And our success stories continue...

The Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena was taken hostage in Iraq about a month ago, and was finally freed by her captors on March 4th. As she was being driven to the airport with several Italian secret service agents, American soldiers opened fire on their car. One of the agents was killed, Ms. Sgrena was shot in the shoulder, and two of the remaining agents were wounded.

The Americans say that the car was travelling very fast, did not stop at a checkpoint, and that they fired several warning shots. The Italians say that they were not travelling that fast and that they had stopped. They claim that 200-300 rounds were fired into the car, and prior to calling for medical help, the Americans confiscated the Italians' cell phones and weapons, leaving them in comunicado with Rome for up to an hour.

Huh. Oops, I suppose.

Obviously, I don't know what happened, nor will the investigators. The only ones who can know what happened were the people who were there, and clearly, the two stories don't fit with each other. Regardless, we do know this: Americans fired at, wounded, and killed their allies, including a civilian.

Now, granted, any journalist who goes to cover a war knows right off that they are putting themselves in danger. For that matter, anyone who's ever so much as watched a war movie knows that often, wartime casualties don't come from enemy fire. It's chaotic: no one is arguing that Iraq is a bastion of calm rationality. Really, though - is this how we're reacting to things going slightly, minorly out of control? Shooting them?

I find this in a vague parallel to Sophocles' play Ajax: After loosing an election (for the right to wear Achilleus' armor) to Odysseus, Ajax decides to kill Odysseus and his company. Athena (the goddess) casts a spell over Ajax, causing him to slaughter all their sheep and cattle, instead. When Ajax comes to his senses, he is so deeply shamed that he commits suicide. My interpretation of this is that Ajax is, quite simply, a horrendous control freak. A situation has spiralled so far out of his control, he regains the upper hand the only way he can fathom - killing himself - regardless of other consequences.

Our troops in Iraq see a car coming to them. They're stressed out, probably exhausted, and probably want nothing more than to go home. Maybe the car was going to fast, maybe it just seemed that way, either way, the troops feel like they're not being listened to. So, they take control the only way they know how: overwhelming force.

An interesting parallel, I think.

A good week for justice, thus far.

Monday, federal district court judge Henry Floyd ruled that Jose Padilla - who has been in custody since May of 2002 - must either be released within 45 days or charge him with a crime. The Bush administration has already announced their intent to appeal.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty may not be used in cases where the convicted was a minor when the crime was committed.

Wow. We're making progress - granted, it's entirely possible that the Padilla ruling will be overturned in appeal. However, the Supreme Court ruling stands, as executing minors is now 'officially' a violation of the 8th amendment. It's about time, too - for a long time, we've been the only world power willing to execute minors for their crimes. I still am unclear as to why we even reinstated the death penalty in the '70's. It doesn't work as a deterrent (has there been any notable decrease in capital crimes since 1976?). Obviously, it's not much of a rehabilitative treatment - true, that person won't commit another crime, but if we put more money into our prison systems, we could get the same 'success' rate with a life sentence.

The Padilla ruling is excellent, in my opinion. It gives a legal precedent. Maybe, within a few years, we won't be allowed to just snatch up whoever we want to, declare them a 'detainee' and a 'terror suspect' - which are entirely meaningless terms, really - and toss them into a military prison for as long as we like.

In a twisted, twisted way, I'd like to see the following scenario, just to see how it plays out: We detain (abduct, perhaps?) a 'terror suspect' in, say, New York - wherever. Some American city. A man, mid-twenties-to-thirties, of Arab descent. Let's make it real interesting: his parents are very wealthy Saudi businessmen. Our young man is accused of plotting some nefarious scheme to ruin the foundations of this nation, so we take him into custody. Here's the part I want to see: He's a British citizen. Grew up, the child of wealthy Saudi parents, somewhere in Great Britain. So Britain, our closest ally, finds one of their own citizens, who's in the US legally, with a valid visa - a 'detainee'. Maybe there's evidence of his plotting. Maybe there's not. Maybe there is, but it's 'highly classified' in the name of national security.

I'd be fascinated by that one.

And while I'm speaking of our neighbors across the pond: could you kindly remove your royalty from our news outlets? I don't understand why anyone, let alone Americans, care about them. Sure, Queen Elizabeth seems to be a wonderful person, who does quite well in her entirely-decorative role. But...really, folks, did we not fight a war, shed far too much blood (American and British alike) to get rid of royals? Can we focus on the important things?