Defeat or Victory???

facebook is great for quick comments but sometimes “What’s on your mind?” needs a few more words than facebook allows. That’s the case today!

The US media is full of the results of the trial of Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani. For those who have forgotten – or don’t watch TV - Ghailani is the 36-year-old Tanzanian from Zanzibar who was reported to be Osama Bin Laden’s cook/driver. He was accused of 285 counts of assorted terrorism linked to the 1998 Al Qaeda bomb attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that killed 224 people. A US civilian court cleared him of almost every charge except that of conspiracy. This alone carries a 20-year jail term.

The pundits are now calling this a defeat for President Obama's drive to prosecute Guantanamo prisoners in American courts and calling for future trials in Military Tribunals. Others are suggesting that because Military Tribunals are also prohibited from recognizing evidence obtain by torture (or should I say, “enhanced interrogation”) there should be no future trails at all. Presumably, detainees, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-professed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, should just languish in cages at Guantanamo forever.

What some call “a rare defeat for the U.S. Attorney's Office in New York, which has a near perfect record in prosecuting terrorism cases”, is to me, a victory for the US justice system. The mark of a great society is not how it treats the privileged. It is how it treats its criminals and those condemned by society. A Federal jury found Ghailani guilty! The system worked! That is why I am so worried by the thought that those currently detained in cages in Guantanamo, Bagrhan Air Base or the “secret prisons” like those suspected to exist on Diego Garcia, might never have an opportunity for justice or to face their accusers. If that happens, then we are no better than the people we call terrorists.

Back in 1215 Magna Carta included the clause that “No Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land”. This was extended to the concept of habeas corpus and is a foundation of all civilized legal systems. It protects you and me from being detained at the whim of the powerful. Our current government has continued the deception of the previous administration by claiming that habeas corpus does not apply to “enemy combatants” in a time of war. This “war” has been longer than WWI, WWII, or the Viet Nam War. There is no end in sight – or even a clear definition of what constitutes victory! We have made a war out of what was a major crime and awarded military status to criminals.

One of the first rules of “problem solving” is to correctly frame the problem. Our government framed 9/11 as a “war” rather than a criminal mass murder. It was our first and biggest mistake. For me, bringing Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani back to a criminal court was a step on the path back to sanity. A guilty verdict and 20-year minimum sentence from a free court was a victory for justice. It was proof that these people are not soldiers or martyrs. They are simply common criminals.

I should have ended on the last sentence, but I fear for my adopted country. Given the recent election results I fear the administration will take the easy route – and continue with the status quo: an unending and unwinnable war. That war will continue to rob us of our bravest and best, increase our debt and abandon the image that “the great communicator” once proclaimed the USA to be; “a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here”.

Too Much Information . . . .

According to family lore our ancestor, John Malcolm Andrews came to Northern Ireland from Stirling, in Scotland early in the 1700s. He settled to the west of Belfast near Andersonstown and worked in the linen industry. Most of those Scottish immigrants were Presbyterian and they suffered the same discrimination as their Catholic neighbors because they were not members of the "established" Church of Ireland. In fact, many Ulster Presbyterians joined with Catholic Irish to form the United Irishmen and were leaders in the 1798 rebellion. That uprising, like so many Irish rebellions failed. Again, family gossip whispers that one almost forgotten ancestor was hanged as a rebel near Carrickfergus. The "respectable" side of the family stayed close to west Belfast and the linen industry. The 1911 Census of Ireland tells the story of the end of one branch the Andrews family line. This heir had no sons and the Andrews name ended when his six daughters married or died.

(Larger version: http://picasaweb.google.com/plummerspixels/PlummersPixels?authkey=Gv1sRgCO7Wpdygp6OvUA#5404859596594892370 )

On the evening of Sunday, April 2, 1911 Malcolm Andrews, his second wife Jane, and two of his unmarried daughters were at home in Braemar Street, Belfast. Georgina, his third unmarried daughter was visiting her married twin-sister Elizabeth Scott for the night. She is recorded on that family's census form. His other two married daughters Margaret Shanks and Mary Glencross are listed with their families under their married names. Those census forms tell more than who lived where that night almost 100 years ago. That census also records the jobs they held. John Malcolm Andrews' descendents were still tied to the linen industry in 1911. According to the form my grandmother Sarah was a linen weaver. Aunt Georgie was a damask weaver. Aunt Edie was a machinist (she was a "spoke stitcher"), and the majority of Aunt Mary's family also worked in the linen mills. That's not too surprising as almost ten percent of Belfast's population was engaged in the textile industry, people didn't venture too far from home and very, very few had the opportunity to advance from manual labor to a profession.

Those old census forms also show that some things don't change. Great grandfather Malcolm recorded his daughters' jobs simply as Weaver and Machinist. He also recorded that his wife was 62 years old. It took bureaucracy, in the form of Constable Robert Lynch to provide the additional information that Sarah was a linen weaver and Edith was a blouse machinist. And, I am sure that Constable Lynch received a frosty farewell from Great grandma Jane and a cold welcome thereafter when he changed her age from 62 to 65.

Learning to love The Bomb

For the past few days we have been bombarded by a revelation from our “intelligence” agency that Iran has another facility that can be used to develop a nuclear weapon. As expected, Iran has denied this facility has aggressive intents and claiming is has only peaceful purposes. Coupled with this denial is an almost schoolboy attitude from Teheran suggesting, “So what; we’re a free country; you can’t tell us what to do”. On the other side we have “experts” suggesting that a military option to destroy this facility might be a reasonable response to this “provocation”. Coming from nations who already have nuclear weapons our schoolboys are in effect saying, “You are not like us. We can be trusted with this power – you can’t.” Some older folks with long memories might find certain hypocrisy in this position.

There is a very good reason why we call nuclear bombs “weapons of mass destruction”. Other military actions can kill more people (for example, mass firebombing a city) but a nuclear bomb concentrates that force in a single package. A few such bombs can change the course of history. A few bombs change the way nations must treat each other. We see this in the relations between the West and Russia during the 50 years of “Cold War”. We see it in the delicate relations between India and Pakistan even in the face of the recent massacre in Mumbai by terrorists based in Pakistan. At the heart of this delicacy is a belief that nuclear weapons bring the potential for Mutual Assured Destruction – if you destroy me then rest assured that I will also destroy you.

We conveniently forget that Israel already has The Bomb. Israel neither admits nor denies that it has nuclear weapons but their possession is a generally regarded “public secret”. The US has declassified documents indicating it was convinced Israel had nuclear weapons as early as 1975. There are no public records stating how many warheads Israel has now but it is likely to be a significant number. Israel also has a viable delivery system. The Israeli air force is justifiably considered one of the best in the world. Dropping a nuclear bomb in the general vicinity of Teheran, Qom, Shiraz or any other large Iranian town is definitely within their capabilities. I have no doubt that this simple fact has not escaped the attention of Iran’s president, its religious leaders and the majority of its people.

It was widely reported that Nikita Khrushchev threatened to “bury the US”. We cleverly recognized this as hyperbole and continued diplomatic relations with the Russian Premier. We seem incapable of recognizing hyperbole in speeches by Middle Eastern leaders. This is unfortunate because hyperbole is common in those cultures – surely we have not forgotten the “mother of all battles”?

Is Iran seeking a bomb? I expect it is; not because it wants to obliterate Israel but because they probably believe it will bring a level of security and new respect. Both of these are likely to be illusory but if the only policy we have is to isolate Iran then it is not too surprising that they continue act like defiant schoolboys. As for Israel’s security, perhaps they need to recall a key concept from the movie Dr. Strangelove. The whole point - of the doomsday machine is lost...if you keep it a secret! WHY DIDN'T YOU TELL THE WORLD?!

Pandora's Box - 2009

In Greek mythology we are told that Zeus gave Pandora a large jar with instructions not to open it. But, Pandora had also been given the gift of curiosity. Pandora opened the jar. When she did, all of the evils, ills, diseases, and burdensome labor that mankind had not known previously, escaped from the jar. No one has ever been able to put those afflictions back in the box. As I listen to the disclosures about the torture and interrogation techniques that my government has done in my name, supposedly to keep me safe, I am reminded of the story of Pandora.

Since records began they tell the appalling story of torture. A tour of the Tower of London is incomplete without an inspection of the instruments used in Medieval England to obtain information. Similar establishments can be visited in most European capitals and the Spanish Inquisition is synonymous with use of horrific techniques to encourage reluctant suspects to confirm their accusers’ suspicions – regardless of the veracity of those suspicions. For a time, it seemed that human civilization might be advancing because many states, USA included, denounced the use of torture. This hope was reinforced when State sponsored oppression by those of the Gestapo and the Kempi Tai were tried for war crimes after World War II. But the belief that torture is an effective technique in getting information seems impossible to rebut. Torture was as widespread among the right-wing regimes in South America as it was among the left wing governments in Eastern Europe. Now, the contagion has spread into the policies of our democracy.

Of course, we Americans don’t torture. We secure prisoners in “stress positions” – maybe like those in the engraving here that I copied from an early 18th century book on Christian martyrs. We “simulate” drowning and threaten prisoners’ mothers or children. We do this all in the name of protecting democracy, freedom of speech and the American dream. But does it bring any security?

Torture is often justified by the “ticking bomb” scenario. This supposes that the authorities know that a prisoner possesses information that can save large numbers of innocent people from imminent destruction. This is the ultimate “end justifies the means” situation: a situation that can be used by every petty bureaucrat (and even our recent Vice President.) It is also a justification that can turn torture into a normal and accepted procedure. We now face a real danger that bureaucrats will see torture as just another interrogation technique to be routinely used to make sure that “nothing is missed”. It could even lead to a situation where bureaucrats who fail to order torture might be accused of failing to use all reasonable methods to safeguard the public.

There was one good gift in Pandora's Box - hope. I hope we might have a way to banish the evil of torture from our nation. That way is to repudiate the evil that has been done in our name and to deny that the “end can ever justify the means” especially when those means are the antithesis of everything we hold valuable. We need to apply the same legal standards to those who participated in these violations of civilized behavior as we did in 1945. We need to guarantee that authorizing or using torture will end the career of ay bureaucrat who even considers it.

Granddaughters

During the past four years we have watched our grandson grow from a tiny baby into an inquisitive, intelligent and confident little boy. Almost a year ago his sister came into the world and again we watched in amazement as a totally different character formed. Then, just three months ago, we were blessed with another granddaughter. Daphne lives closer so we can marvel at the almost daily development of her little personality. Maybe the presence of these young ladies in my life has made me more sensitive to reports of violence against women. Whatever the reason, these reports are a common theme recently.

The first report to catch my ear was on the radio as I was driving to work. The commentator explained that current economic turmoil is increasing the stresses inside many US families. A sign of this stress is an increase in the number of reports of domestic violence and assaults against women. The second nudge was from a totally different source – a photography magazine. There is a reference to Joyce Tenneson in the current issue of Shutterbug. It is illustrated by some posters from her portraits each with the slogan, “When violence against women stops, I will . . . . . .” The subjects’ hopes are usually something most men take for granted, like “I will be able to walk alone”. The latest nudge was a television program about the Taliban restrictions on women in Pakistan. Two little girls showed their school – or rather what remained of their school after those “students of religious knowledge” destroyed it. The father of one girl observed that the goal of this destruction was to chain his daughter’s mind. That statement seared my consciousness because just a few days earlier I took this photograph of one of my favorite bookworms. She may be sitting on the ground but there are no chains on her mind or imagination. They are off with the story in that book. She is flying totally free from the grey world around.

Sadly, even in the USA not everything is wonderful. This bookworm and my granddaughters will face dangers close to home as they get older. It is estimated that domestic partners assault between 2 million and 4 million US women every year. About 25 percent of the female population will be abused in their lifetime. Violence against women is a serious crime in most countries. Yet even in the US there is a perverted belief in some circles that it can be acceptable and even understandable male behavior. I don’t have an answer to that stupidity except more education – especially fathers educating their sons that violence towards women is always a sign of an impotent coward. Maybe we also need to add a dose of public ridicule to the criminal punishment of abusers. The fear of ridicule by one’s friends and neighbors is a great deterrent and a powerful force for changing male conduct. Ridicule might even highlight the moral bankruptcy of the Taliban and lead to faster changes in their behavior than current political policies (which only seem to bring them more recruits).

I also admit I just do not understand how any person who beats women can claim to be a “man”. It is certainly not Christian conduct. Regardless of religion, at a fundamental level, it is simply uncivilized. Maybe that is the answer. Those who abuse women are just not civilized and certainly not honorable. I have no difficulty accepting that description for the Taliban. Honesty also forces me to accept the same description for many of my countrymen. That realization means I, and anyone else reading this, must always be vigilant to make sure all our daughters and granddaughters can grow in freedom so that violence is never a part of their lives.

Changing attitudes – or just changing words??

I always enjoy going to church at Christmastime. The familiar Bible stories bring a lump to my throat and I love to sing the carols that I learnt when I was a child. Nobody has ever accused me of being a tuneful singer but that doesn’t stop me from belting out those familiar words – and therein lies a problem. Those familiar words just aren’t familiar any longer. The language in some of my favorite hymns has been rendered “gender neutral”. Last Sunday, we sang that old favorite “Hark the Herald Angels Sing”. I haven’t needed to refer to a hymnal for those words since I was about eight years old. So, there I was, singing “pleased as man with man to dwell” while the choir and most of the congregation sang “pleased with us in flesh to dwell”. At least we both agreed that Jesus was “our Emmanuel”.

Another of my favorite hymns is the old Irish classic, “Be Thou my Vision”. Again, I learnt the words of that hymn many, many years ago and in today’s material world the original phrase “Riches I heed not, nor man's empty praise” always make me stop and think about the motivation for my actions. Nowadays, the hymnal reads, “Riches I heed not, nor vain empty praise”. Removing the focus from the source of that empty praise has, in my humble opinion, dramatically weakened that stanza – and the struggle for the right motive for service.

As I formulated my usual silent tirade about people who see problems where none exist and change what is not broken I started to wonder if maybe I was the one who was insensitive. Are there women who see mainstream Christianity as inherently sexist, dominated by the masculine gender and discriminating against anything feminine? Is my attitude to these changes an example that “I don’t get it?” If so, maybe I am equally insensitive to other forms of discrimination. I am a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant. I am over 6 foot 3 inches tall. I was blessed with reasonable intelligence, was brought up by loving parents, went to collage, got married and have been reasonably successful in careers. All these attributes and experiences must tinge my attitudes. Can I really understand the situation of people of color, short people, Roman Catholics in Ireland, those without education or a job? There are lots of “shoes” I have not walked in and I suppose lots of attitudes and opinions that I don't (or can’t?) really understand.

So, as 2009 starts, my first resolution is to try not to react when change comes - especially to those things I consider should be carved in stone. I admit that I will have a hard time un-learning some of that "sexist" language in those old hymns. But, if any of my readers suspect that maybe my opinions or attitude in other areas might also be due for a change, just drop a gentle hint into the conversation – maybe a code word - like “Luddite”

thoughts on Veterans' Day

Tomorrow is the anniversary of the armistice that ended the horrors of World War One. At the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month the guns fell silent. Since then, November 11 has been set aside as a day to remember all those who gave their lives in the armed forces for our freedoms. In UK, people mark that day by wearing a red paper poppy. (The poppy thrived in the soil between the trenches of Flanders that was torn up by bombs and shells. It was adopted as the symbol of the horrors of War.) That tradition is still strong. On the way to the airport in Tokyo today I saw several westerners wearing poppies in the lapels of their business suits. Here in the US we will celebrate “Veterans Day” to remember those who served for our freedoms. There will be ceremonies and maybe even parades, but often the focus will be on “past” wars. It is easy to remember the “acceptable” conflicts of WW II, Korea, and nowadays, even Viet Nam. Those wars are safe. The conflict has ended, the pain is past and the horrors are safely confined to movies and television documentaries.That is not true of the present conflict in Iraq.

On a recent visit to Calgary I noticed that the flags at the airport were flying at half-staff. It was not a special holiday and the newspapers had no reports that an eminent citizen had died. The reason was that a member of the Canadian armed services who had been killed overseas was returning home. I confess that I thought this was a “nice” gesture and continued on my way. Tonight I watched a TV report about how the ordinary Canadian people pay their respects to Canada’s fallen. The article made me compare the way Canada acknowledges its fallen with the air of secrecy that surrounds the sacrifice by the US forces. Here, we are regularly informed about numbers. The trouble is (or maybe the point is) we are immune to numbers. An article that four soldiers were killed by an IED evokes no response. The sight of those four bodies returning home, four flag draped coffins, grieving families, distraught children and the effect this has on four different communities might make us appreciate the full cost of this futile war.

We rightly ridicule government attempts to stifle news and feed propaganda to its citizens. When that is our government’s policy and it also negates the full sacrifice of our fallen, it is unconscionable.

I memorized this verse at school in the 50s when the horrors of WWII were still visible in Europe. My teacher was an "old" lady. She probably shared in the sacrifices of WW I. The thoughts it expresses are still applicable to the heroes of today.

They shall not grow old as we that are left grow old,
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.

“For the Fallen”
Laurence Binyon (1869-1943),