview, the Cardinal considered the dread and pain and outrage these people have felt since that event almost a year ago. Or did he think only about his own feelings of affronted patriotism? Only he can answer that question. And, as it is doubtful he and I will ever discuss it, I will probably never know.
The bottom line is that most of the outcry against his release has not been based in inflated national pride or some sort of rabid imperialist desire to control the entire world, but in nothing more bizarre and unfathomable than plain old-fashioned fear. That this fear has apparently manifested itself in ways that many in Scotland find offensive is unfortunate, and it would have been better for all parties involved if it were not the case. But I think it is important to remember that fear is a human emotion, and even when US politicians are being completely obnoxious and offensive, they are still human, and are at least as entitled to the Cardinal’s forgiveness and compassion as was Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi – even if they aren’t allegedly about to drop dead in three month’s time.
Photo is from the BBC Scotland article at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-10905562.
No comments:
Post a Comment