What I meant was this, Stardust: if he is being given drugs that exacerbate suicidal thoughts, as well as being deprived in every other way that promotes sanity, then if he had the means he probably would be tempted by suicide. So it would be an extra layer of torture to not only sensorily deprive him, but also pump up potential suicidal thoughts with meds and also deprive him of any means of doing it. His treatment really is third circle of hell.  

Good point about the necessity of making the object lesson known. Sort of like Dr. Strangelove's rant that the damned doomsday machine was stupid and pointless if the Russians didn't announce its existence. Still, I think it has now been demonstrated that anyone who might need to be warned would at least eventually find out and the tactic could have other simultaneous purposes as well. Like some have suggested, including NCD above, he may be put into a mental state that is both malleable and desperate and then succumb to the well known affect of torture. He may say anything he believes his torturers want to hear and he may provide testimony that can be used to "legally" go after Assange.

 There is certainly time to use the proven effective methods of interrogation that do not use torture, the bomb has already gone off and it didn't kill anybody, so if they are trying to coerce testimony of a pre-determined sort then they are not interested in the truth but simply motivated to use the best methods of getting something they could use as evidence for their own purposes.

Wait though, that would indicate a conspiracy and for me to even suggest such a possibility makes me a whacko conspiracy theorist. Is that against the law yet? I hope not because I can't help myself. Better to not speculate but to just wait and draw our conclusions from whatever the government tells us. That's the tried and true American way as well as the standard MO of most of our media. It must be right.

I heard that Ellsberg and the rest chained themselves to the White House fence or gates.

That's the way the army is and one good reason for not joining it. But when you join it as a volunteer you can not go a la carte... That is the deal, it is so obvious. I am beginning to think that Manning is not mentally stable.

AA, thanks for the link. I am more convinced than ever that the person I have been defending, and who is probably behind the action I have been defending, is completely worthy of honor and respect.

Seaton's right about one thing: Britain won't raise a finger to defend Manning -- though hopefully they won't actively assist in the violation of his rights, as Canada shamefully did to Omar Khadr.

Reading this thread about power and injustice, I can't help but hear Buffy Sainte-Marie providing musical background: "If the bad guys don't get you, baby, then the good guys will."

I see such a generational (or at least a pivotal half generation) divide in this thread and in some others on tangential topics between those of us who remember -- in the immediacy of the moment -- not only the string of assassinations of our leaders, but also the Vietnam protests, the day in March when LBJ resigned, etc. and those who have not had that experience.  

But you are right, Sleepin, when you point out that when we protested, we did so believing that we had the right to protest, in public, fully identified, without dire consequence.... whereas, courtesy of the ever-tightening restriction of our civil rights, that protection is no longer guaranteed.

With a prompt from DD yesterday, I spent part of this morning watching George Carlin clips, starting with the oldest ones and continuing through his last interviews and performances. No one else I can think of in the public spotlight has so succinctly tracked the increasing limitations of our rights and, in consequence, our choices. But that photo of Daniel Ellsberg being led away in handcuffs in front of the white house -- even if that was his intention --  certainly says something grim about where we are now.

What makes me cringe, esspecially from my political allies, is when they make assumptions about what I have experienced and not experienced just because we might have a disagreement over something.  "...thank you very much" is in effect a toned FU.  And most of the time I ain't close to having soul of a bodhisattva.

Short response: I see absolutely no basis to challenge Lulu's comment. Justice does not change according to circumstance or "cultural interpretation" or whatever.

It frequently suffers from perversion, as you point out. But nothing you have written effectively challenges Lulu's initial statement, IMHO.

(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.