Crime Without Remorse: A USA Specialty

Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment is about an individual student in 19th century Russia who murders an old woman. But it also tells the story of the USA . . . .

Dostoevsky, Crime and Punishment

I sat at an antiracism training sponsored by the ELCA Sierra Pacific Synod last week. One of the participants said, "Our country - we adopt the attitude that nothing we do is ever wrong." I thought it was a simple, elegant explanation of what is meant by "American exceptionalism." It certainly resonated with me, as I have been thinking about the question, "What is it that we as Christians need to face up to in this country? at the most fundamental level?"

I've been reading Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment again. This time I'm enjoying reading it in an old paperback edition -- the same one that was around our house when I was growing up. Every time I read it I'm struck by layers of meaning that I can't remember noticing before. 

As I began reading, I recalled that a few years ago Edward Snowden was given a copy of Crime and Punishment by his Russian lawyer. At the time I suggested the attorney was using the book to subtly raise the question, "Where are the real crimes that we should be focusing on?"

I noticed three things as I read Crime and Punishment this time:

Jacques-Louis David,
The Emperor Napoleon in His Study
at the Tuileries (Art Institute Chicago)

(1) It's about politics. I had never before taken seriously the importance of Napoleon as a model for the kind of actor on the world stage who is "entitled" to bring about suffering, because it is offset by his great accomplishments. Perhaps to us readers today, Napoleon is a caricature; but at the time the novel was written, he had transformed society, and people who wanted to do things in the world pondered his example very seriously. (Consider: who are the "big players" that people look up to today?)

(2) It's about relativism. The murder committed by the book's protagonist is about as horrible as you could imagine. The book relentlessly zeroes in on him and his physical, emotional, and moral state. And yet . . . . I was struck by this statement, a kind of throwaway line from another character in the book: "It's as well that you only killed the old woman. If you'd invented another theory you might perhaps have done something a thousand times more hideous." (Bantam paperback, p. 396) (Consider: what are the theories we use to justify suffering by other people at our hands today?)

(3) It's about our resistance to remorse. Up until the very last pages, the protagonist is unable to simply say, "I was wrong." (Consider: why can't we admit we were wrong? what are we afraid might happen?)

I wonder: what would happen if students were encouraged to read this book and given the following guidance:  "Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment is about an individual student in 19th century Russia who murders an old woman. But it also tells the story of the USA . . . . " ? ? ?


Related posts

With drones, people become just dots. "Bugs." People who no longer count as people . . . .

(See Drone Victims: Just Dots? Just Dirt? )











Now that it is available online, every American should read the Justice Department memo approving the targeted killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki. Let's face it: the Obama administration and the rest of the U.S. government know that they have a big problem: they want to go to war against anyone they suspect is an enemy -- and skip the rule of law. They wish that a miracle could happen and everyone would just let them do it.

(See A Layman Reads Obama's "Targeted Killing" Memo )

A big Hollywood production of Ender's Game is scheduled for release on November 1. It's a perfect opportunity for us to ask: Are we happy seeing our schools turned into "Battle Schools"?

(See "Ender's Game" and the Militarization of Youth: Can We Talk About This? )




"Once the boat went to full pressure, there was really no other option."

(See In Whose Machine Will YOU Be a Cog? )








Svetlana Geier, translator of Dostoevsky's "elephants" (The Brothers Karamazov, Crime and Punishment, The Idiot, The Devils, and Raw Youth) into German.

(See Would You Buy an Elephant from This Woman?)

CHINA: What's Black and White and Lives Behind Bars?

Bei Bei (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

A legendary character in our family was the cat we had in the years before I was born. It was black and white, and was named "Newark News."

My father's father -- also Joseph Thomas Scarry -- had been an editor at the once-prestigious Newark Evening News, and so I guess we felt a kind of protective instinct for the Fourth Estate.

I thought of our beloved Newark News when I saw a picture of another black and white critter this morning -- the newest panda at the National Zoo, Bei Bei.

I guess Newark News leaped to mind because I was holding a clipping entitled, "China Is Leading Jailer of Journalists, Group Says," by Rick Gladstone in yesterday's New York Times, and I had been wondering what to say about it on my blog. I had come up with several ideas, but this crystallized it all for me.

When you hear "panda," think "China jails journalists" . . .

China is brilliant at conducting diplomacy and promoting friendship in "soft" ways. By providing breeding pandas to the National Zoo in Washington, DC, China has assured intermittent reinforcement of the notion that when you think "China," you should think "soft, cuddly, cute, adorable" . . . .

That's fine as far as it goes. I think China's "soft and cuddly" PR provides a necessary counterweight to the idea that China is a military threat, and that the US needs to be an even bigger military threat to "contain" China.  At the same time, it's not fine if people can't also hold in their heads the opposing idea that the Chinese government harms individuals and its whole society by persecuting journalists.

And pandas? The inconvenient thing about symbols is that they can cut both ways.

Yes, pandas are soft, cuddly, cute, and adorable . . . .

They're also black and white and live behind bars.

So, I would suggest, when you hear "panda," think "China jails journalists" . . .

Read the Committee to Protect Journalists 2015 report, and specifics about the 49 journalists who have been jailed in China.

I'll be using social media to spread the story of one of these 49 journalists every day. (Updates to follow . . . . )

Liu Xiaobo

Update: December 17, 2015

Number 4 on the CPJ list is the Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo, imprisoned in China since 2009. I wrote about him at that time.

There is a robust social media campaign working for justice for Liu. See, for instance: @free_liu_xiaobo @liuxiaobo and @freeliuxiaobo.




Update: December 18, 2015

There is an especially urgent need today for the world to be able to be able to receive frank reporting about the conflict between people in the western region of China and the Chinese government. Of particular concern to people in the US and Europe is the way in which the Chinese government more and more invokes the "global war on terror" and growing Western anti-Muslim sentiment to get away with abrogating civil rights and trampling press freedoms. (See CHINA: Where Minority Nostalgia is One Thing, Minority POLITICS Quite Another )

Eight of the journalists on the CPJ list are involved in reporting on developments in western China - the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region:

Ilham Tohti

Ilham Tohti
Perhat Halmurat
Shohret Nijat
Luo Yuwei
Mutellip Imin
Abduqeyum Ablimit
Atikem Rozi
Akbar Imin

Tohti is the founder of Uighurbiz/UighurOnline; the other seven are students of Tohti imprisoned after a secret trial for working on Uighurbiz/UighurOnline.

Connect to the social media effort in support of these prisoners via Ilham Tohti's daughter @JewherIlham; the writers' groups @pen_int, @PENamerican, and @chinesepen_org; and human rights organizations like @hrw_chinese and @amnestyHK.

(More on China's state repression of news about Uyghur affairs: "China didn't like Ursula Gauthier's reporting — so it is kicking her out of the country. . . . " see Emily Rauhala in the Washington Post, December 26, 2015: "China expels French journalist for terrorism coverage.")


Update: December 19, 2015

Yesterday I wrote about eight of the imprisoned journalists on the CPJ list who are associated with reporting about the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region via Uighurbiz/UighurOnline.

Gheyrat Niyaz (Hailaite Niyazi)

There are seven more who are also involved in reporting on Xinjiang and Uyghur affairs:

Ekberjan Jamal
Memetjan Abdulla
Tursunjan Hezim
Gulmire Imin
Niyaz Kahar 
Nijat Azat
Gheyrat Niyaz (Hailaite Niyazi)

The common thread in most or all of these cases: reporting about demonstrations in Xinjiang -- including instances of rioting. Apparently reporting about protest is treated as "incitement," and transmitting reportage out of the country is "revealing state secrets."

The silencing of this large number of journalists raises a very fundamental question: What is really happening in Xinjiang? People and businesses with interests in China need to be concerned . . . .

The cases of all of these journalists are monitored by the @UyghurCongress. The Uyghur American Association / Uyghur Human Rights Project (@uaauhrp) is also an advocacy organization in these cases.


Update: December 20, 2015

My principal involvement with China has been through business, and I think the most likely advocate for press freedom in China ultimately should be the business and investment community. That's why I asked several years ago, "Will the global investment community continue to yawn at developments in China? Sadly, they seem to think Liu Xiaobo and a few stray intellectuals are the only victims. Unfortunately, the real prisoner's dilemma is theirs . . . ." (See Merry Christmas, Mr. Liu: The Prisoner's Dilemma in China)

Nine of the journalists on the CPJ list are associated with a specialized business and investment media group - 21st Century Media Group. To be clear: business needs to support all journalism, because all journalism bears on the knowledge needed for business. In any event, if influential businesses need any prodding to push for press freedom in China, the case of these 21st Century Media Group journalists is it.

Shen Hao

The names of the jailed journalists are:

Liu Hui
Zhou Bin
Liu Dong
Wang Zhuoming
Xia Xiaobo
Shen Hao
Chen Bin
Xia Ri
Luo Guanghui

It seems like an appropriate place to mention that a major Chinese corporation, Ali Baba, has purchased the leading English-language newspaper in Hong Kong, the South China Morning Post. It's time for businesses around the world to read the handwriting on the wall: their sources of truth about China are drying up, and that places them in a position of unacceptable risk.

Want to advocate for these journalists in China? Start by asking your investment adviser whether s/he has any confidence in the news they're receiving about China and its business developments . . . .


Update: December 21, 2015

Kunchok Tsephel Gopey Tsang

Five of the journalists on the CPJ list are associated with Tibet:

Kunchok Tsephel Gopey Tsang
Gartse Jigme
Dawa Tsomo
Druklo
Lomig

Tibet is a very important place. The government of China has long thought so, and observers in the West are beginning to develop a deeper understanding of this fact, as well.

However, Tibet gets intermittent attention in the Western media, at best, and the coverage it does get usually focuses on the exotic aspects of Tibetan culture and religion. Add to that the fact that numerous journalists who might otherwise be reporting on dissent in Tibet proper (as well as ethnic Tibetan areas in other parts of China) are in prison, and it becomes clear that the story is not getting to people.

Advocacy for the cases of the Tibetan journalists is carried out by organizations like @tchrd_, @SaveTibetOrg, @icpc_eng, and @CHRDnet.


Update: December 22, 2015

Jiang Yefei

Today, as the world learns of the devastating mudslide in Shenzhen that has buried dozens, it is an appropriate time to lift up the names of two of the journalists on the CPJ list who symbolize the importance of freedom of the press to report on and question government handling of disasters, and to report on environmental issues.

Number 45 on the list is journalist Ye Xiaozheng. He was prosecuted specifically for reporting on protests about environmental issues in Guangdong -- the southern province of China of which Shenzhen is a part. You can read more about Ye Xiaozheng on the Independent Chinese PEN Center website.

Number 49 on the list is cartoonist Jiang Yefei. A key aspect of his case is that he moved away from his home in Sichuan province after being persecuted for his criticism of the government's handling of the 2008 Sichuan earthquake.  You can read about his case in a Human Rights Watch letter and in an Amnesty International campaign.

Yao Wentian

Update: December 23, 2015

At the opposite end of Guangdong province from Shenzhen, in northern Guangdong, lies the city of Shaoguang. Two of the journalists on the CPJ list -- Liu Wei'an and Hu Yazhu -- are jailed in apparent retaliation for their reporting on mineral extraction in Shaoguang.

Also imprisoned in Guangdong is Yao Wentian, head of Morning Bell Press in Hong Kong, which publishes books about government figures in China.


Update: December 24, 2015

It is time to speak of the Epoch Times.

In my neighborhood of Berkeley, California, there are newspaper boxes on many street corners with free copies of the Epoch Times. I read it every week.

Yang Tongyan

The Epoch Times is a publication of Falun Gong. Falun Gong is a group which combines meditation and Buddhist thought, holistic health practices, antagonism to the government of China, and extremely determined devotion. There is a significant history of conflict between the government of China and Falun Gong.

Two journalists who have been jailed in China and are part of the the CPJ list -- Yang Tongyan and Qi Chonghuai -- have apparently been targeted (at least in part) because of pieces they have written for the Epoch Times.

I plan to write in more detail about the Epoch Times and Falun Gong. For now I'll just say: the suppression of voices like those of Yang and Qi underlines the fundamental difference between China and the US with respect to freedom of expression. The government of China doesn't like the message of the Epoch Times, so it seeks to silence it. In the US -- at least in theory -- all kinds of messages get to see the light of day, and audiences get to use their brains to sort it all out.


Related posts

Despite the difficulties associated with engaging in effective solidarity with dissidents in China, it is important to make the effort. A fundamental tenet of all peace and justice activism is that if we have the power to speak we can do anything, and if "they" succeed in shutting us up, it's the beginning of the end.

(See What is the US Peace and Justice Movement Doing for Dissidents in China?)

Beijing has an intuitive understanding that, in a way that is determined by conditions of unequal information, it can monolithically dictate terms, and that other, "distributed," parties will be hard-pressed to stand up to those terms. Specifically, Beijing observes a cynical cost/benefit calculus which says, "Sure, a few players will always wise up and exercise their options to move away from us; but, by and large, everyone else is too paralyzed to move."

(See Merry Christmas, Mr. Liu: The Prisoner's Dilemma in China)

"There's one thing you don't understand," he said. "What you are calling 'the best and the brightest,' the leaders in China call 'troublemakers.; A hundred thousand Ph.D.'s stay behind in the U.S.? Two hundred thousand? A million? Fine! Let them! There's more where that came from! China's got nothing if not people!"

(See Why Beijing Always "Wins")











Make no mistake: Sandy was a high-powered lawyer with a high-powered lobbying firm. In that setting, Sandy was a big mahoff. But what made him really big was his ability to help the rest of us have the confidence to raise our voices.

(See REMEMBERING SANDY: Samuel Berger, 1945-2015 )

TRIAL OF THE CENTURY: United States v. Bin Laden

Official photos to go with the official story. ("Must-see TV!")

On Sunday, I read the article by Jonathan Mahler in the The New York Times Magazine about two competing versions of apprehension of Osama Bin Laden.

Mahler makes the point that we are so far from being able to know the truth of the matter that we might benefit more from what we are able to know, namely, the fact that we are being presented with several different stories.

In other words, what are we to understand about our situation from the fact that our government told us the story that it told? (Put aside the question of what's true . . . . )

So, for instance, the Mahler article made much of the question of whether the SEAL force entered Pakistan undetected, as opposed to whether, in fact, Pakistan was told in advance that the SEALs were coming (and that Pakistan had better not interfere).  What might lead us to think one case is more likely than another? And what conclusions might we draw from the fact that the story got told one way or another?

I keep having to ask myself a question: Was the apprehension of Osama Bin Laden carried out principally for our entertainment? Or did it have something to do with governing?

The film version: Zero Dark Thirty

I fear that most people are so caught up in the excitement and intrigue -- Zero Dark Thirty! -- that they don't stop to ask the sobering question: what would the story be like if our government took seriously the job of governing?

In particular, though it might be a dicey entertainment proposition, and certainly carry the risk of loose plot strands, it would have made for a very different story if the US government had arrested Osama Bin Laden and brought him to trial. It certainly would emphasize certain US values related to governance.

A very constructive thought exercise is to try to imagine a trial -- United States v. Bin Laden -- for the crimes committed on 9/11.

* What kinds of facts would be brought out in such a trial? (What would we be reminded of about the difference between facts established in a court of law and "according to reliable sources . . ." ?)

* What would be the legal issues that would be tested? (e.g. crime? act of war?)

* What, if anything, would the defendant say?

* What effect would holding such a trial have on US society?

Wouldn't the US government have so much to gain by playing out that story -- at least, if it really cared about Constitutional governance?

We should be grateful to Jonathan Mahler for reminding us that our government is so powerful that it can tell us just about any story it wants to.  But we still get step our of entertainment mode and into governance mode and ask: "Why?"

Update: October 29, 2015

By reading Charlie Savage's article in today's New York Times ("How 4 Federal Lawyers Paved the Way to Kill Osama bin Laden"), you can understand the outlines of the "show" the White House planned. According to Savage, there were four legal justifications that the Obama administration prepared:

* Entering Pakistan without the country's consent. (What if the Pakistanis responded by offering to bring him in alive?)

* Killing Bin Laden -- no matter what (with the exception of "if he [was] naked with his hands up"). (Because: who knows what he might have said if were in a position to give testimony?)

* Not telling Congress in advance. (Don't give them a chance to ask questions.)

* Burying Bin Laden at sea. (Physical evidence just gets in the way of a good story.)

In other words, the administration made sure there was no one left to naysay their narrative.

Can you imagine how different this report might have been? What if it were about four lawyers being asked to advise the administration about the "right" way to apprehend Osama Bin Laden? What if the question had been, "What would be most consistent with the rule of law? And with promoting the kind of due process that we claim to desire for the world?"


Related posts

In the film "The Response," as military judges are debating the fate of a detainee at Guantanamo, one of them says, "Okay, if 9/11 is the measuring stick, are we a great nation because of the blow we took? Or because how we, as a country, respond to that blow? The response matters. Our response defines us . . . . "

(See Why Have We Built A Monument To Bin Laden?)

The U.S. government and its military talk constantly about the new world of "asymmetric warfare" -- which basically boils down to how "unfair" it seems to them that individuals can wield any meaningful amount of power, given how minuscule their numbers or the firepower available to them. But what what we should spend much more time focusing on is "asymmetric policing" -- i.e. the overwhelming power that the U.S. state wields in every encounter with individuals.

(See Too Much State Power? (Asymmetric Warfare and Asymmetric Policing))








The story of the past decade-plus has been the story of the assertion by some that the conception of law that our society has is not sufficient.  Simply put, there are those who say that there is a third, "in-between" category of behavior -- and legal status -- that is not civilian (subject to criminal law) and not military (subject to military law and the laws of war). And since there are no rules about how to deal with that third category . . . .

(See Using the Good, Old Criminal Justice System: Worth a Try?) 

Ayotzinapa43 and Mexico's Disappearances: Breaking the Silence in Chicago

Public forum, Saturday April 4, 2015 - Iglesia San Pio, Chicago

A huge crowd gathered to hear testimony from parents, relatives, and supoorters of the 43 students who were "disappeared" in Ayotzinapa, Mexico, at the end of September, 2014.

Maria de Jesus, mother of Jose Eduardo

They were speaking in Chicago today at as part of the caravan of parents and relatives of the Ayotzinapa 43 who are now touring the US to bring attention to their case, and to the thousands of disappearances that happen each year at the hands of police, military, and other agents of elites in Mexico.

The caravan members made a stark point: Fourteen (14) people every day are "disappeared" in Mexico.

It is striking to me that on the weekend that people in Christian churches everywhere are commemorating the brutal state murder of an activist 2,000 years ago in Palestine -- together with the resistance mounted by his family and friends, their insistence on finding life in the face of death -- these family members of victims of here-and-now state violence are in our midst to demand, "Where have they taken the bodies?" and "Long live the Ayotzinapa 43!"

There are a series of related events Monday -- Chicago people are urged to participate, demonstrate solidarity, and commit to the cause of the oppressed people of Mexico:

Monday April 6 - 9:00 a.m. - Press Conference

Monday April 6 - 10:00 a.m. - March to Mexican Consulate

Monday April 6 - 10:30 a.m. - Protest at Mexican Consulate

More images from April 5:

Related posts

It will take me multiple posts to spell out everything that I feel needs to be said about the Ayotzinapa 43.  People in the US need to work to change their own attitude about Mexico, and about the culpability or all of us here in the US in the wrongs that are being done down there. The Ayotzinapa 43 were persecuted for saying "the future can be different." It's time for us to take up their cry.

(See Ayotzinapa43: US People Need an Attitude Adjustment )

Detention USA: EVERYBODY is Starting to Ask Questions!

The weather's turning cold. I'm thinking back on some of the activism we engaged in here in Chicago in the spring . . . . and in the summer . . .  and I'm looking ahead to what has -- sadly -- become a winter tradition: the protests on the Guantanamo anniversary on January 11.

And I'm wondering how -- this winter -- we might bring some heat and light to the issues surrounding indefinite detention and the persecution of Muslims.


Guantanamo: unending detention

CHICAGO: Protesting Guantanamo detention
More info at Chicago Coalition to Shut Down Guantanamo

Every year for the past dozen years, activists against U.S. government indefinite detention at Guantanamo, and other violations of due process, have engaged in protests around the country on January 11. (January 11 is marked as the anniversary of the opening of Guantanamo Bay Detention Center.) See, for instance, the events related to our 2012 J11 protest in Chicago.

Nearly a year ago at this time, I was reacting to proclamations by Obama administration officials, saying that they were in the process of working out repatriation or other placement for the 70 or so Guantanamo detainees who had been cleared for release. For a brief moment, I wondered if it might really happen. The result, however, has been that no more than a handful of detainees were sent home.

Instead, the U.S. government continued to force-feed detainees, and to fight tooth-and-nail to resist any attempt to get the truth about those force-feedings to the public.


Korematsu Day

January is a time when people remember another story of U.S. detention: January 30 is recognized as Korematsu Day, after Fred Korematsu, who fought the illegitimate U.S. internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII.

In 2013, I attended a Korematsu Day forum in Chicago at Loyola University School of Law -- one of dozens of Korematsu day events held around the country.  It was excellent, and it included a presentation by a representative from the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) Chicago on the issue of detention of Muslims in the U.S. since 2001.

George Takei - childhood photo during his family's
internment in Rohwer, AK (Source: Arkansas.com)

I was reminded recently of the importance of Korematsu Day when I saw the wonderful documentary about actor and activist George Takei -- who was himself interned as a young boy.

"As I write this, once again the national dialogue turns to defining our enemies, the impulse to smear whole communities or people with the actions of others still too familiar and raw. Places like the museum and Rohwer camp exist to remind us of the dangers and fallibility of our democracy, which is only as strong as the adherence to our constitutional principles renders it. People like myself and those veterans lived through that failure, and we understand how quickly cherished liberties and freedom may slip away or disappear utterly." (George Takei, "Why We Must Remember Rohwer," The Huffington Post, 4/22/2013)

(Takei has joined with a creative team to bring to the stage a musical about the issue: Allegiance.)

Korematsu Day is a day when we should both look at the persecution of Japanese-Americans in the U.S. in the past, but also look at the persecution of Muslims in the U.S. today.  The question, "What needs to be done to make sure this never happens again?" is not just academic.


The Holder Legacy

Attorney General Eric Holder stepped down last week. Mainstream media commentaries on his legacy are all over the map.  Perhaps it would be fruitful for one or more law school to avail itself of this stock-taking moment. What happened? Why?

The Holder Justice Department: What happened?
(Source: FoxCT.com)

There is a broad range of areas where the behavior of the Holder (i.e. Obama (i.e. Democratic)) Justice Department needs to be scrutinized. Four Five seem particularly closely related:

* indefinite detention at Guantanamo
* prosecutions in the court system stemming from terrorism charges
* provisions to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely under the N.D.A.A. (National Defense Authorization Act)
* suppression of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) report on U.S. torture
* legal justification for extrajudicial execution of U.S. enemies (drone killings)

Remember when we ushered out the Bush administration and ushered in the Obama administration? Did anyone imagine the past six years would be more of the same (and worse)?


Legal protection for people?

Eric L. Lewis
"Lawyer Eric Lewis shows a copy of a statement
by his clients, Britons captured in Afghanistan
and held at Guantanamo Bay."
(Source: Manuel Balce Ceneta in USA Today)

About a month ago, attorney Eric L. Lewis made a very interesting connection between developments in U.S. law by focusing on recent Supreme Court decisions. In "Who Are ‘We the People’?" in The New York Times (October 4, 2014), Lewis pointed out that, on the one hand the acceptance of indefinite detention of people in the U.S. legal system means that the country is no longer serious about treating people as people; and on the other hand the Citizens United decision allows corporations to insist that corporations DO get the full set of rights we have defined for people. Lewis -- who has acted as counsel for individual Guantanamo detainees -- says it is time for people who claim to care about the rule of law in the U.S. to look at the systemic disintegration. "Who is a person? How do you qualify for basic human rights? What is required for you to be able to speak or worship freely or to be free from torture?" he asks.


How might we get all these questions on the table in a meaningful forum in January? In particular, I am wondering how aspiring lawyers feel about what they are getting themselves into today: isn't it time to inquire into a law school education that prepares you to participate in a legal system that isn't working? I like to see a conversation that includes activists, legal experts, soon-to-be lawyers, as well as lots of members of the lay public. I think everybody is starting to have questions.


Related posts

Eric Holder addressed a group of Northwestern Law students and others. Afterward one audience member summed up the speech as he left: "He pretty much said he can kill anyone he wants." The details of that speech will turn you more topsy-turvy than anything Alice experienced when she ventured through the looking glass.

(See Eric Through the Looking Glass)

Even if the current Obama administration approach of releases were to succeed in bringing about the release of everyone at Guantanamo, it would not have begun to address the wrong that has been committed.

(See US to its Humans Rights Violations Victims: "Shut up and take what you're given!" )







The story of the past decade-plus has been the story of the assertion by some that the conception of law that our society has is not sufficient.  Simply put, there are those who say that there is a third, "in-between" category of behavior -- and legal status -- that is not civilian (subject to criminal law) and not military (subject to military law and the laws of war). And since there are no rules about how to deal with that third category . . . .

(See Using the Good, Old Criminal Justice System: Worth a Try?)




Other related links

Law schools are interested in the concept of "rule of law." (See for instance What We Know & Don’t Know About the Rule of Law, October 31-November 1, 2014 -- the inaugural conference of Rule of Law Research Consortium (RLRC), held in conjunction with the University of Chicago Law School. ) Most of the time, however, they proceed from the assumption that "rule of law" exists in the U.S., and that the only question is why it doesn't happen in other places!

A Layman Reads Obama's "Targeted Killing" Memo

Memo author Barron: Lots and lots of "trees"

Now that it is available online, every American should read the Justice Department memo approving the targeted killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki.

There is a lot in the memo, much of it recitation of precedents, and teasing apart of legal categories like "non-international armed conflict" and "public authority," and the parsing of the precise definition of terms like "taking no active part in hostilities" and "unlawful killing."  Readers with law degrees could spend years dissecting it.  And once you get into it, it can be easy to miss the forest for the trees.

That's where being a non-lawyer comes in handy. Because if you don't know enough about legal theory to become fascinated with the minutiae, you are more inclined to sense the big thing that is missing here, namley, the "facts" upon which the government based its decision to go to war against Anwar Al-Awlaki.

The memo seeks to circumvent the rule of law -- in which a person is charged with a crime, a trial is conducted (including presentation of evidence, contesting of evidence, and findings of fact and findings of law), a verdict is reached, and in the event of a guilty verdict a sentence is passed, after which the sentence is carried out -- and replace it with a justified act of war.

But what is missing in the "targeted killing" memo are the evidence, the contesting of the evidence, and the finding of fact. And by offering nothing to make up for the jettisoning of these parts of the process, the U.S. government leaves us unconvinced that abandoning legal process can be justified.

Let's face it: the Obama administration and the rest of the U.S. government know that they have a big problem: they want to go to war against anyone they suspect is an enemy -- and skip the rule of law. They wish that a miracle could happen and everyone would just let them do it.

The closest they can come is some hand-waving and fast talk, ending with the words, " . . . and that's why we can skip legal process and go to war against (fill in name here)," and then hoping like hell that Americans fall for it.

But Americans aren't such pushovers.  Sure, not every American has figured out what's going on yet. But they will. And when they do, there will be political consequences for the leaders that have been trying to pull the wool over all of our eyes.

Related posts

If the public will join us in asking the question "Who decides?" about drone executions, I believe they will rapidly come to realize that they are utterly dissatisfied with what the government is saying.

(See Who Decides? (When Drones are Judge, Jury, and Executioner) )











Eric Holder addressed a group of Northwestern Law students and others. Afterward one audience member summed up the speech as he left: "He pretty much said he can kill anyone he wants." The details of that speech will turn you more topsy-turvy than anything Alice experienced when she ventured through the looking glass.

(See Eric Through the Looking Glass)

By now, everyone knows about the New York Times article describing Barack Obama's personal administration of drone killing around the world. What few people are willing to face up to is that Obama 2012 partisans actually see this as a way to get a lot of Americans to like Obama: "This is the candidate; you MUST support him!"

(See Being a Team Player for "Mr. Forceful": Obama and the Dems )

CHICAGO COPS: "Many, many, many, many times" they lied

The Chicago Tribune editorial page today featured the words of Cook County Circuit Judge Catherine Haberkorn in a case of police lying on the witness stand:

"Obviously, this is very outrageous conduct. All officers lied on the stand today. ... Many, many, many, many times they all lied."

(See "Keeping Cops Honest," Chicago Tribune editorial, Saturday, April 26, 2014)

"So, officer, is it your testimony . . . ."

Notably, the case involved police dash cam evidence that caught the actual police behavior for all to see.  (Reminiscent of another case that saw the light of day in Chicago after the Chicago Tribune was motivated by dash cam evidence to prominently feature the story: the murder of Flint Farmer.)

In an unpublished letter to the Tribune, local advocates for justice for victims of police crimes wrote:

To the Editor:

The Tribune coverage of the lying by police officers testifying during a hearing in a Skokie courtroom (Chicago Tribune, "Judge: 5 cops lied on stand," April 15, 2014) comes as little surprise to many people throughout Chicago, or, for that matter, across the country. As your reporter discovered, when he asked four people if it is common for the police to lie, he was told in four different ways that it comes as no surprise. (The exception was the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) representative.) What is new, however, is that police are being caught in the act; credit new technology like dash cams, whose footage can be subpoenaed by alert defense counsel. But the biggest news of all will come when police officers are actually indicted for perjury and other criminal acts -- that's a piece of news that we see all too seldom in Chicago, in Cook County, or, for that matter, elsewhere in the country.

Frank Chapman
Ted Pearson
Co-Chairs, National Forum on Police Crimes
(May 16-17, 2014, Chicago)

Today's Tribune editorial echoed the point about dash cams:

"That's why video cameras mounted on squad car dashboards or carried in officers' lapels are so valuable and deserve wider use. ... The only police hurt by video cameras are the ones who have something to hide. The good ones, when wrongly accused of misconduct, are vindicated by this type of evidence. And the ones on the fence get a nudge from knowing that someone will be watching."

Also notable about this case was that it turned on a police stop predicated on non-compliance with traffic law (in this case failure to signal a turn).  This is a police tactic that is being called out more and more by civil liberties advocates -- notably by David Shipler (Rights at Risk: The Limits of Liberty in Modern America) and Michelle Alexander (The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness). This Chicago case lays bare what has become a textbook element of the government's principal modus operandi in eroding all of our liberties and carrying out a program of mass incarceration.

A national movement to return power over the police to the community and prosecute police crimes is under way.  As the Tribune said today, "No one entrusted to serve as a police officer should ignore the law on permissible stops or searches, and any cop who does so and lies about it under oath should never again wear a badge." People who want to get involved in this movement for change first-hand are encouraged to register today for the National Forum on Police Crimes, taking place in Chicago May 16-17.

Related posts

The State's Attorney for the Chicago area finally got around to bringing a charge against a police officer who shot and killed a citizen. Why, I wondered, didn't Anita Alvarez charge him with murder? Then I remembered my Chicago vocabulary lesson.

(See Chicago Vocabulary Lesson: "Overcharging" and "Undercharging" )

In the city where I live, "normal" or "right" or "acceptable" has been given a brutal construction by the power structure:

Police encounter black man on street
Police shoot black man
Black man dies
(Business as usual in Chicago.)

 (See We need to get the police off the streets of Chicago. QED.)

All the cameras and microphones and reporters were out in force that day -- and their appearance suggested to me that it does make a difference to take a stand for justice. And maybe the fact that some of us thought this was important enough to come out, hold signs, chant, and march, helped back up that message.

(See Chicago Justice: Connecting the Dots )

Needed: Less Military Force, More Human Rights in the Philippines

For several years now, I have been intensively involved in working to end the extrajudicial killings (EJK) carried out by the U.S., specifically those involving drones. My attention has been very focused on what the U.S. is doing in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia.

Just a few weeks ago I attended the Ecumenical Advocacy Days in Washington, D.C. One of the things that I learned was the extent of human rights problems in the Philippines -- particularly the way the U.S. enables extrajudicial killings by the Philippine government through its material support for and political backing of the army and the administration.

Here is what other sources are saying about the Philippines:

"The Philippine government failed to match its rhetoric in support of human rights in 2013 with meaningful action to end impunity for extrajudicial killings, torture, and enforced disappearances." (Human Rights Watch, January 21, 2014, "Philippines: Surge of Journalist Killings, Justice Failures")

"The Committee is concerned at the continued perpetration of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances in the State party. It is particularly concerned at the proliferation of private armies and vigilante groups that are partly responsible for these crimes as well as at the large number of illegal firearms. The Committee is also concerned at the arming and use of “force multipliers” for counter-insurgency and other purposes pursuant to Presidential Executive Order No. 546 (arts. 6, 7 and 9)."(UN Human Rights Committee, "Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of the Philippines, adopted by the Committee at its 106th session (15 October - 2 November 2012)")

"The most significant human rights problems continued to be extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances undertaken by security forces; a dysfunctional criminal justice system notable for poor cooperation between police and investigators, few prosecutions, and lengthy procedural delays; and widespread official corruption and abuse of power." (U.S. State Department, "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2013: Philippines")

Now, advocates for human rights in the Philippines, including the Ecumenical Advocacy Network on the Philippines, are asking us to speak out publicly on the need for the U.S. government to "own" its responsibility for human rights violations in the Philippines, and to take affirmative action to halt them.

As President Obama begins his trip to Asia -- underlining the much-touted "pivot to Asia" -- it is an especially important time to draw attention to what is really happening in the Philippines.

Here is my letter to Senators Durbin and Kirk (Illinois).  (Please contact your senators.)


April 22, 2014

The Honorable Richard Durbin
The Honorable Richard Kirk
Hart Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Durbin and Senator Kirk,

I am concerned about the State Department Foreign Military Financing (FMF) aid to the Philippines for fiscal year 2014 and FY 2015. On January 17, 2014 the President signed the first appropriations bill since FY2008 that does not have human rights restrictions on FMF for the Philippines specified in the appropriations law. For FY 2014 restrictions are not in the bill language but instead in the conference committee report, stating that the Appropriations Committees will decide on how much to release to the Philippine army after getting a report from the State Department. We are asking for messages from our Senators to Sen. Leahy, Chair of the State Department Foreign Operations Subcommittee, supporting continued human conditions on FMF funding for the Philippines.

Since the human rights conditions were put in place FY2008 the Government of the Philippines (GPH) has expressed concern about being designated as a human rights violator, and although there has been some decrease in the rate of killings and the government has setup a high level interagency committee to investigate the problem, progress has not been sufficient for the State Department to release all of the appropriated FMF in any year since 2008. According to the US State Department 2013 Human Rights Report few of the perpetrators have been arrested and there have been no convictions of high-ranking police or military officials and a culture of impunity persists.

The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the paramilitary units under their control continue to be involved in extrajudicial killings (EJK), enforced disappearances, and illegal arrests and in the last 12 months killings have increased. According to KARAPATAN, Philippine human rights NGO, in the first 3 months of this year 19 EJKs have been reported, and all can reasonably be attributed to the AFP and Philippine National Police.

The human rights abuses by security forces can generally be linked to the unresolved 45-year insurgency by the Communist Party of the Philippines and the New People’s Army (CPP-NPA). The victims are typically worker, peasant and environmental activists who have been accused of being communists and or members of the NPA and have failed to stop their activism in the face of the threats. A resolution of the conflict could go a long way to improve the human rights situation. The National Council of Churches of the Philippines (NCCP) has called for “...principled negotiations to thresh out the issues, unearth and address the root causes of the conflict. The peace negotiation is a way to just and lasting peace.” A framework for peace talks hosted by Norway is well established, however, in 2013 peace talks broke down.

The recent spate of killings and highly publicized arrests of CPP peace consultants (Benito and Wilma Austria Tiamzon and several others) signals the GPH is essentially closing the door on the peace process and is prefering a military solution to ending the conflict. We think the US could play a role in urging the GPH to re engage in the peace process.

Another impediment to peace is the State Department listing of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP)-National Democratic Front as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. The listing was a very political act negotiated by the former president of the Philippines.

With the “Pivot to Asia” the US military will be soon be sending military personnel to AFP bases in the Philippines. Negotiations with the GPH are ongoing on the “Agreement on Enhanced Defense Cooperation (AEDC)” and there has been speculation that it may be ready by the time President Obama arrives in Manila next week. It is important that members of Congress be aware of the situation in the Philippines with respect to human rights and take action where appropriate.

Please communicate to Senator Leahy’s staff of the State Department Foreign Operations Subcommittee expressing your concern that the subcommittee:

1) Carefully consider the State Department report on the human rights performance of the Philippine army and not release FMF funds for the army unless there is clear evidence of a substantial decrease in killings, vigorous prosecution of perpetrators and an end to impunity

2) To return human rights conditions to FMF in the bill for 2015

Please also communicate with Secretary of State John Kerry your concern about the breakdown in the peace process to end the ongoing insurgency and request that the CPP-NPA be removed from the list of Foreign Terrorist Organization as signal that the US would like to see progress on peace negotiations.

Sincerely,

Joe Scarry
Chicago, IL

Related posts

The problem: the U.S. "pivot to Asia."

The opportunity: asking ourselves, "What would we do differently if we revised our myths of Asia?"

(See U.S. Militarism in Asia: THINK DIFFERENT!)

We have had a window of opportunity -- nearly 70 years in which the constitution of Japan has explicitly renounced war, pointing the way for the rest of us. What have we imagined we were supposed to do?

(See Renouncing War: An Opportunity Not To Be Missed )






The crime of Extrajudicial Execution is described on the website for Mike Haas' book, George W. Bush, War Criminal? The Bush Administration’s Liability for 269 War Crimes. Here, we will look at the specific legal basis for charging perpetrators as war criminals for Extrajudicial Executions, and list sources reporting relevant U.S. actions in Afghanistan.

(See VAU Afgh 101: Extrajudicial Executions )