Disturbing

I just was reading a few news items before getting ready for work and I came across a Reuters article entitled " Obama more successful on terrorism-security adviser." The blurb accompanying the link was:

WASHINGTON, Aug 31 (Reuters) - The United States is having more success fighting terrorism under President Barack Obama partly because of his "radically different" approach to foreign policy, National security adviser Jim Jones said on Monday."

How disturbing I found the article goes beyond from how wrong I find it for a "reporter" to lead with a quote from a government instead of giving us facts. Instead of engaging in fact-finding and analysis, the mainstream media has become accustomed to telling us "X said this" and "Y said that," giving the impression that each have equal weight. That is not objectivity, that is laziness. So we have what National Security Advisor Jim Jones thinks and what Cheney thinks. One particularly surreal paragraph:

Jones did not, however, counter Cheney's argument that Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to investigate suspected CIA prisoner abuses could have a chilling effect on the work of the intelligence agency.

WHAT???

1. This is not a debate between the administration and Cheney. The man, who had more power than a vp should have in the first place, is now out of office--how is it that what he thinks still makes news?
   
2. There needs to be a chilling effect on the "work" of an intelligence agency that tortures human beings. Credible intelligence does not come from torture; we should not strive to be people who value life so little; and abusing people does nothing to convince them we are human as they are and really gives terrorists an excellent bit of propaganda.

Jones's definition of "success" in "fighting terrorism" is captured by "We are seeing results that indicate more captures, more deaths of radical leaders." Given our history, I'm wondering what kind of evidence and what kind of judicial process is in place before we carry out these executions.

On a related note, Mohammed Jawad--an Afghani teenager who had been held in Guantanamo for seven years without any evidence to make a case against him--was released last week. His confession was thrown out by a military judge who ruled that he confessed because interrogators threatened to kill him and his family if he did not. Definitely there needs to be a "chilling effect."

The cost of war

During primary season, I was a supporter of Dennis Kucinich. One of the major reasons was that I wanted a Department of Peace (in 2008 and 2004 and now). I want to know what is possible outside of the violence we currently operate under. I worry about its effects: on the enemy, on us, on the world. Even in the case of "just" wars and revolutions, somehow even the "right" side always seems to engage in powerful wrongs.

In The Gazette of Colorado Springs, there is a very thought-provoking story. It is about one of costs of war: its effects on our soldiers and, by extension, ourselves. It's a long piece, but I think an important one.

It begins with:

Before the murders started, Anthony Marquez’s mom dialed his sergeant at Fort Carson to warn that her son was poised to kill.

It was February 2006, and the 21-year-old soldier had not been the same since being wounded and coming home from Iraq eight months before. He had violent outbursts and thrashing nightmares. He was devouring pain pills and drinking too much. He always packed a gun.

“It was a dangerous combination. I told them he was a walking time bomb,” said his mother, Teresa Hernandez.

His sergeant told her there was nothing he could do. Then, she said, he started taunting her son, saying things like, “Your mommy called. She says you are going crazy.”

The full story is available at Casualties of War, Part I: The hell of war comes home.

How do you teach peace?

I want to be a pacifist. I'm not there yet, but I want to be. I'm currently reading a biography of Fannie Lou Hamer and am in awe of the nonviolent movement that was waged for voting rights in face of the violence of Mississippi. But I feel the sense of Ida B. Wells's advice "a Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home." The question, I guess, becomes at what cost do you defend your physical life. What spiritual and social costs are there to violence? Honestly I don't know. I suspect that the world will change through peace and through love, not through weapons. I have this idea that violence twists the soul of a people. I have this idea that force does not show who is right, only who is stronger. And maybe just who is alive.

And, like Ida B. Wells, I believe there is something to be said for being alive. Though I'm not quite sure what.

These incoherent musings were sparked by the murder of George Tiller. He was a doctor who provided healthcare to women, including abortions. He performed late-term abortions. He was killed while handing out the service bulletin to parishioners at his church. His assassin was an anti-abortion extremist (check out this article from Time). I originally typed "pro-life extremist," but I corrected it because obviously one who would end a life is not pro-life.

In the wake of the murder, the Attorney General Eric Holder has ordered U.S. Marshals to protect clinics and doctors who provide abortion services (see this article from the Washington Post).

Returning to the subject of this post, I'm just wondering how to build peace and reflecting on a piece by Sonia Sanchez: