Wednesday, June 30, 2004
The Wall and Fundamentalist Judaism
News today from Israel that the Supreme Court has ordered the route of the barrier wall between Israel and the West Bank be redrawn to minimize harm to Palestinian communities. The High Court ruled that:
"The route disrupts the delicate balance between the obligation of the military commander to preserve security and his obligation to provide for the needs of the local inhabitants.
"The route ... injures the local inhabitants in a severe and acute way while violating their rights under humanitarian and international law."
Although the case was brought on behalf of a specific Palestinian community, the ruling was written broadly enough to support efforts of many villages seeking to alter the course of the barrier wall, which in many places cuts deep into pre-1967 arab territory.
The decision, as well as Sharon's proposed pull-out of Gaza was decried by hard right Israelis. One such Rabbi, Avigdor Neventzal, went so far as to say that "anyone who turns over Israeli land could be subject to Din Rodef - a licence to kill a fellow Jew."
This is the real stumbling block that Sharon must overcome--the genuine possibility of Israeli Civil War if any such pullout is ever codified into law let alone undertaken without the consent of the settlers. Likud and other right-wing Israeli parties spent years building up and feeding off of the suffering and messianic zeal of hardcore settlers. Entrenched settlers, far more than any other bloc in Israel, view any pullout from any occupied territory as treason, and increasingly, as blasphemy apparently punishable by death.
I fear that the genuine threat against Israel will ultimately come from within, not without. Come to think of it, I have the same fears about the US of A.
News today from Israel that the Supreme Court has ordered the route of the barrier wall between Israel and the West Bank be redrawn to minimize harm to Palestinian communities. The High Court ruled that:
"The route disrupts the delicate balance between the obligation of the military commander to preserve security and his obligation to provide for the needs of the local inhabitants.
"The route ... injures the local inhabitants in a severe and acute way while violating their rights under humanitarian and international law."
Although the case was brought on behalf of a specific Palestinian community, the ruling was written broadly enough to support efforts of many villages seeking to alter the course of the barrier wall, which in many places cuts deep into pre-1967 arab territory.
The decision, as well as Sharon's proposed pull-out of Gaza was decried by hard right Israelis. One such Rabbi, Avigdor Neventzal, went so far as to say that "anyone who turns over Israeli land could be subject to Din Rodef - a licence to kill a fellow Jew."
This is the real stumbling block that Sharon must overcome--the genuine possibility of Israeli Civil War if any such pullout is ever codified into law let alone undertaken without the consent of the settlers. Likud and other right-wing Israeli parties spent years building up and feeding off of the suffering and messianic zeal of hardcore settlers. Entrenched settlers, far more than any other bloc in Israel, view any pullout from any occupied territory as treason, and increasingly, as blasphemy apparently punishable by death.
I fear that the genuine threat against Israel will ultimately come from within, not without. Come to think of it, I have the same fears about the US of A.
RTE Postscript
Shortly after posting the earlier entry I was able to view the interview. Far from being harangued, Bush instead was himself far more impolite than Ms Coleman. The idea that this interview would have seriously offended TeamBush is a sad reflection on our nation.
Rather than interrupting, it seemed that Ms Coleman took his pauses as the end of his answer and, given the limited time she had, was in fact trying to pose the follow-up questions which Bush himself kept asking her to wait on. I think the difference was this: Coleman approached the interview as if it were a discussion, albeit a frank one with an important world leader. Bush solely wanted an opportunity to spout platitudes, any number of which contained misleading and overly generalized statements that we now know to be patently false.
It must be hard knowing that so much of the world personally reviles you. One would assume that Bush would at least have some intelligent, diplomatic responses to such questions. Instead he continues to maintain that the citizens of the world must be crazy if they can't see all of the good that has come from his tenure as president. Bush remains shocked, shocked, that the world still doesn't get it. We're the good guys, see? Can't you recognize our white hats?!
Shortly after posting the earlier entry I was able to view the interview. Far from being harangued, Bush instead was himself far more impolite than Ms Coleman. The idea that this interview would have seriously offended TeamBush is a sad reflection on our nation.
Rather than interrupting, it seemed that Ms Coleman took his pauses as the end of his answer and, given the limited time she had, was in fact trying to pose the follow-up questions which Bush himself kept asking her to wait on. I think the difference was this: Coleman approached the interview as if it were a discussion, albeit a frank one with an important world leader. Bush solely wanted an opportunity to spout platitudes, any number of which contained misleading and overly generalized statements that we now know to be patently false.
It must be hard knowing that so much of the world personally reviles you. One would assume that Bush would at least have some intelligent, diplomatic responses to such questions. Instead he continues to maintain that the citizens of the world must be crazy if they can't see all of the good that has come from his tenure as president. Bush remains shocked, shocked, that the world still doesn't get it. We're the good guys, see? Can't you recognize our white hats?!
Irish reporter notes the Emperor's lack of clothes
On the eve of his journey abroad, TeamBush allowed Carole Coleman of the Irish RTE network to pose a few questions to King George before he touched down in Shannon. In contrast to the deferrential softball treatment given to him by US journalists like Tim Russert, Coleman pressed Bush repeatedly for deeper answers than the boilerplate talking points he prefers to profess.
TeamBush was outraged by the treatment Bush received, as John Nichols' article recounts. To punish RTE TeamBush abruptly cancelled a planned interview with First Librarian Laura Bush, supposedly when they learned the interviewer was to be Ms Coleman.
Was Coleman out of line? I guess a bit of this is culture. Anyone who has ever watched Prime Minister's Minutes on C-SPAN knows that a PM like Tony Blair must be a fast thinker, good parrier, and quick wit as they field a battery of questions hurled at them rapid fire from both sides of the aisle. And these are their fellow House members posing questions, not a member of the fourth estate.
RTE doesn't seem too chided by the TeamBush admonishment--it has posted the interview on its website, www.rte.ie. I plan on taking Nichols up on his challenge to view the interview before making any decision. Of course, so many people worldwide are obviously interested in seeing Bush with his pants down, that the server is full every time I try to view it. But don't worry, I'll keep pluggin'.
On the eve of his journey abroad, TeamBush allowed Carole Coleman of the Irish RTE network to pose a few questions to King George before he touched down in Shannon. In contrast to the deferrential softball treatment given to him by US journalists like Tim Russert, Coleman pressed Bush repeatedly for deeper answers than the boilerplate talking points he prefers to profess.
TeamBush was outraged by the treatment Bush received, as John Nichols' article recounts. To punish RTE TeamBush abruptly cancelled a planned interview with First Librarian Laura Bush, supposedly when they learned the interviewer was to be Ms Coleman.
Was Coleman out of line? I guess a bit of this is culture. Anyone who has ever watched Prime Minister's Minutes on C-SPAN knows that a PM like Tony Blair must be a fast thinker, good parrier, and quick wit as they field a battery of questions hurled at them rapid fire from both sides of the aisle. And these are their fellow House members posing questions, not a member of the fourth estate.
RTE doesn't seem too chided by the TeamBush admonishment--it has posted the interview on its website, www.rte.ie. I plan on taking Nichols up on his challenge to view the interview before making any decision. Of course, so many people worldwide are obviously interested in seeing Bush with his pants down, that the server is full every time I try to view it. But don't worry, I'll keep pluggin'.
Tuesday, June 29, 2004
The Morning After
Baghdad is free! I repeat: Baghdad is free!! OK, so cheesy dialogue aside, starting with today's sunrise, we have a new Iraqi government in place and the much-derided and vilified CPA has ridden off into yesterday's sunset. In the case of TeamBush frontman L. Paul Bremer, he exited far before the sun dipped in the desert sky, hopping a plane literally minutes after handing the keys over to the new PM Iyad Allawi.
In what is a rare bit of praise for the Bushies in this blog, I think the decision to hand over power prior to the 30th of June had some real merit. Even though, it does appear that the decision came out of the 'how-will-it-play-in-Arlen' political playbook of Karl Rove as much as in anticipation of facts on the ground. Nevertheless, it took lots of folks by surprise, including Iraqi militants, and will hopefully help to diffuse the much-expected onslaught of violence that was assumed to be planned for the 30th. Of course, if tomorrow ends up looking like Day One of the Tet Offensive anyway, it won't seem like much of a coup.
My favorite part of the festivities (curiously well-timed so that Bush could make the announcement of the early transfer during the NATO summit in Turkey) was the photo of the personal note Condi jotted to her husband (er, boss)acknowledging the transfer that was immediately made available to the worldwide media. Bush, gushing with that 'mission accomplished' pride no doubt not felt since a certain aircraft carrier PR stunt last year, wrote "Let freedom reign!" in reply. My Gen X response is : "Yeah, sure seemed pretty spontaneous!"
One can only hope that the Iraqi people will change their minds about this new government and at least give them a chance. Much of that will likely be based on its willingness to overturn what many see as egregious overstepping of authority by the CPA in several key areas. The easiest area where they can bite the hands of their former masters without threatening the safety of their country is economic policy.
As has been discussed here before, Bremer's CPA had as a core value of its mission the revisioning of Iraq as a 'free-market' mecca. All of the ideas long touted by arch conservatives were written into Iraq's governance: Privatization of all industries, a flat tax system, generous contracts awarded to large multinationals, etc. This economic shock therapy not only has no precedent in the Middle East, but runs counter to Geneva Convention agreements which stipulate that the occupier of a nation may not make radical and permanent changes to its existing legal and economic system. Not only that, but this effort has largely failed, enriching a few large foreign corporations while leaving many Iraqis embittered, unemployed, and without needed services like clean water and barely reliable electricity.
Thus, the new government can earn much needed points with the locals by disavowing of few of these left over CPA edicts in a very public way.
Another positive: Iraq has always had a large middle class of educated folks. It is clear that fundamentalist extremists of all stripes of been terrorizing the educated intelligentsia and liberated females throughout the country with beatings and assassinations designed to put them in their place. If Iraq is to succeed (something most militant groups are opposed to) the country must cultivate the knowledge and thoughtfulness of these people. So it is incumbent upon the Iraqi government to stop the wave of violence gripping the country.
Indeed it's a hold your breath moment about Iraq right now. Americans in a recent poll have shown both realism and optimism:
"By a 2-1 margin, Americans say the turnover of political control to Iraqis now is not a sign of success, but a sign of failure because the nation's stability remains in question, according to a CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll. Still, three-fourths in the poll approved of the U.S. handover of authority to Iraqis.
The Gallup poll found that despite their doubts, a majority, 54 percent, had hopes the transfer of authority to the Iraqis could improve the situation in that country."
Few polls have invested significant time asking us what we perceive the expectations of the handover to be. No doubt our view of the turnover will be affected greatly by the number of Americans killed and injured in attacks now that power has been given to the Iraqis.
Baghdad is free! I repeat: Baghdad is free!! OK, so cheesy dialogue aside, starting with today's sunrise, we have a new Iraqi government in place and the much-derided and vilified CPA has ridden off into yesterday's sunset. In the case of TeamBush frontman L. Paul Bremer, he exited far before the sun dipped in the desert sky, hopping a plane literally minutes after handing the keys over to the new PM Iyad Allawi.
In what is a rare bit of praise for the Bushies in this blog, I think the decision to hand over power prior to the 30th of June had some real merit. Even though, it does appear that the decision came out of the 'how-will-it-play-in-Arlen' political playbook of Karl Rove as much as in anticipation of facts on the ground. Nevertheless, it took lots of folks by surprise, including Iraqi militants, and will hopefully help to diffuse the much-expected onslaught of violence that was assumed to be planned for the 30th. Of course, if tomorrow ends up looking like Day One of the Tet Offensive anyway, it won't seem like much of a coup.
My favorite part of the festivities (curiously well-timed so that Bush could make the announcement of the early transfer during the NATO summit in Turkey) was the photo of the personal note Condi jotted to her husband (er, boss)acknowledging the transfer that was immediately made available to the worldwide media. Bush, gushing with that 'mission accomplished' pride no doubt not felt since a certain aircraft carrier PR stunt last year, wrote "Let freedom reign!" in reply. My Gen X response is : "Yeah, sure seemed pretty spontaneous!"
One can only hope that the Iraqi people will change their minds about this new government and at least give them a chance. Much of that will likely be based on its willingness to overturn what many see as egregious overstepping of authority by the CPA in several key areas. The easiest area where they can bite the hands of their former masters without threatening the safety of their country is economic policy.
As has been discussed here before, Bremer's CPA had as a core value of its mission the revisioning of Iraq as a 'free-market' mecca. All of the ideas long touted by arch conservatives were written into Iraq's governance: Privatization of all industries, a flat tax system, generous contracts awarded to large multinationals, etc. This economic shock therapy not only has no precedent in the Middle East, but runs counter to Geneva Convention agreements which stipulate that the occupier of a nation may not make radical and permanent changes to its existing legal and economic system. Not only that, but this effort has largely failed, enriching a few large foreign corporations while leaving many Iraqis embittered, unemployed, and without needed services like clean water and barely reliable electricity.
Thus, the new government can earn much needed points with the locals by disavowing of few of these left over CPA edicts in a very public way.
Another positive: Iraq has always had a large middle class of educated folks. It is clear that fundamentalist extremists of all stripes of been terrorizing the educated intelligentsia and liberated females throughout the country with beatings and assassinations designed to put them in their place. If Iraq is to succeed (something most militant groups are opposed to) the country must cultivate the knowledge and thoughtfulness of these people. So it is incumbent upon the Iraqi government to stop the wave of violence gripping the country.
Indeed it's a hold your breath moment about Iraq right now. Americans in a recent poll have shown both realism and optimism:
"By a 2-1 margin, Americans say the turnover of political control to Iraqis now is not a sign of success, but a sign of failure because the nation's stability remains in question, according to a CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll. Still, three-fourths in the poll approved of the U.S. handover of authority to Iraqis.
The Gallup poll found that despite their doubts, a majority, 54 percent, had hopes the transfer of authority to the Iraqis could improve the situation in that country."
Few polls have invested significant time asking us what we perceive the expectations of the handover to be. No doubt our view of the turnover will be affected greatly by the number of Americans killed and injured in attacks now that power has been given to the Iraqis.
Friday, June 18, 2004
Just in time for Political Convention Season!
No more one-at-a-time Tazer zappings for America's Boys in Blue. With the GOP and Democratic Conventions just a few months away word comes from the torture labs of Dr. Strangelove of the latest in 'crowd control.'
New Scientist magazine reports:
"Weapons that can incapacitate crowds of people by sweeping a lightning-like beam of electricity across them are being readied for sale to military and police forces in the US and Europe.
At present, commercial stun guns target one person at a time, and work only at close quarters. The new breed of non-lethal weapons can be used on many people at once and operate over far greater distances."
Thanks goodness. . . Repression of civil and human rights en masse just got a whole lot easier. But, of course, real patriotic Americans who would never find themselves engaged in Commie-pinko activities like protesting redresses in the streets shouldn't fear such useful law enforcement tools. And, hey, if you happen to be in the wrong place in the wrong time one day when these Pinkos are making a nuisance of themselves exercising their so-called Constitutional rights, well you just should've been more careful. Just ask John Timoney.
No more one-at-a-time Tazer zappings for America's Boys in Blue. With the GOP and Democratic Conventions just a few months away word comes from the torture labs of Dr. Strangelove of the latest in 'crowd control.'
New Scientist magazine reports:
"Weapons that can incapacitate crowds of people by sweeping a lightning-like beam of electricity across them are being readied for sale to military and police forces in the US and Europe.
At present, commercial stun guns target one person at a time, and work only at close quarters. The new breed of non-lethal weapons can be used on many people at once and operate over far greater distances."
Thanks goodness. . . Repression of civil and human rights en masse just got a whole lot easier. But, of course, real patriotic Americans who would never find themselves engaged in Commie-pinko activities like protesting redresses in the streets shouldn't fear such useful law enforcement tools. And, hey, if you happen to be in the wrong place in the wrong time one day when these Pinkos are making a nuisance of themselves exercising their so-called Constitutional rights, well you just should've been more careful. Just ask John Timoney.
Al Qaeda is to Saddam as 9-11 is to . . .?
Thank goodness that, according to a recent Pew poll, the American people have studiously began to stick their ostrich-like heads in the sand once again about Iraq and all other manner of TeamBush unpleasantries that just became too much, to paraphrase Babs Bush,to "trouble our beautiful minds" with.
If we hadn't, we would have had to endure the twisted explanations coming from the White House regarding the 9-11 Commission's findings that there was no substantive link between Hussein's self-serving secularist regime and the equally self-serving fundamentalist Bin Laden organization.
Lest I be accused of putting words into Our Dear Leader's mouth, just view this yourself. Quiz: See how many long-ago discredited assertions and talking points you can count in Bush's seemingly coherent defense of the indefensible. Winner gets a Visa to an industrialized country far, far away.
Of course, Commandante Cheney prefers to rail on his Ol' Lady's favorite whipping boy, the media. See Dick Blame. Blame Dick Blame.
Thank goodness that, according to a recent Pew poll, the American people have studiously began to stick their ostrich-like heads in the sand once again about Iraq and all other manner of TeamBush unpleasantries that just became too much, to paraphrase Babs Bush,to "trouble our beautiful minds" with.
If we hadn't, we would have had to endure the twisted explanations coming from the White House regarding the 9-11 Commission's findings that there was no substantive link between Hussein's self-serving secularist regime and the equally self-serving fundamentalist Bin Laden organization.
Lest I be accused of putting words into Our Dear Leader's mouth, just view this yourself. Quiz: See how many long-ago discredited assertions and talking points you can count in Bush's seemingly coherent defense of the indefensible. Winner gets a Visa to an industrialized country far, far away.
Of course, Commandante Cheney prefers to rail on his Ol' Lady's favorite whipping boy, the media. See Dick Blame. Blame Dick Blame.
Tuesday, June 08, 2004
Reagan dies--Liberals genuflect
Y'know, I guess it's just pretty darn impolitic, maybe even "PC" to quote Rush, to dishonor the dead. It sure seems that way as we watch the misnamed liberal media fall all over itself to glorify Reagan's legacy while glossing over the major disagreements and failures of his tenure.
For the record, I was a college student in DC during much of the Reagan Administration and I simply hated the man. I couldn't even bear to watch him on TV. His policies intentionally gutted the social safety net and began the process of transferring the wealth of government from the lower and middle classes to the upper classes and large corporations. Despite stirring common-man rhetoric and libertarian anti-government notions, government actually grew during Reagan's tenure. The only thing he managed to do was to redirect the benefits of the state(welfare, if you will) from the bottom 2/3 of the country to the upper 1/10.
He supported illegal wars in Central America and was involved in a B-movie script scenario that became broadly known as the Iran-Contra scandal, the conclusion of which (after mastermind Bill Casey's very timely death) left one to choose between a vision of President Reagan as either a) acting in a blatantly criminal manner, or b) utterly incompetent. To his credit, I lean toward the first conclusion. So much as been made of his anti-Communist stance during the numerous tributes over the weekend--many of his supporters agreed that when it came to a few things, one being the Pinkos, he was always in charge and on top of his game--always. Such posthumous analysis practically indicts Reagan in playing a major role in the scandal, although that is conveniently swept under the rug here in eulogy season.
Hey, look, when I die I too hope that people will overlook my faults in favor of my contributions as well. But that's as much of a nod as I'm willing to give him.
As I listened to NPR (what passes for liberal media), I noted their consistent evenhandedness, as is their way. I wonder how Bill Clinton will be portrayed by Fox News (or its even more-rabid future successor) when he finally passes. My guess is it will be a lot more about stained dresses and cigar tricks than budget surpluses and booming economies.
Hell, even after FDR died those dyed-in-the-wool anti-New Dealers were opening champagne and dancing in their mansions. And this was during the Second World War!! Imagine if liberals did that in this day and age, should W. pass suddenly. They'd be locked up faster than you could say "Cheney's in charge--all Democrats are hereby deported to Guantanamo."
So I'll neither celebrate Reagan's legacy nor dance on his grave. I will note the tragedy of Alzheimers that robbed him and his family of their last years together. We all die alone--he did so years ago, and that is a tragedy that we should all acknowledge.
Y'know, I guess it's just pretty darn impolitic, maybe even "PC" to quote Rush, to dishonor the dead. It sure seems that way as we watch the misnamed liberal media fall all over itself to glorify Reagan's legacy while glossing over the major disagreements and failures of his tenure.
For the record, I was a college student in DC during much of the Reagan Administration and I simply hated the man. I couldn't even bear to watch him on TV. His policies intentionally gutted the social safety net and began the process of transferring the wealth of government from the lower and middle classes to the upper classes and large corporations. Despite stirring common-man rhetoric and libertarian anti-government notions, government actually grew during Reagan's tenure. The only thing he managed to do was to redirect the benefits of the state(welfare, if you will) from the bottom 2/3 of the country to the upper 1/10.
He supported illegal wars in Central America and was involved in a B-movie script scenario that became broadly known as the Iran-Contra scandal, the conclusion of which (after mastermind Bill Casey's very timely death) left one to choose between a vision of President Reagan as either a) acting in a blatantly criminal manner, or b) utterly incompetent. To his credit, I lean toward the first conclusion. So much as been made of his anti-Communist stance during the numerous tributes over the weekend--many of his supporters agreed that when it came to a few things, one being the Pinkos, he was always in charge and on top of his game--always. Such posthumous analysis practically indicts Reagan in playing a major role in the scandal, although that is conveniently swept under the rug here in eulogy season.
Hey, look, when I die I too hope that people will overlook my faults in favor of my contributions as well. But that's as much of a nod as I'm willing to give him.
As I listened to NPR (what passes for liberal media), I noted their consistent evenhandedness, as is their way. I wonder how Bill Clinton will be portrayed by Fox News (or its even more-rabid future successor) when he finally passes. My guess is it will be a lot more about stained dresses and cigar tricks than budget surpluses and booming economies.
Hell, even after FDR died those dyed-in-the-wool anti-New Dealers were opening champagne and dancing in their mansions. And this was during the Second World War!! Imagine if liberals did that in this day and age, should W. pass suddenly. They'd be locked up faster than you could say "Cheney's in charge--all Democrats are hereby deported to Guantanamo."
So I'll neither celebrate Reagan's legacy nor dance on his grave. I will note the tragedy of Alzheimers that robbed him and his family of their last years together. We all die alone--he did so years ago, and that is a tragedy that we should all acknowledge.
Thursday, June 03, 2004
Homeland Security You Say?!
Boy, oh boy, things sure are a bit topsy turvy in the Orwellian world that is our nation's official security apparatus. Just in is the news that George Tenet has resigned as CIA chief. Talking heads in Washington are busy comparing notes to speculate if he 'was pushed or jumped.'
One thing clear is that Tenet's departure will likely have little effect on slowing the bad investigative and prosecutorial work coming from the Feds these days. Exhibit A is that we let a real, genuine terrorist out of our legal system, and he is now hiding out in Syria.
We did manage to capture and detain incommunicado for two weeks an Oregon lawyer in connection with the Madrid train bombings. In that particular case, however, this guy was innocent. His family says that he was 'smeared' because he is a Muslim convert married to an Egyptian woman. He was also a retired Army Officer, which one would think could provide some validation (except of course for the likes of Captain James Yee, who was also, wouldn't you know it, a Muslim!).
Perhaps I'm being more snippy than I need to be. The Feds did eventually drop all charges on both of these innocent men, even if they did drag their good names and their lives and those of their families through the proverbial mud for a few weeks or months, respectively. I fully understand that the biggest fear of Homeland Security is that they should never again let something horrible like 9-11 happen again. But if that is the real driving force, then why did they let the real terrorist out of custody?
The issue here seems to get back to plain old incompetence and the red herring of "intelligence concerns." As the above article should make clear, Nabil al-Marabh was a poster boy for the "bad guy" with which TeamBush so likes to scare the crap out of the average American. Despite being the 27th-most-wanted guy on the US watch list, al-Marabh was sent back to Syria, a country identified as being a sponsor of terrorism. The Justice Department denied multiple attempts to bring charges against him by various federal prosecutors, saying that the US "cannot effectively try [him] in court without giving away intelligence sources and methods."
So this guy who proclaimed that he "intended to martyr himself in an attack against the United States" is now out of custody, while we keep old men and kids of dubious intelligence value in Guantanamo.
I feel safe. Real safe indeed.
Boy, oh boy, things sure are a bit topsy turvy in the Orwellian world that is our nation's official security apparatus. Just in is the news that George Tenet has resigned as CIA chief. Talking heads in Washington are busy comparing notes to speculate if he 'was pushed or jumped.'
One thing clear is that Tenet's departure will likely have little effect on slowing the bad investigative and prosecutorial work coming from the Feds these days. Exhibit A is that we let a real, genuine terrorist out of our legal system, and he is now hiding out in Syria.
We did manage to capture and detain incommunicado for two weeks an Oregon lawyer in connection with the Madrid train bombings. In that particular case, however, this guy was innocent. His family says that he was 'smeared' because he is a Muslim convert married to an Egyptian woman. He was also a retired Army Officer, which one would think could provide some validation (except of course for the likes of Captain James Yee, who was also, wouldn't you know it, a Muslim!).
Perhaps I'm being more snippy than I need to be. The Feds did eventually drop all charges on both of these innocent men, even if they did drag their good names and their lives and those of their families through the proverbial mud for a few weeks or months, respectively. I fully understand that the biggest fear of Homeland Security is that they should never again let something horrible like 9-11 happen again. But if that is the real driving force, then why did they let the real terrorist out of custody?
The issue here seems to get back to plain old incompetence and the red herring of "intelligence concerns." As the above article should make clear, Nabil al-Marabh was a poster boy for the "bad guy" with which TeamBush so likes to scare the crap out of the average American. Despite being the 27th-most-wanted guy on the US watch list, al-Marabh was sent back to Syria, a country identified as being a sponsor of terrorism. The Justice Department denied multiple attempts to bring charges against him by various federal prosecutors, saying that the US "cannot effectively try [him] in court without giving away intelligence sources and methods."
So this guy who proclaimed that he "intended to martyr himself in an attack against the United States" is now out of custody, while we keep old men and kids of dubious intelligence value in Guantanamo.
I feel safe. Real safe indeed.
Wednesday, June 02, 2004
Communion Politics: Is the Vatican dumping liberal Catholics?
Not since the campaign of John Kennedy in 1960 has Catholicism been such a political issue. Oddly enough, however, rather than any JFK-era fears about the Vatican running the US of A., the main point about pols and their faith this time around is if they're Catholic enough.
Indeed, I can't recall a time since before the 16th century Reformation-era when the threat of withholding communion (and its natural follow-up--excommunication) has been so politically prominent.
The Prelude
A few months ago Cardinal Arinze, a powerful Vatican conservative, said that Catholic politicians with views and votes that were persistently against church teaching should be denied communion, the central sacrament of Catholic practice and faith. The primary emphasis here was on abortion rights, however, that is far from the only concern. This pronouncement followed closely an official teaching promulgated by the Congregation for the Defense of the Faith (the folks who brought you the Inquisition) under uber-powerful Cardinal Ratzinger which outlined Catholic opposition to same-sex marriage. While Arinze's comments were generally read as opinion, the CDFs document is essentially church law and comes with the express blessing of the Pope.
Soon several bishops were quick to attain the public relations victory of issuing orders in their own dioceses denying communion to prominent politicians either directly, in the case of New Jersey Governor McGreevey, or indirectly in the case of putative Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. Indeed, none of the statements I read that mentioned specific politicians mentioned any Republicans, although there are many GOP Catholics who do support abortion rights in some measure and some version of same-sex union such as NYC icon Rudy Guiliani and New York Guv George Pataki just to name a few.
Most troubling to me, as a member of the activist progressive Catholic wing, were the pronouncements from a few bishops that followed which stated that voting for such a politician was, in itself, manifest of persistent sin, and that such a voter should also be denied communion!!
So here's the devolution of this mess. We have the sinner, the person who has done this individual act (and if you buy in to that philosophy, has erred). Then we have the politician who either makes the act permissible or makes some punishment of the act less strident than Vatican hardliners would have. Then we have those people who vote for such politicians. None of whom are to receive communion. Better start baking a lot less eucharistic bread, I guess.
The Issues
The first issue I see revolves around what it means to be representative in government. What happens when a Catholic politician, or any politician, represents an area where majority opinion favors a stance opposed by their faith or value system? There are very few urban, old-line suburban areas that elect anti-choice pols. Additionally, one must consider the bundle of policy positions of a candidate. Rare is the anti-tax, pro-gun, pro-business Republican who is also pro-choice--indeed it is often the only government intrusion position that such candidates take. Conversely, a candidate who is pro-choice and in favor of some recognized gay union rights is much more likely to support social and educational positions in line with church teachings on social justice, fairness, and equity than the candidate characterized above who spouts the anti-gay, anti-choice agenda of Ratzinger and Arinze.
So where to go? The progressive Catholic magazine Commonweal has published pieces recently on both use of the communion rail as a political tool and support of gay marriage. You can see the weakness of the moderate/liberal Catholic position from the careful tone that the writer of the gay marriage piece takes. While it could be said that the measured reason of his prose is well in line with the established norms of canon law, it also gives the impression that the author is tip-toeing through a haunted minefield. And I fear that this is with good reason. One much greater than the fact that certain conservative bishops are now acting like Seinfeld's proverbial 'Soup Nazi': "Get out of the line! No host for you!!"
Catholic Fundamentalism
Fundamentalist Catholics stand on the brink of snatching all the power of the Holy See and ostracizing, purging, the liberal, less orthodox branches of the faith.
Fundamentalism is at its core a response to modernity. As all faiths have experienced this phenomenon in various degrees during the twentieth century, and we are in the midst of the Catholic transformation. Until the 1960s the Roman church was moribund but familiar. The changes of Vatican II were welcomed by many but vehemently opposed by a radical minority whose ranks have grown in number and influence over the past decades. They strongly opposed the church's dialogue and engagement with modernity, the high-water mark of which was Paul VI's near acceptance of birth control. Although it went their way, conservatives were vehement that they would never come so close to such a break with the past again.
The 1980s saw the stifling of a 'liberation theology' movement in Latin America that was wrongly portrayed as being a dupe of the communists. Dirty Wars in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua killed many church people whose only allegiance was to alleviating the misery of that region's poorest people. Assassinated Archbishop Oscar Romero is on the fast track to canonization as a martyr, but his church-based politics of equity and fairness for campesinos died with him. The radical priests of the 60s and 70s who blockaded draft boards and demanded social justice were sidelined, quietly ostracized or defrocked if they refused to obey. The darlings of the church were now on the outs, replaced by conservative elements such as Opus Dei (whose founder actually was canonized recently despite many questions about his qualifications). Anti-communism was again the foundation of Vatican politics under John Paul II, and the broader church increasingly found itself allied with the more conservative protestant elements. Their struggles have continued to merge to the point where they blur almost together.
The strength of these conservative elements can be seen in the muted response to conservative bishop's pronouncements on communion by the National Council of Catholic Bishops. Even though they have a general policy of not influencing politics in this way, the NCCB hasn't said much at all. This is mainly because the council is made up of pragmatists who know the church is in a period of interregnum. The next pope will have a great influence over the direction of the church, and until we know who it is, Bishop Gregory and his crew are staying low and playing respectful. Which is sad, because the conservative bishops and cardinals are out there commanding the field and practically ensuring a future pope not only to the political and religious right of the current pontiff, but one who will take even greater strides to enforce Catholic Fundamentalism.
Still, liberal elements remain strong in the American church. They still do most of the day-to-day work of tending to the poor, and needy, and sick, and imprisoned that the Catholic church engages in. The clergy sexual abuse scandals, while pushing some liberal Catholics out of the fold, saw the rise of strong democratizing forces in the church such as Voices for the Faithful and SNAP. They demanded lay oversight, influence in parish placement decisions, and open books--all things anathema to a church that is in the process of consolidating its power and control.
So it is my belief that strong elements within the Catholic church have decided, in light of the challenges of openness and accountability they face from the left and the persistent drag toward conservatism of the last 30 years, that the church should abandon its liberal members. Or, more correctly, deny them communion with Rome based on their insufficient orthodoxy. Which is a pretty common occurence for groups undergoing a fundamentalist moment, one that invariably is based on pursuing a purer, often golden-age, version of the faith that is by definition more disengaged with the forces of medernity.
On a more personal note, I am greatly conflicted. I am one of those activist, progressive, big-tent Catholics. It is only by geographic accident of a few miles that I am not in a diocese where the bishop plays such communion politics. Perhaps more ominous, one of the few bishops in the nation to suggest that voting patterns were grounds for denial of communion is the successor to our current Archbishop here in Philadelphia. To what extent that they share these beliefs, I have no idea. But I do know that I can't accept church teaching that I know in my heart to be wrong, and I also know that I have too much pride to pretend that I don't disagree with the teachings in order to continue to receive communion.
The church is at a crossroads. In ten years one of the divergent paths outlined in this posting will become the smooth, shiny path of orthodoxy, and the other will become abandonded and overgrown. And by then I'm sure I will have decided whether to stay on the path or trek out through the woods.
Not since the campaign of John Kennedy in 1960 has Catholicism been such a political issue. Oddly enough, however, rather than any JFK-era fears about the Vatican running the US of A., the main point about pols and their faith this time around is if they're Catholic enough.
Indeed, I can't recall a time since before the 16th century Reformation-era when the threat of withholding communion (and its natural follow-up--excommunication) has been so politically prominent.
The Prelude
A few months ago Cardinal Arinze, a powerful Vatican conservative, said that Catholic politicians with views and votes that were persistently against church teaching should be denied communion, the central sacrament of Catholic practice and faith. The primary emphasis here was on abortion rights, however, that is far from the only concern. This pronouncement followed closely an official teaching promulgated by the Congregation for the Defense of the Faith (the folks who brought you the Inquisition) under uber-powerful Cardinal Ratzinger which outlined Catholic opposition to same-sex marriage. While Arinze's comments were generally read as opinion, the CDFs document is essentially church law and comes with the express blessing of the Pope.
Soon several bishops were quick to attain the public relations victory of issuing orders in their own dioceses denying communion to prominent politicians either directly, in the case of New Jersey Governor McGreevey, or indirectly in the case of putative Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. Indeed, none of the statements I read that mentioned specific politicians mentioned any Republicans, although there are many GOP Catholics who do support abortion rights in some measure and some version of same-sex union such as NYC icon Rudy Guiliani and New York Guv George Pataki just to name a few.
Most troubling to me, as a member of the activist progressive Catholic wing, were the pronouncements from a few bishops that followed which stated that voting for such a politician was, in itself, manifest of persistent sin, and that such a voter should also be denied communion!!
So here's the devolution of this mess. We have the sinner, the person who has done this individual act (and if you buy in to that philosophy, has erred). Then we have the politician who either makes the act permissible or makes some punishment of the act less strident than Vatican hardliners would have. Then we have those people who vote for such politicians. None of whom are to receive communion. Better start baking a lot less eucharistic bread, I guess.
The Issues
The first issue I see revolves around what it means to be representative in government. What happens when a Catholic politician, or any politician, represents an area where majority opinion favors a stance opposed by their faith or value system? There are very few urban, old-line suburban areas that elect anti-choice pols. Additionally, one must consider the bundle of policy positions of a candidate. Rare is the anti-tax, pro-gun, pro-business Republican who is also pro-choice--indeed it is often the only government intrusion position that such candidates take. Conversely, a candidate who is pro-choice and in favor of some recognized gay union rights is much more likely to support social and educational positions in line with church teachings on social justice, fairness, and equity than the candidate characterized above who spouts the anti-gay, anti-choice agenda of Ratzinger and Arinze.
So where to go? The progressive Catholic magazine Commonweal has published pieces recently on both use of the communion rail as a political tool and support of gay marriage. You can see the weakness of the moderate/liberal Catholic position from the careful tone that the writer of the gay marriage piece takes. While it could be said that the measured reason of his prose is well in line with the established norms of canon law, it also gives the impression that the author is tip-toeing through a haunted minefield. And I fear that this is with good reason. One much greater than the fact that certain conservative bishops are now acting like Seinfeld's proverbial 'Soup Nazi': "Get out of the line! No host for you!!"
Catholic Fundamentalism
Fundamentalist Catholics stand on the brink of snatching all the power of the Holy See and ostracizing, purging, the liberal, less orthodox branches of the faith.
Fundamentalism is at its core a response to modernity. As all faiths have experienced this phenomenon in various degrees during the twentieth century, and we are in the midst of the Catholic transformation. Until the 1960s the Roman church was moribund but familiar. The changes of Vatican II were welcomed by many but vehemently opposed by a radical minority whose ranks have grown in number and influence over the past decades. They strongly opposed the church's dialogue and engagement with modernity, the high-water mark of which was Paul VI's near acceptance of birth control. Although it went their way, conservatives were vehement that they would never come so close to such a break with the past again.
The 1980s saw the stifling of a 'liberation theology' movement in Latin America that was wrongly portrayed as being a dupe of the communists. Dirty Wars in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua killed many church people whose only allegiance was to alleviating the misery of that region's poorest people. Assassinated Archbishop Oscar Romero is on the fast track to canonization as a martyr, but his church-based politics of equity and fairness for campesinos died with him. The radical priests of the 60s and 70s who blockaded draft boards and demanded social justice were sidelined, quietly ostracized or defrocked if they refused to obey. The darlings of the church were now on the outs, replaced by conservative elements such as Opus Dei (whose founder actually was canonized recently despite many questions about his qualifications). Anti-communism was again the foundation of Vatican politics under John Paul II, and the broader church increasingly found itself allied with the more conservative protestant elements. Their struggles have continued to merge to the point where they blur almost together.
The strength of these conservative elements can be seen in the muted response to conservative bishop's pronouncements on communion by the National Council of Catholic Bishops. Even though they have a general policy of not influencing politics in this way, the NCCB hasn't said much at all. This is mainly because the council is made up of pragmatists who know the church is in a period of interregnum. The next pope will have a great influence over the direction of the church, and until we know who it is, Bishop Gregory and his crew are staying low and playing respectful. Which is sad, because the conservative bishops and cardinals are out there commanding the field and practically ensuring a future pope not only to the political and religious right of the current pontiff, but one who will take even greater strides to enforce Catholic Fundamentalism.
Still, liberal elements remain strong in the American church. They still do most of the day-to-day work of tending to the poor, and needy, and sick, and imprisoned that the Catholic church engages in. The clergy sexual abuse scandals, while pushing some liberal Catholics out of the fold, saw the rise of strong democratizing forces in the church such as Voices for the Faithful and SNAP. They demanded lay oversight, influence in parish placement decisions, and open books--all things anathema to a church that is in the process of consolidating its power and control.
So it is my belief that strong elements within the Catholic church have decided, in light of the challenges of openness and accountability they face from the left and the persistent drag toward conservatism of the last 30 years, that the church should abandon its liberal members. Or, more correctly, deny them communion with Rome based on their insufficient orthodoxy. Which is a pretty common occurence for groups undergoing a fundamentalist moment, one that invariably is based on pursuing a purer, often golden-age, version of the faith that is by definition more disengaged with the forces of medernity.
On a more personal note, I am greatly conflicted. I am one of those activist, progressive, big-tent Catholics. It is only by geographic accident of a few miles that I am not in a diocese where the bishop plays such communion politics. Perhaps more ominous, one of the few bishops in the nation to suggest that voting patterns were grounds for denial of communion is the successor to our current Archbishop here in Philadelphia. To what extent that they share these beliefs, I have no idea. But I do know that I can't accept church teaching that I know in my heart to be wrong, and I also know that I have too much pride to pretend that I don't disagree with the teachings in order to continue to receive communion.
The church is at a crossroads. In ten years one of the divergent paths outlined in this posting will become the smooth, shiny path of orthodoxy, and the other will become abandonded and overgrown. And by then I'm sure I will have decided whether to stay on the path or trek out through the woods.
