dagblog - Comments for "Pvt. Brad Manning: Seven Months of Solitary So Far"

Brilliantly stated. Please

SleepinJeezus — Sat, 25 Dec 2010 11:26:52 +0000

In reply to WikiLeaks is a battle and not

Brilliantly stated. Please stick around. I suspect we could benefit greatly from regularly hearing your voice hear at dagblog. (Great blog, too, St. Peter II) Thanks for this.

(In response to Trope as

SleepinJeezus — Sat, 25 Dec 2010 11:12:41 +0000

In reply to I'm trying to understand what

(In response to Trope as promised, above) Background:

"I'm not suggesting that we limit our pursuit of justice as fundamental political enterprise, only that we temper it with the acknowledgement that we are afterall humans, and prone to misinterpretations."

................................

"I just feel we are always just a slip away in an interpretation of what Justice is from becoming something truly ugly and unjust as a nation. The one thing that will save us is our humility about our powers to interpret."

Justice "just is." It's a Universal truth that is not open to "interpretation." It is a fundamental part of humanity. Again, as Joad admits in his "I'll be there" speech, it isn't anything he can easily put into words, yet he knows what it is - and the listener knows it, as well. It is a principle that rests within our "One Big Soul" and can't be shaken or diminished or compromised.

Humility that allows for any "interpretation" of Justice is, in my opinion, a very dangerous premise from which to negotiate our way in this world.

Where we differ, I think, is that what you call "misinterpretation" I see instead as "the lies we tell ourselves."

Each and every one of us knows when an injustice has been visited upon us as individuals. It's not misinterpreted (or even "interpreted" for that matter!). It is felt as an insult against us. Even the smallest slight is FELT, and we react emotionally with anger or sorrow or despair.

What is required to advance the cause of Justice for others is to cleanse ourselves of our ego and place ourselves as fully as possible in the shoes of another. We must be able to feel the injustice suffered by another; to "experience" that injustice as it is felt by that other person. And we must accept that we have no right to inflict upon another such injustice as we would not welcome for ourself.

Christianity pretty well establishes this as its basic precept. Virtually everything Christ taught can be refined into two "moral imperatives" that mirror one another:

"Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me."

and

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

You are welcome to attempt to dismiss this as an example of "cultural bias" or simply one interpretation of Justice. And you could easily show that these teachings were subsequently corrupted and used to found a religion, and that such an enterprise almost by definition debases Justice by creating a cult or a clan that attempts to exert power and supremacy over others. (This is a topic for another day.)

But you cannot subvert or dismiss the teachings as outlined above. They are universal truths we each hold in our "little piece of the Big Soul" as Joad calls it, regardless how you might define the "me" addressed in the first lesson.

You provide some interesting examples of "incidents in history (across cultures or in any circumstance) where the pursuit of Justice has in fact resulted in an unjust outcome" as I requested. I thank you for this, and recognize it is a great challenge to defend such a statement in light of these examples, most of which I anticipated when I issued the challenge. I will attempt to address each of these here

Death Penalty

The Death Penalty is an abomination for too many reasons to get into here. It is never exercised in pursuit of Justice, but rather vengeance instead. Steinbeck's Tom Joad did not eschew violence in pursuit of Justice ("Wherever there's a cop beating up a guy, I'll be there..."), but it's impossible to imagine him rushing in pursuit of Justice to pull the switch on a defenseless human being who is lashed to an electric chair.

Justice and vengeance are often misconstrued as two sides of the same coin. But I think we can begin to understand the magnificent distinction between the two in the teachings of Bishop Desmond Tutu and his work guiding the "Truth and Reconciliation Commission."

Gitmo

Crimes committed against not only the moral precepts outlined above but even in violation of the Magna Carta, the Constitution, the United Nations, and the rest of civilization are simply indefensible. They most certainly do not stand as an example of humanity in pursuit of Justice. Indeed, Justice screams for intervention on its behalf to eliminate such abuses as occur at Gitmo and other "black sites" throughout the world, yet we willfully ignore such entreaties and choose instead to declare other social priorities to be dominant.

The "slippery slope" this "prioritizing" creates in a downward spiral into fascism can perhaps best be shown by the fact we are now at a place where the assassination of a U.S. citizen on foreign soil is contemplated as a policy debate; where Private Manning (A U.S. citizen) can be held in torturous conditions beyond reach of the Rule of Law to preserve and protect his Constitutional Rights; and where the secrecy of state is deemed sacrosanct, even in its efforts to avoid being held to account for crimes committed against humanity. These things would have all been deemed impossible to even imagine in a society in which Justice was accorded full respect and deference. And it's not so very long ago that we would have deigned it impossible for our own United States of America to sanction such actions we know to be unjust. Bush/Cheney changed all that. And Obama/Holder have doubled-down on it.

Salem Witch Trials; Spanish Inquisition; lynchings; etc.

These incidents fall within the category of "lies we tell ourselves." In some cases, it is once again vengeance parading as Justice. In others, it is the clan expressing supremacy and exerting control over others.

In every case, however, we see how Justice is in fact contravened if we pull ourselves back and place ourselves in the shoes of the victims. No rational human being can place themself in the place of the accused witch or the "heathen non-believer" or the man with the noose around his neck and not experience the injustice of the depravations being visited against them. Would Tom Joad cast his lot with the Spanish in their tribunal against infidels ? Would he be lighting fires beneath the witches at Salem? Would he be part of the mob's call for the death of another for ANY reason?

We know, intuitively, that he would not. His humanity - his "common soul" - would not allow it. Only if he were able to lie to himself and supplant vengeance for Justice or suffer the corruption of exercising personal supremacy in place of his belief in Justice would Joad be found in the camp of the oppressors and not the oppressed.

Rather than stand as exceptions, these examples reinforce the notion of Justice as an inherent "truth" that is not open for interpretation.

Vigilantism

These are cases that create great angst among those who pursue Justice. It presents situations where Justice and vengeance are perhaps most closely identified as one and the same.

But it is perhaps here that we see most clearly the need to place ourselves in the other person's shoes in pursuing Justice. Take, for instance, the case where a father suffers the loss of a child at the hands of a depraved murderer. The desire for vengeance is almost palpable, and with empathy we can understand the father's anger that can become obsessive and could lead to his taking murderous action against the perpetrator of this crime.

As a society, we do not allow such "eye for an eye" vigilantism for any number of reasons having to do with preserving the social order. Any such action will bear negative consequences in response. The father knows this, even if he decides to act upon his murderous impulse. And we know that any such action will result in the father being brought before trial to face charges for this crime and to be sentenced and sanctioned.

If found guilty of such a crime, we can expect Justice to be applied in the sentencing of this father. By placing ourselves in his shoes, society (in the person of the judge or jury) would acknowledge and "feel" the vengeance that drove this person to commit this crime. It would become a mitigating factor in the severity of the sentence that would be imposed, and yet Justice would allow that a sentence of some kind is appropriate as a sanction against taking the law into one's own hand.

Just War

St. Augustine initiated "Just War Theory" as a process of defining the terms under which war between states might be conducted in a Just manner. It's an effort that continues to this day. Much time and effort has been committed to it by many of the most formidable intellectuals and theologians in our history. Yet, the "findings" remain both extremely complex and wholly unsatisfying. Indeed, there is no consensus to this day on the terms for a "Just War" despite all the discussion that has occurred to define it.

I suggest this exercise shows the futility of trying to "interpret" Justice in support of an unjust action. I suggest instead that our attempts to define Justice in the act of prosecuting war against others defies the "inherent Truth of Justice" that lies within our hearts. The interpretations we devise keep bumping up against the reality that war is itself unjust. We do not, for example, allow one household within a city to commit murder and mayhem against another in settlement of a dispute, regardless of how egregiously offensive the crimes committed by one household against the other might be. It is simply incongruous to allow governments to act in such a fashion.

War is a contest we sanction as a means of settling disputes. It allows murder and mayhem to be committed, and it inherently results in the nearly indiscriminate killing and maiming of non-combatants. It imposes upon others devastation, death, injury, disease, poverty, and all manner of depravations without regard for their personal culpability for whatever crimes or insults are being addressed.

Yet, most critically, we must remember the fact that war is a contest of our own design whose objective isn't to identify right versus wrong, but rather to determine a winner and a loser. As such, it is not an act of god or of nature or of Justice. I fully understand the intractability of war as a cultural institution, but I also insist that such disputes could be just as effectively settled by an arm-wrestling match between Generals without suffering any of the unjust consequences of war.

Want Peace? Work for Justice!

Want futility? Accept war as an inevitable occurrence within our society and then pursue a "Just War Doctrine" as a means of apologizing for mankind's failure to overcome barbarism.

Affirmative Action

Again, it's difficult to get into a discussion of these issues without ranging far and wide in examination of all its facets.

On Affirmative Action, my shorthand says that the pursuit of Justice led us to an acknowledgment that All Men Are Created Equal. It then took us a while to figure out that "All Men" was all inclusive. ;O) It's something we still haven't quite fully realized, as witnessed in the fight over DADT, gender equality issues, and our continuing antipathy towards "The Other."

Affirmative Action, in my estimation, is an imperfectly blunt instrument designed to address the consequences of our past failure to embrace Justice in our interplay between the races and genders and other artificial social delineations.

And there is no escaping that Affirmative Action is a remedial policy that results in unjust consequences.

"At some point I have to tell the person who claims that affirmative action is causing unjust outcomes that he or she is wrong. That my interpretation is the correct one. I just need to try and maintain some humility in this, to keep in the back of mind that I might be wrong."

I would differ from this assessment. I think you have to put humility (or whatever) aside and trust your own sense of Justice, and recognize that there are those who rightly complain that the effect of Affirmative Action causes them to suffer a personal injustice. And then the challenge, of course, is presented in the attempt to arrive at a remediation of our past injustices while not visiting new injustices upon others. Tricky business, that. And all the more reason to embrace the pursuit of Justice as a fundamental Truth that makes it unnecessary to attempt to make amends for past errors with policies like Affirmative Action that are fraught with complex contradictions.

..........................

Enough for now. I realize that in attempting to address the question, I have undoubtedly offered little more than the framework for additional discussion and examination. I can only hope it provides some opportunity to assume a few different perspectives that challenge oneself to see matters of extreme importance such as our pursuit of Justice in its fullest illumination.

Thanks, Trope, for the discussion. It is definitely appreciated for the way it has caused me to concentrate my thoughts and continue my search for enlightenment in a pursuit of Justice.

Site looks really

we are stardust — Fri, 24 Dec 2010 23:23:40 +0000

In reply to WikiLeaks is a battle and not

Site looks really interesting, Peter; you do the cartoons? I love the 'hold the pickle' one!

God, Lulu (so to speak),

we are stardust — Fri, 24 Dec 2010 23:20:51 +0000

In reply to If you can verify that you

God, Lulu (so to speak), ROTFLMAO! Merry Christmas Lulu; sorry that your 2 questions diary went haywire with my adding the video.

If you can verify that you

A Guy Called LULU — Fri, 24 Dec 2010 23:17:03 +0000

In reply to WikiLeaks is a battle and not

If you can verify that you are St Peter I will reconsider everything I think about Wikileaks.

I blogged about the laws;

we are stardust — Fri, 24 Dec 2010 23:07:24 +0000

In reply to WikiLeaks is a battle and not

I blogged about the laws; everyone here assures me that not enough Internet is under any nation's control to stop the flow. There are loads more files yet to come; don't be fooled into thinking that they were inconsequential. Seriously. Thanks for stopping by, Saint Peter.; can't wait to look at the cartoon!

WikiLeaks is a battle and not

Saint Peter II — Fri, 24 Dec 2010 22:38:49 +0000

In reply to Pvt. Brad Manning: Seven Months of Solitary So Far

WikiLeaks is a battle and not the war. Fought over information, it’s an ageless war between those with power and those without. Clearly those charlatans masquerading as statesmen and the clowns dressed as legislators in the Washington Circus would dearly love to put the boots to those who expose them. WikiLeaks contained little new about our widely mistrusted misleaders and the damage was limited to some ruffled feathers and bruised egos. The Leaks weren’t news; for who didn’t know that that Italian is a philandering buffoon, that the Afghanistan crowd rivals the South Vietnamese in corruption and various venalities, or that we are extending to Pakistan the same largess we gave to Cambodia? Of course Putin rose to become Czar of the Russian Thugocracy from the bloody cellars of the Lubyanka and remains murderous. As for those whose trust in Saudi Arabia’s honesty was shattered, oh well. Aside from reducing catty remarks in diplomatic cocktail parties, the Leaks will have no discernable consequence in 6 months; except for one thing. They do provide a great service to those in public disservice who wish to CYA. It is the monkeys in the Washington Circus who will benefit from the Leaks by way of new laws to shield their incompetence and or corruption. The public loses another battle in the war for the information it needs to govern the Republic.

Editorial cartoons http://www.saintpeterii.com also see Mercenaries AKA Private Military Contractors at http://www.saintpeterii.com/blog/?p=417

Very thoughtful and

SleepinJeezus — Sun, 19 Dec 2010 21:54:17 +0000

In reply to I'm not suggesting that we

Very thoughtful and well-considered reply. Thanks for this. I will be adding my own response as time allows. I'm now off to Milwaukee to get to work for the week. I hope to add my comments here in the morning. Great stuff, this! Thanks!

I'm not suggesting that we

Elusive Trope — Sun, 19 Dec 2010 20:12:08 +0000

In reply to "I suggest you might make the

I'm not suggesting that we limit our pursuit of justice as fundamental political enterprise, only that we temper it with the acknowledgement that we are afterall humans, and prone to misinterpretations.

The easy example for me for when the pursuit of Justice results in unjust outcomes is the death penalty. Even if one agrees that for someone like Ted Bundy that it is just, there are innocent people who have been sent to the chambers. One that pops to mind is the Salem Witch Trials. Another is what is happening in Gitmo. The stonings of women in the Middle East. All those lynchings in the South. The Spanish Inquistion. All too often justice is wrapped up in the creation of more death and suffering, an eye for eye seems to be somewhere written in our genetics. For me I just don't understand how taking a life achieves some kind of justice for the victims or the victims family. But in most of those cases, those who were committing the acts of injustice were in their mind doing the right and moral thing, they were pursuing some kind of Justice in the eyes of the law or the eyes of God or the ancestors or descendents. And to state that they are wrong in their interpretation, in many instances, is not to merely claim they are wrong about this particular case, but that their fundamental paradigm through which they see and understand the world and themselves in it is wrong.

The entire invasion of Afghanistan was about bringing Osama and his cohorts to justice. I think we can agree that even if one buys into the idea that this was a legitimate effort, that in the process there were some unjust outcomes. Or were there? There would be those who would argue that while tragic events occurred, because the larger pursuit was just, those tragic events were not somehow unjust. It is how one "chooses" to interpret it.

I've had conversations with otherwsie bleeding heart liberals who have no problem with what has occurred at Gitmo. Waterboarding was a little bit of justice in their minds for what happened on 9/11.

There are more murky examples when one looks at how our current system in the US administers justice. If a pedophile is set free in the name of Justice because of some technicality in the way the evidence was gathered? Does it change the equation in one's mind if the pedophile then goes out and commits another heinous act? If one of the parents tracks the pedophile down and puts a gun in his mouth and pulls the trigger, would that be justice or an injustice? Should that parent be put behind bars in the name of Justice.

These days we collectively agree that there is a thing called battered wife syndrome. That in our pursuit of Justice we consider this syndrome as justification for a wife who kills her abuser. Yet there was a time when it not an accepted or even contemplated justification. In our pursuit of Justice we would put her behind bars.

Now in the realm of social justice and environmental justice it become even more murkier as to where we draw the line. The easy one that pops into my mind is affirmative action. There are plenty of people who would argue that this had led to unjust outcomes in the pursuit of balancing the scales. It comes down to how people interpret the writings on their heart.

Which brings us to the keeping moving forward in the struggle for Justice. At some point I have to tell the person who claims that affirmative action is causing unjust outcomes that he or she is wrong. That my interpretation is the correct one. I just need to try and maintain some humility in this, to keep in the back of mind that I might be wrong. And while there are plenty example of injustices that leave no doubt that they are injustices, these do not change the fundamental dynamic that we come to understand consciously of it through nterpretation.

Watching the folks down protesting the Park51 center in NY, the debates about even among liberals, I just feel we are always just a slip away in an interpretation of what Justice is from becoming something truly ugly and unjust as a nation. The one thing that will save us is our humility about our powers to interpret.

"I suggest you might make the

SleepinJeezus — Sun, 19 Dec 2010 08:05:45 +0000

In reply to I really am trying to get

"I suggest you might make the point stick by showing incidents in history (across cultures or in any circumstance) where the pursuit of Justice has in fact resulted in an unjust outcome."

{{Crickets}}??