How Many Christians Justify Assassination of Iranian General?

Last week the US assassinated an Iranian General, Qasem Soleimani.  My observation is that Americans of almost all political perspectives were not disturbed by the idea of the US Government assassinating (killing or "terminating") someone who is clearly a "bad guy."  In fact, after 9/11, US law permits the preemptive killing of  someone declared a "terrorist."

My question is this:  is it moral?  If, as some say, we are a Christian nation, and, as some say, the 10 Commandments are the basis of our laws, and furthermore, "Thou shall not kill" is one of those commandments and enshrined in law, how do we formulate this (and other) exceptions to that commandment?   We have some theologians who have formulated the "just war" theory.  Our laws allow killing in self-defense.  

But, here we neither have a declared war and we have not heard details of the "imminent threat" that government officials spoke of.

Yet, I suspect a majority of Christians probably are ok with this "termination" of a bad guy.  But shouldn't we explore how we could justify this act in light of "thou shall not kill?"

Grief in Florida

Where does one begin to describe the grief in Florida, where, yet again, evil intent in a man's heart rips again the fragile vale that separates this domain of the living where we dwell and the domain of death?  Lives lost.  Grief unreconciled.  

We've seen evidence of the carnage caused by this evil, sometimes in the hearts of misguided religious fanatics, sometimes in the hearts of others some with serious mental health issues, and others whose motives remain unknown.  In all cases, the evil consumes lives:  lives ended all too soon.  

And the grief spreads.  To families, to friends, to neighbors, colleagues, acquaintances, and those who hear the news.  Are we even at a point when virtually anyone in this land can name someone who died in a mass killing?

Will these horrors go on forever?  Can they be prevented?

Some point to a failure of the FBI to act on information about this perpetrator.  Some point to the need for more security.  Some point to gun control.  In many cases, there may not be definitive actionable information beforehand.  And in most schools there is a good degree of security, but short of armed troupes, could any security stop a well-armed intruder?

Perhaps, 20 to 30 years ago, the political climate allowed politicians to propose and enact "common sense gun control."  Now, this is virtually impossible in the face of a strong anti-gun-control lobby with ties to the current national majority party.  While millions own fire arms without harming others, in the hands of a person possessed by the evil to kill, a fire arm can magnitude that hate and evil within into the consumption of multiple innocent lives.  The weapon may not be inherently evil, but it can certainly magnify the damage of that evil.

I can only speak for myself, but at times I feel frustration and anger.  At those times, I would not want access to a weapon that would magnify that anger.  Better to wait for it to pass.  Better for it to remain no more than a passing series of pulses in the neurons of my brain.

In the end, there are no easy answers.  But we know that light overcomes the darkness.  We need to reach out and reinforces our bonds with family, friends, neighbors and others we come to know.  We need to talk, with open minds, about how to protect the innocent from the hate, anger, and frustration of those who might make manifest the evil within.  We need bolder leadership to lead the way, a leadership that we don't seem to have fostered of late, but perhaps that form of leadership will arise from the grief in Florida.

Trump, Torture, Terrorism and Other Talk

Donald Trump, now the official candidate of the Republican Party, presents a great number of concerns when it comes to sustaining liberty and freedom for all. After such a long primary process, the two major political parties have nominated the two most candidates with the most negatives.   However, where the concerns about Hillary Clinton are more with judgement and some poor decisions made, the concerns with Trump are in the areas of Constitutional rights and even the Geneva Conventions.  

Libertarians cannot support someone who is opposed to the freedoms given to US citizens under our Constitution.  Libertarians cannot support Trump.

Here are some examples that Trump is anti-liberty.

Opposition to Freedom of the Press

When the press has said anything unfavorable to Trump, he has many times said the press is lying or corrupt.  He has called for an end to Freedom of the Press by allowing for libel suits against reporters and news organizations.  This not allowed under the First Amendment.

Trump does not want to play by the rules.  All elected and appointed officials realize that the First Amendment allows the press to say unfavorable things about any public figure.  

Opposition to Freedom of Speech

In many of his rallies, Trump points out someone with a sign opposing him, and he has the person removed, often rallying the crowd to chant something against that person.  According to CNN, Trump has also said, "There used to be consequences to protesting. There are none anymore. These people are so bad for our country, you have no idea, folks."(1)   This attitude goes against the First Amendment.

Again, Trump does not want to play by the rules.  All elected and appointed officials realize that the First Amendment allows the public to say what is on their minds, including saying things unfavorable things about any public figure, and including public protests against officials.

Opposition to Freedom of Religion

Trump at one point has called for both the closing of mosques and registering of all Muslims in the US.  The First Amendment guarantees free exercise of religion.  US citizens who are Muslims have their free exercise of religion.  Closing of places of worship or registering the religion of US citizens is against the constitution!

Trump's War on the Constitution

Trump's oppositions to the First Amendment are just one example of his war on the Constitution.  He proposes many controversial ideas including the wall along the Mexican border and the round-up and deportation of millions of the undocumented, likely without due process of law.  While Trump says he loves the Constitution, that love goes only so far as it doesn't stop him from doing whatever he wants to do.

Recently, Khizr Khan at the Democratic Convention asked Trump if he ever read the Constitution.  I doubt he has.

Trump on Torture and Terrorism

Trump's words on terrorism are most disturbing.  He would bring back waterboarding and worse. (2)  While all of his strongly oppose the barbarian cruelty and deliberate murder by terrorists, Torture is never acceptable.  Period!

Trump also wants to murder the families of terrorists. (3)   This is not only illegal, but also immoral!  When told that General Michael Hayden would refuse to follow illegal orders, Trump came back indicating that they will obey him.  Here, again, Trump is proposing to ignore the Constitution and the law.  

Other Trump Talk

Trump, at a number of times, has said things like "I'd like to punch him." and he'd like to punch a number of speakers at the Democratic Convention.  What kind of candidate advocates violence against individuals who speak critical of him?  Certainly no one who should serve in public life.

Mr. Trump:  You don't understand how we do things in this country!  This is America and we are a free people and we are free to speak, even if you don't like it.  The press have the freedom to print the news as they see it, even if you don't like it.  And American citizens have the freedom to express their religions beliefs, even if they are Muslims.  And we live by the rule of law.

If you don't want to live by our Constitution and the laws of the land, I say, Mr. Trump, get with the constitution or get out of the country!  You are not an American!!

References:

(1) http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/12/opinions/defend-trump-free-speech-opinion-randazza/

(2) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02/17/donald-trump-on-waterboarding-torture-works/

(3) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-reiterates-desire-to-murder-terrorists-families-a6912496.html

The Controversary of the Islamic Center in Lower Manhattan

The BBC posted a news story (Obama under fire for Ground Zero mosque defense) on Facebook today on the controversy over the Islamic center proposed in lower Manhattan. It got my attention as I was finishing up my lunch break.

First, it's not a mosque that is proposed, but a community center.

But, what got me were the mounting number of comments, many against Obama's position, with a good number that were anti-Islam, some trying to paint the whole religion with the blood of those killed by 19 terrorists and their supporters. To me, there is a clear boundary between the terror attacks on our nation and Islam.

As an unapologetic supporter of Constitutional rights, including our wonderful freedom of religion, I just had to leave a comment:

"Why do so many Americans want to just give up our freedoms like religion? Do they want to give victory to the terrorists? Are they not proud to be freedom loving citizens of the US? I'm for freedom of religion and I don't care if it's an unpopular view! On this issue Obama is right."

Attacks on Freedom from the Right

As a Libertarian, I have learned there is more to fear from conservatives attacking our basic freedoms enshrined in the US Constitution than from liberals. Conservatives are more likely to talk up small government and personal freedom (and “sound” libertarian), and then advocate government enforcement of their which often includes the expansion of government power, be it by snooping into our libraries and phone calls (with the Patriot Act) or even into a woman’s womb (with their anti-choice agenda).

Libertarians have to call out the conservatives on two recent proclamations:

1. Glen Beck claiming he knows better than you what religion or congregation you should belong to; and
   
2. Lynne Cheney’s attack on the patriotism of lawyers defending detainees as provided for in the law of this land.

Glen Beck’s Attack on Freedom of Religion.
This one has me steaming! Recently Glen Beck ask his audience to leave their congregation if the words “social justice” or “economic justice” are used. He said: “I beg you, look for the words ’social justice’ or ‘economic justice’ on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words.”

While I support his freedom to say anything he likes, I don’t want anyone – in government or in the media (like Mr. Beck) – telling me ANYTHING about how I should practice my religion!!

No one has the right to tell me which religion to believe in or which house of worship or congregation to attend! The First Amendment to the US Constitution may only talk about Congress not making any law to prohibit the free exercise of religion; I take it as my personal right that I am the one and only person who decides what I believe in and where I choose to go to practice this religion. No one who believes America is the land of Freedom should be letting someone like Mr. Beck tell them how to practice religion!

Lynne Cheney’s Attack on Defense Lawyers
The implication of these attacks by Keep America Safe was to question the patriotism of lawyers that would defend detainees who were accused of being terrorists. There was another issue that lawyers who defended detainees should be “outed” if they want a government position.

Here’s thing: Amendment 6 of the US Constitution guarantees the right of a defendant to have counsel at trial. Even in a military trial (as were the cases in question), there is also the right for counsel. Within the legal profession, there is a tradition that no lawyer is looked down upon for defending an unpopular defendant.

And there are plenty of unpopular defendants accused of despicable crimes. There are mass murderers, serial rapists, organized crime, kingpins, pedophiles, and other despicable criminals. But when they go on trial, they all have a right under the laws of this land to defense counsel. From the time of John Adams providing defense counsel to British soldiers accused of murder in the Boston Massacre, the tradition is not to look down upon those who defend unpopular defendants.

And we need this right to prevent government tyranny. Without a trial system where the government has to prove its case, it would be all to easy to trump up a case against anyone it didn't like or considered an "enemy." If they do that to detainees or alleged terrorists today, they could do that to you and me tomorrow!

Even in this post-9/11 world, we have to preserve our freedoms and the American way. Conservatives seem to need an "enemy" to validate their policies. Libertarians make no such distinctions. Today's terrorist could be tomorrow's patriot. Today's enemy can be tomorrow's friend. Therefore, equality under the law for all.

So, why do some conservatives think detainees are so more evil or threatening than mass murderers, serial rapists, pedophiles, or even the British soldiers accused of the Boston Massacre (all of whom are allowed defense counsel)? Terrorists are not the only ones out there who want to deprive us of life and liberty. There's plenty of criminals with the same aim!

Yet it seems part of some conservative agenda to fully demonize detainees and terrorists to the point that they should have absolutely no rights and do not deserve legal counsel. Then pile it on by promoting guilt by association: anyone who would assist these terrorists is therefore not patriotic.

My point here is to quote the conservative mantra of the ‘60s and ‘70s” Law and Order. If the laws of the land guarantee legal counsel for detainees in military trials, then they should have counsel and any lawyer providing that service is acting within the law and should not be disparaged. If some conservatives don’t like the law, well, then work to change the law! But we must obey the laws as they are! And don’t attach those who are providing a necessary role as prescribed by law.

What to Do About Air Travel?

The close call in the thwarted bombing attempt of Northwest Airlines Flight 253 over Detroit woke us from our slumber of complacency about the safety of air travel in this age of terrorist attacks on civilians.

Once again, the terrorists have succeeded in creating fear and apprehension with the American public.

And once again, a terrorist had a plan that was one step ahead of the imagination of the bureaucrats of Homeland Security, who often impress me as lacking in a solid understanding of the laws of physics. Their methods have always mixed "planning for the last attack attempt" with putting adherence to politically-correct procedures ahead of proven effective methods.

What Went Wrong?

1. The perpetrator was known as a potential threat, but was not on the “no fly” list.
2. Instead of hiding the materials in his shoe or carry-on, it was hidden in his clothes.

As with 9/11 and the "shoe bomber," the terrorist was one step about security procedures. And the lack of communication among agencies is as still a problem today as it was on 9/11.

What To Do?
First, look at what works.

• Once in the air, only one method has thwarted the attempts of terrorists: the intervention of passengers and/or crew. The score is 3-3 and in all 3 "thwarts" passengers and/or crew stepped up.
• Israli security experts agree: screening technology alone doesn't work; interviewing and even profiling must complement screening techniques.

Second, what could be implemented? Here's a couple of easy ones.

• The success of in-flight intervention is a call for marshals on at least selected flights if not all of them.
• Any person of concern, even if not on the "no fly" list, should only be allowed on flights with marshals.

The issues of screening and profiling comes up against issues of personal liberty. The whole approach of screening everyone inherently reeks of "guilty unto proven innocent" which runs counter to the basis of constitutional rights and the basic principles of libertarianism.

Still, the terrorists have many Americans afraid enough to say "screen me" and I'll feel safe. The sad thing is not only is the evident of the erosion of our constitutional rights, but in reality even full body scans won't make us safe.

It doesn't take much imagination to see that the terrorists will come up with some way to fool even full body scans. In the prisons they have strip searches, but it does not reveal contraband hid in body cavities. It takes not much imagination that on a suicide mission, the body could be the bomb.

So, what to do?

Here are my thoughts on a broad spectrum approach:

1. Business travel needs to migrate more to private aircrafts. Likewise, vacation travel should migrate more to charter flights. It's much harder for a terrorist to "blend in" on these types of flights, often where everyone knows who belongs and who doesn't.
   
2. Internationally, make less enemies. The Bush Administration raised the ire of most of the world's governments and citizens. A more reasonable approach will reduce the number of people who hate the US. It won't completely solve the problem, but let's not help add to the ranks of the terrorists by our arrogant foreign policy.
   
3. For the fewer commercial flights (after implementing #1 above), integrate a program that mixes screening technology, with knowledge-based interviewing of passengers, some random-based interviewing, all based on an improved sharing of information.
   
4. Within Homeland Security, there needs to be more technically savvy staff (engineers and scientists) who can try to be a step ahead of the terrorists.
   
   

Slow Closure for Prisons That Detain Suspected Terrorists

Despite President Obama’s commitment to close prisons holding detainees suspected to be terrorists, the closure of such facilities is coming along quite slowly. Under the Bush Administration, detaining suspected terrorists without charges was par for the course. The hope was that under an Obama Administration, these facilities would be expeditiously closed. But, closures have been slow coming.

The closures were hoped to end the practices that violated the international standards of human rights and much of what the US stands for as a land of freedom and due process of law. The torture and abuse of prisons in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq was well documented. Also infamous was the practice of “outsourcing” detention and torture known as extraordinary rendition. But lesser known cases of abuse and torture occurred in other military detention facilities such as Camp Bucca in Iraq, which finally closed in September 2009.

Still, other detention facilities remain open. One of the unresolved issues involves where to move the most dangerous of the suspects.

Granted, individuals suspected of being terrorists or plotting acts of terrorism, or supporting known terrorists, should be detained. It’s the practice of rounding up anyone who might be a terrorist that violates the spirit of law and due process.

As long as America still operates these facilities, we are not the nation founded on basic human rights that we proclaim to be.

Cheney Still At It

Last week, President Barack Obama and former Vice President Dick Cheney presented two divergent view of the interrogation of suspected terrorists. While our President is calling for an end of anything that could be considered torture, the former Vice President advocated for "enhanced interrogations." Cheney claimed that these techniques were legal and have saved lives. He even defended the use of waterboarding.

But the issue is not about effectiveness or legality, it is about what America we want to be. Are we to be a nation that employs interrogation methods like waterboarding, something I would consider to be torture?

Or are we to be the beacon of freedom and justice to the world? Why should we employ torture in the cause of freedom and justice? It makes no sense to me.

I can only conclude that Mr. Cheney has been seduced by the "dark side." In how many stories, historic and fiction, do we see a leader advocate oppressive means to protect the freedom of the people?

Our President is right. We must say "no" to torture!

Rendition Revisited -- Update

The trial opened but the Obama Justice Dept. has kept to the Bush line regarding maintaining secrecy.

Most disappointing.

Some in the media have excused this as being too soon for new administration to implement policy changes.

But where's that change we can count on?

Rendition Revisited?

How will the Obama administration redress the human rights violations of the Bush Administration's policy of extraordinary rendition?

Today’s New York Times reports a hearing next week in San Francisco regarding a lawsuit filed on behalf of five detainees against Jeppesen Dataplan, a subsidiary of the Boeing Company, that arranged rendition flights that delivered detainees to nations where they were later tortured.

In the article, it states:

“The suit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union in the Federal District Court in San Francisco in May 2007. It was dismissed last February after the Bush administration asserted the ‘state secrets privilege,’ claiming that the disclosure of information in the case could damage national security.

"In the appeal, to be heard Monday by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the civil liberties union argues that the government has engaged in an inappropriate blanket use of the privilege and that the case should be allowed to proceed.”

So, will the Obama administration end this blanket use of the claim of state secrets? Will there be positive movement by this administration in breaking from the past administration’s use of rendition leading to “out-sourced” torture? Let’s hope that change has come.

Reference: “Claims of Torture Abroad Face Test Monday in Court,” New York Times, February 6, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/us/politics/06torture.html?ref=todayspaper

Violence in India: Why?

The doldrums of these lame-duck days were rudely interrupted by the ten terrorist attacks in the Indian city of Mumbai. At hotels, a café, a hospital, the railway station and other locations, innocent people were shot, bombs and grenades exploded, fires set and hostages taken. Nearly 200 are dead, nearly 400 injured.

But why? Why?

In time, we may learn the political aims of the terrorists who undertook this carnage. But, no political goal can justify this intentional attack with the intent to kill hundreds of innocent human beings.

How can a human being become so devoid of his own humanity to undertake such horrible deeds?

During World War II, Hitler killed millions. And the world cried “Never again!”

But these abhorred crimes against humanity go on, not only in Mumbai, but in Pakistan and the Middle East, Africa, Asia, America……….

Why? Why?

Extraordinary Rendition

Extraordinary Rendition: the apprehension of a person on suspicion of charges and deportation to another country, typically without any trial or finding of guilt.

Since 9/11, the CIA has been linked to the rendering of hundreds of incidents of extraordinary rendition. Individuals suspected either of being terrorists or of aiding and abetting terrorist organizations were deported to countries including Syria, Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, and Uzbekistan.

Two weeks ago, a story of one such case was featured on Fresh Air (on NPR). An innocent man, Maher Arar, a telecommunications engineer with dual Canadian and Syrian citizenship, was deported to a Syrian prison on suspicion of being connected with terrorism. His crime: he had rented an apartment listing as a reference a person allegedly linked to a terrorist group.

Thanks to extraordinary rendition, the government, like Pontius Pilate, can keep its hands clean. Leave it to the Republicans to outsource torture!

There is a time, not so long ago, when it would be unheard of that America would deport someone to a foreign nation to be imprisoned and tortured.

In the case of Mr. Arar, he was tortured and imprisoned for nearly one year. He was released due protests by his wife and a Canadian government determination that he was not connected with any terrorists.

We’ve seen the Bush administration after 9/11 use fear of terrorism to enact erosion of our constitutional rights. Now even American citizens making international calls may find there conversations being listed to by the Feds on an unwarranted wiretap. And God help you if you are an American citizen of Middle Eastern background and your name is the same as, or similar to, someone on the “no fly” list.

But of all these attacks on the constitution, which is no less than the erosion of what our nation once stood for as a beacon of freedom, extraordinary rendition is perhaps the most grievous offence.

For anyone who loves liberty, the preservation of basic human rights is utmost. And the depravation of life or liberty without due process of law violates basic human rights. On this point, I believe that Libertarians and other who cherish freedom should never have to apologize.

Also, it is a clear violation of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment to return people to their home country if there is reason to believe they will be tortured.

The Administration talks about how Saddam was evil for using torture and imprisonment. They say the same about Iran, Syria, North Korea and other nations who “support the terrorists.” Yet the same Administration is responsible for exporting someone merely suspected of being a terrorists to one of the very nations they condemn.

Yes, at the RNC, speakers made fun of those who would grant due process to suspected terrorists. But we must reply that the Republicans are simply wrong on this point. No threat is so great that we should sanction torture by our forces or by others through extraordinary rendition.

What of our presidential candidates?

The “old” John McCain -- himself tortured as a prisoner of war -- used to speak boldly against any use of torture, and he did recommit to rejecting torture in last night's presidential debate. Still, after the RNC rhetoric, I can’t be sure that the “new” McCain still talks the talk. Barack Obama has also opposed torture, but does not have the gut distaste of torture that the "old" McCain had.

But with either candidate, change is likely.

The Change We Need

Our next President must reject the Bush administration’s actions that permitted imprisonment without charges, torture and extraordinary rendition. With these policies, we have become that which we most deplore! How can the US differentiate itself from the terrorists and states that sponsor terrorism if the US allows these practices?

Granted, the terrorists’ threat is real. As I write, there are those that would attack us here at home or abroad. But in our efforts to stop the terrorists, our government cannot stoop to violating human rights. Period.

For an overview of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture