Posted on 06/22/2002 6:12:06 AM PDT by Gopblond
I have always been an aficionado of science fiction, and was raised on such classics as The Twilight Zone, and the original Outer Limits and Star Trek series. And I’ve been a science fiction junkie ever since. When done well, it’s a very entertaining genre. However, when sci-fi has the added elements of adeptly examining moral truths and piquing our thought processes, it can be downright superb. If the movie industry buzz is accurate, the soon-to-be-released, "The Minority Report", a Steven Spielberg production, may indeed be the riveting science fiction blockbuster of the season.
After reading Alexander Walker’s insightful film critique at "This Is London" website, and watching HBO’s "behind the scenes" movie preview, it’s clear that "The Minority Report" with Tom Cruise is being marketed as both a futuristic thriller and cautionary tale. Cautionary tale, you say? Yes, the story plays out approximately fifty years hence in a not-too-distant era, and explores the classic dilemma confronting any "free-society", one that America is especially grappling with at the current moment in this "war on terrorism". At issue is the very delicate balancing act involving the rights of the individual versus the greater good of society. Indeed, how much in the way of personal liberties should we be willing to barter away in return for our nation’s safety and security? How many aspects of our lives should the government control and scrutinize, how many strictures should government set in place for the sake of keeping this nation unscathed and shielded from harm? There are always trade-offs in life, and the citizenry must be ever-vigilant, assuming responsibility for continually exploring the issues and circumstances that impact our highly prized freedoms.
In "The Minority Report", a mid-twenty first century America has devised an ostensibly "infallible" system that predicts who will commit a crime. Simply put, would-be criminals are rounded up by the Justice Department’s Pre-Crime unit and are summarily dealt with, despite the lack of any evidence. This is accomplished on the say-so of special prognosticators, for the benefit and protection of the larger society. Psychics called "Pre-Cogs" make the ironclad predictions. And no one bucks the system, until Pre-Crime’s top investigator (Tom Cruise), is identified as a "murderer". He is quickly on-the-run, surmising that a young rising star in the agency wants him eliminated from the scene. The audience is sure to enjoy the high-tech effects and the futuristic gadgetry, some of which were already shown on the HBO special.
Recent high-profile events are totally apropos of our "brave new world", and closely parallel the theme of the movie. Many Americans have been terribly dismayed, even somewhat confused, to learn that a citizen can be held indefinitely without being charged, pursuant to designation as an "enemy combatant" who allegedly poses a profound threat to national security. I don’t think that Americans ever envisioned a scenario in which a fellow citizen would be locked away for the duration of hostilities by the Department of Defense, without the benefit of a Federal trial or a military tribunal. It’s just totally incongruent with our American system.
Yet, the American government has already made a determination that Abdullah al-Mujahir (AKA Jose Padilla, born in NYC) will be detained under these circumstances. And, depending on your viewpoint, one might infer that al-Mujahir’s constitutional and civil rights are being sacrificed on the altar of our nation’s safety, without sufficient concern for his protections under the law. In deference to our government (if news accounts are to be believed), there does appear to be a prima facie case against al-Mujahir. He reportedly trained in al-Qaeda terrorist camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan in the 1990’s, was in the process of planning a radiological bomb or "dirty bomb" for detonation in Washington DC, and was, at one point, under the command of al-Qaeda’s operations chief, Abu Zubaydah. Moreover, it must also be noted that al-Mujahir is not completely without legal recourse. His lawyer, Donna Newman, has brought a writ of habeas corpus before the Federal Court, in effect appealing the government’s decision to hold her client indefinitely without bringing charges. The outcome of this Court action is still pending.
And another American-born "enemy combatant", Yasser Esam Hamdi, is already pursuing relief in the Federal Court system. As in the al-Mujahir case, the Justice Department maintains that Hamdi has no right to an attorney or intervention by our Federal Courts. In effect, our government maintains that both Yasser Esam Hamdi and Abdullah al-Mujahir pose a "clear and present danger" to our nation, and therefore forfeit their constitutional protections. But how does this bode for the rest of us? Can civil rights infringements prevail and multiply over time, with numerous citizens being subjected to an erosion of constitutional safeguards? The alarming answer is yes, of course! But let me explicitly state that I’m not afraid of widespread abuses being promulgated by the Bush administration or the Ashcroft Justice Department. The fear is that the dye will be cast, that bad precedents will be set, and some future presidential administration (such as, God forbid, a leftist Hillary Clinton administration), will enforce tyrannical rule.
A fascinating subtext of this film challenges the efficacy of utilizes pre-emptive strikes against criminals (the enemies of society) by the Pre-Crime unit. Is it the successful endeavor that it’s touted to be? Is steadfast reliance upon the "Pre-Cogs", (considered the ultimate intelligence source in this futuristic world), truly warranted? Similarly, in this current "war on terrorism", questions abound whether America can justify pre-emptive assaults against an enemy state, a "rogue" nation such as Iraq, given that decisions may be predicated upon faulty intelligence. These naysayers contend that we lack the high quality intelligence data necessary to substantiate Iraq’s possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Moreover, some argue that so-called pre-emptive strikes are really no more than blatant acts of aggression, camouflaged or disguised as defensive tactics.
But I disagree with alacrity, as Scott Ritter and his ilk are wrong to suggest that Saddam Hussein is no longer in the WMD business. United Nations weapons inspectors have been out of Iraq for almost five years, giving that regime ample time and opportunity to re-create new caches of chemical and biological weaponry. And, undoubtedly, Saddam Hussein’s nature has not changed. He has been up to "no good", as confirmed by intelligence information (including data garnered from satellite monitoring and other high-tech surveillance equipment) that continues to emerge. It’s true that we have had past difficulties with our intelligence community, but things are readily improving, and we are being aided by excellent intelligence resources and operatives from friendly nations such as Israel, Britain and Russia. Clearly, President Bush is receiving accurate intelligence data, which he will have to delineate in general terms for the American people when he decides to enact military action against Iraq.
A "first strike" capability is especially useful when aimed at terrorists who aggressively target our vulnerabilities and exploit the element of surprise. In short, we must get them (the terrorists), before they get us. President Bush has rightly urged pre-emptive assaults against rogue nations and their surrogate terrorist organizations as part of an overall winning strategy in this fight against terrorism. This initiative also involves "targeted killing" of known terrorists, "direct action" by American operatives that is essentially lifting America’s twenty-five year old ban on assassination activity. It has always been my contention that killing these murderous thugs is a salient pre-emptive tactic, which will help thwart future terrorist strikes against the US and our allies. But good intelligence is key. America must continue to cultivate the best intelligence organizations possible.
Lastly, "The Minority Report" opens at theaters on Friday, June 21st. I, for one, look forward to seeing it.
---------------------------------------------------------
Carol Devine-Molin is a Republican District Leader, a community activist, and the host of "On The Right Side", a local program sponsored by the Republicans, and seen throughout most of Westchester County, New York. She is a regular columnist for Ether Zone.
Carol can be reached at DevineMolin@aol.com
Published in the June 28, 2002 issue of Ether Zone. Copyright © 1997 - 2002 Ether Zone.
We invite your comments on this article in our forum!
Movie "Minority Report" This is a follow-up to my most recent article regarding Steven Spielberg's futuristic thriller, "Minority Report", which I saw today. I found it enthralling -- I certainly would recommend seeing it. The film is replete with much detail, so don't fret that you'll leave the theater confused, still trying to dissect what just played out on the screen. Strangely, I thought it had reached the end twice before it really did conclude. Over the course of the film, the characters, and their motives, are slowly unravelled and given meaningful context. The primary issues explored in this film are: 1) placing extraordinary faith in the capabilities of our government, 2) relinquishing substantial freedoms/privacy in return for safety/security (or the illusion thereof), 3) possessing hard intelligence or irrefutable data before enacting a pre-emptive strike (in this case, arrest and judgment of an individual by Pre-Crime), and 4) believing in an ironclad future or "predetermination" (maybe too esoteric for some in the audience). A clear-cut conclusion is reached, as you will see. I don't want to give too much away, but some of the "good guys" turn out to be "bad guys" and vice versa. Let's just say the Attorney General's investigation of the Pre-Crime Unit is right on target.
Posted by Carol Devine Molin @ 11:17 PM CST
Movie is very slick and visually well done. The futuristic home and office computers were very cool.
If Carol had studied history a little more carefully she'd realize this is not true. It happened quite a bit in the Civil War, in WWI, and in WWII. It SHOULD have, IMHO, been how we dealt with Jane Fonda during the Vietnam War. How should we treat American citizens who collaborate with the enemy? Who actively support the enemy, even with armed action against American citizens? Throw in the horrow of terrorist attacks, which target innocents rather than combatants, and I'm sure most people will want such traitors dealt with harshly, at a minimum.
The bottom line for us to question is are such people criminals or enemy combatants? If they are criminals, then yes, the Constitution acknowledges their rights to counsel, habeas corpus, trial by jury, innocent until proven guilty, etc. If, on the other hand, they're enemy combatants due to their actions, then we will treat them far differently. Treatment of enemy prisoners is governed by the Geneva Conventions; not thw US Constitution. If an American citizen wages war against Americans via an acknowledged enemy (i.e., one we're actively fighting militarily, as in Al Qaeda), then they should be treated as enemy combantants, and if captured prisoners of war, rather than criminals.
She's right. They should just proceed to the execution they way they did the nazi saboteurs in 1946.
Great she writes a movie review BEFORE seeing it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.