William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
Roper: “Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!”
More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down—and you’re just the man to do it—do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”
Setting aside my opinions about the real Sir Thomas More, I have always found the above exchange (spoken by characters in Robert Bolt’s play, A Man for All Seasons) to be a powerful reminder on the importance of the rule of law.
It is a particularly relevant exchange, today, when we have this same argument playing out in America. Why allow a terrorist to defend himself? Why allow a criminal the benefit of the law?
You may have heard of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a man from El Salvador who had been living in the United States. You may know that he entered the U.S. illegally after fleeing gang persecution in his native country. You may have heard that Mr. Garcia is a member of the MS-13 gang. You may have heard that his wife (a U.S. citizen) at one point received a Temporary Restraining Order against her husband. You may have heard Mr. Garcia referred to as a “terrorist.” You may also have heard that Mr. Garcia has always denied being affiliated with any gang, and that he has not been charged with any crime. And you may even have heard that the Trump administration admitted in court documents that Mr. Garcia’s deportation was an “administrative error,” but that they don’t plan on doing anything about it. “Oopsie,” as the president of El Salvador said, with a nod and a wink.
You may have heard all of that. But all of that is irrelevant.
What is relevant is that Mr. Garcia was living within the jurisdiction of United States and was therefore subject to our laws—all of our laws—when he was taken into custody and deported without a hearing, without any charges filed, without a chance to challenge the assertions leveled against him. Based solely on an anonymous tip, he was designated a member of MS-13 (and thus a “terrorist”) and summarily sent to a notorious gulag in El Salvador.
So, why should we care if an alleged terrorist and gang-banger was “accidentally” deported to one of the worst prisons in the Western Hemisphere? Why should we care if Mr. Garcia didn’t get to mount a defense, to challenge the accusations made against him, to have his day in court?
Why should we care if our government has “cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
Consider this: It was only this February that the Trump administration designated MS-13 as a “terrorist organization,” making members subject (tenuously) to the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. Pursuant to that designation, in March, Mr. Garcia was picked up as an alleged member (and thus, a terrorist), and renditioned without charge or trial to the prison in El Salvador.
Within six weeks, that happened. Also in that time, Mr. Trump has referred to protesters against Elon Musk and Tesla as “domestic terrorists,” and has mused publicly that next he wants to send “home grown” criminals—meaning American citizens—to that same Salvadoran gulag. Do you think, with “the laws all being flat,” that you or I or our outspoken friend or our activist cousin would be allowed our right to due process if we were deemed “terrorists” by this Administration? If anyone—including an American citizen—can be falsely designated a terrorist, would there be any laws left to protect us? Even if that accusation was merely an “administrative error?”
Our Constitution, in its Fourteenth Amendment, guarantees everyone person living within our nation’s jurisdiction—that’s every person, not just every citizen—equal protection under our laws and equal access to due process of those laws.
If it does not apply to Mr. Garcia, the it does not apply to me, and it does not apply to you.
Now, Mr. Garcia may be all or none of the things he’s accused of being. Though I have an opinion, I do not know for sure (and neither do you), because Mr. Garcia has never had a chance to face his accusers to defend himself, and the government has never provided any evidence—inside a courtroom our outside—to prove their assertions.
Mr. Garcia may be the Devil the Trump administration says he is, but I would still give him the benefit of the law.
For my own sake.
k
Kurt R.A. Giambastiani 