Opinion

The Great Debate

Tsarnaev: What would Washington have done?

George Washington was ruthless.

As commander in chief of the Continental Army, Washington was prepared to crush those who attacked American liberty. He set up military commissions to swiftly hang enemies. He sparked an international incident when he ordered the execution of a random teenage prisoner. He even justified torture. But he reserved his ferocity for foreign enemy combatants.

Following the firestorm of last week’s Boston bombing and the ensuing violent manhunt, we are trying to find our bearings. We need to aggressively extract information, identify additional threats and hunt down any accomplices, whether foreign or homegrown. Yet we must remain careful not to slide toward an Orwellian state – where Big Brother runs roughshod over local authorities, monitors Americans without probable cause, restrains the movements of innocent civilians or rains drone missiles on U.S. soil.

We can take a lesson from the actions of the Founding Fathers. Washington provides a model for how we can best defend against foreign threats while still guarding our liberties at home.

Consider his response to Benedict Arnold. Most everyone knows about Arnold and his treacherous attempt to sell West Point to the British in 1780. However, many people forget that he had two accomplices – a young British soldier, John Andre, and an American co-conspirator, Loyalist Joshua Hett Smith. Washington’s differing treatment of these men reveals an important distinction between the rights of foreign nationals versus citizens.

Washington captured Andre first. He made short work of the young Brit: Andre was speedily brought before a military commission and hanged within days. Washington believed foreign enemy combatants had little to no rights, as he ferociously defended his people.

from Africa News blog:

Are African governments suppressing art?

By Cosmas Butunyi

The dust is finally settling on the storm that was kicked off in South Africa by a controversial painting of President Jacob Zuma with his genitals exposed.

The country that boasts one of the most liberal constitutions in the world and the only one on the African continent with a constitutional provision that protects and defends the rights of  gays and lesbians , had   its values put up to  the test  after an artist    ruffled feathers by a painting that questioned the moral values  of the ruling African National Congress . 

For weeks, the storm ignited by the painting  called  ‘The Spear’, raged on, sucking in Goodman Gallery that displayed it and City Press, a weekly newspaper that had published it on its website. The matter eventually found its way into the corridors of justice, where the ruling ANC sought redress against the two institutions. The party also mobilised its supporters to stage protests outside the courtroom when the case it filed came up for hearing. They also matched to the gallery and called for a boycott of City Press , regarded as one of the country's most authoritative newspapers. 

  •