Soldiers of Humanity

From Zen Flesh, Zen Bones, translated by Paul Reps:

Once a division of the Japanese army was engaged in a sham battle, and some of the officers found it necessary to make their headquarters in Gasan's temple.

Gasan told his cook: "Let the officers have only the same simple fare we eat."

This made the army men angry, as they were used to very deferential treatment. One came to Gasan and said: "Who do you think we are? We are soldiers, sacrificing our lives for our country. Why don't you treat us accordingly?"

Gasan answered sternly: "Who do you think we are? We are soldiers of humanity, aiming to save all sentient beings."

(This week marks the fifth anniversary of the United States' invasion of Iraq. This post is for the Iraq War Blogswarm and as part of a ongoing Series on War. Cross-posted at The Blue Herald.)

You Keep Using that Word…

While we're discussing the rich irony and Orwellian nature of Bill O'Reilly calling John Edwards a "charlatan" on the plight of homeless vets, I wanted to highlight another instant classic, from that eloquent, persuasive statesman, President Bush:

"But yeah, look, I'm sure people view me as a warmonger and I view myself as peacemaker."

Dan Froomkin has much more, if you can stand it.

Clearly, Newspeak continues. Of course, this is the same crew that thinks General Petraeus deserves the Nobel Peace Prize , and discuss such issues with all the intellectual integrity and eloquence of schoolyard taunts in junior high. I don't think this is mere hackdom. Yes, they are hacks, and more importantly, scoundrels. But some of them are also really, really this goddam stupid.

But let's let libural Hollywood get in the last word:



(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)

Amish Grace

It's now been a little over a year since the horrific Nickel Mines tragedy, when an extremely disturbed man murdered several Amish schoolchildren.

Then there's the Amish response. They visited the man's wife and children. They visited his father. They cried with them. They attended the man's funeral. They donated money. They mourned others' losses as well as their own. Anger would have been completely understandable, but instead they offered compassion.

That's a completely different moral and emotional vocabulary than, to speak for myself, I'm used to. I understand it as a concept, I've tried to practice it myself at times, but I can't say I've found myself in that sort of world too often. I certainly don't see that sort of reflection or maturity tempering current war-mongering. I think it takes a particular type of petulance, callousness and vanity to eagerly clamor for violence, even when the likely disastrous consequences are intellectually if not emotionally clear. Meanwhile, it takes a certain kind of grace to face someone with that sort of attitude honestly, yet still respond in a positive way.

As Hilzoy observed in her post "Liberating Iraq," (linked previously here):

Violence is not a way of getting where you want to go, only more quickly. Its existence changes your destination. If you use it, you had better be prepared to find yourself in the kind of place it takes you to.

Forgiveness does not mean the absence of grief, and losing a child, especially to violence, is one of the harshest of blows. The Amish community still has its pain, and some of the surviving victims still have significant if not severe health problems.

The actual shooting was astoundingly tragic. If there's something sad at this anniversary, besides its continuing effects, it's that the Amish response is so startling and unusual. If there's something hopeful, it's that their grace is both startling and inspiring. I find true virtue does give me pause, and the best way to honor the dead is to invite in that sort of reflection.

Here's NPR's fine coverage on the anniversary and listener's responses. Here's the Bill Moyers Journal piece on the same story, which also focuses on the book Amish Grace.

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald and The Peace Tree)

Prevent Needless War with Iran

It's essential to contact your senators about opposing the Kyl-Lieberman amendment to the FY 2008 Defense Authorization bill. The vote could be any day now, and it can't get too much attention. Contact information is at the end of this post.

As Josh Marshall explains:

Did you hear about the War on Iran Authorization bill the Senate is going to vote on perhaps as early as today? No, that's not how it's getting billed. But that's what the 'Kyl-Lieberman' amendment is. In fact, the supporters of going to war against Iran are using exactly the same strategy with this amendment that they did to lay the groundwork for the Iraq War.

You can watch Josh Marshall break it down on TPMtv here.

As Jonathan Schwarz wrote last week:

Amazingly, no one anywhere in the US media seems to have noticed that yesterday Jon Kyl (Arizona) and Joe Lieberman filed an extremely threatening amendment on Iran to the FY 2008 Defense Authorization bill. I guess all their time was taken up with the earth-shakingly important issue of newspaper ads.

It's a "Sense of the Senate" resolution, which means it has no legal force, but as the Congressional Research Service will tell you, "foreign governments pay close attention to [such resolutions] as evidence of shifts in U.S. foreign policy priorities." If you want you can read it yourself (.doc), but here are the most important paragraphs:

(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;

(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies.

If something like this passes both the House and Senate, I think Bush could legitimately argue that between it, the War Powers Act and the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations to Use Military Force, he has all the authority he needs to attack Iran.

Exactly, and as we've covered before, Cheney and the neocons have been pushing for it, and some generals have been opposing it. Neocon granddaddy Norman Podhoretz, who claims we're currently in World War IV, has written op-eds calling for the bombing of Iran, and claims he prays for it daily. Yet did you also know he secretly met with Bush for forty-five minutes on the subject?

Meanwhile, Crooks and Liars and Think Progress both have the video of Virginia Senator Jim Webb spelling out what should be obvious:

Those who regret their vote five years ago to authorize military action in Iraq should think hard before supporting this approach...

This proposal is Dick Cheney’s fondest pipe dream. It’s not a prescription for success. At best, it’s a deliberate attempt to divert attention from a failed diplomatic policy. At worst, it could be read as a back door method of gaining congressional validation for action with one hearing or without serious debate.

Jonathan Schwarz has some good updates, including a link to a piece by Carah Ong at Iran Nuclear Watch quoting Peter Galbraith, who debunks the claims of Lieberman-Kyl. (Shocking, I know.)

Let me add the words of James Fallows that I quoted back in February:

War with Iran would be a catastrophe that would make us look back fondly on the minor inconvenience of being bogged down in Iraq. While the Congress flounders about what, exactly, it can do about Iraq, it can do something useful, while it still matters, in making clear that it will authorize no money and provide no endorsement for military action against Iran.

Here's that contact info if you don't have it, courtesy again of Schwarz:

The horrible Kyl-Lieberman Amendment on Iran may be voted on in the Senate as soon as today. Call your senator right now (Capitol switchboard: 202-224-3121) to tell them to oppose it.

I don't have any hope this will fail, but it would be nice for it not to be a shut out. Call now.

AND: You should write them, too. Get their contact forms at senate.gov or via Just Foreign Policy. A useful guide on writing to congress is here, although of course there's no time to send something by mail..

I'll be writing tonight.

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)

"You Don't Make Peace with your Friends, You Make Peace with your Enemies"

(AFP/Peter Muhly)

Peace in Northern Ireland finally seems to be a reality, and a very welcome one at that. On NPR program The World, Lisa Mullens had an thoughtful talk with the Boston Globe's Kevin Cullen, who passed on the intriguing line above.

For more background on the developments in Northern Ireland, here's short pieces from NPR shows All Things Considered, Morning Edition, and a short segment from the same episode of The World. Or, if you prefer, here's a brief AFP article.

Cullen talks about the similarities between South Africa near the end of apartheid and Northern Ireland, and how leaders from Ireland met with South Africans to discuss social and political dynamics. He speaks of talking with Mac Maharaj, who he describes as "the last ANC [African National Congress] fighter to give up." Cullen asked Maharaj about the most important thing he told leaders from Northern Ireland. Maharaj said, "It sounds so simple, it sounds silly, but it really is: You don't make peace with your friends, you make peace with your enemies, and the only way you end a conflict is to accept that premise."

In the case of Northern Ireland, Protestant Ian Paisley and Sinn Fein's Martin McGuinness, once intractable foes, finally were willing to meet and come to an agreement. Peace is never possible without both parties, or most parties, willing to consider it. Someone has to offer an olive branch and someone has to accept it. Most of all, they all need to talk. Reporter Rob Gifford states in the Morning Edition piece that previous accords had failed because the moderates on either side could come to an agreement, but influential leaders of groups with more extreme positions would undermine them.

As to other conflicts in the world, it's no secret, except apparently to the present American administration, that the no-diplomacy "silent treatment" school of foreign policy doesn't work — that is, if peace is the goal. Peace requires a different vocabulary than belligerence, but certainly requires a willingness to speak in the first place, and more importantly, to listen. As many folks have pointed out, we spoke with the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War. Cullen also talks about "making a different history" to get past bad blood. Generally, average citizens tire of conflicts long before their leaders, because they most feel the effects and live the cost. Sadly, especially when it comes to peace, our political leaders are often not our moral leaders. The wisest among us (who I would argue realize that violence is not the first or best solution) are often not calling the shots. It's our duty as citizens not only to elect better politicians, but also to step into the vacuum and provide that leadership ourselves. Here's to Ireland becoming a positive example for the rest of the world.


(This post was written for The Peace Tree. Also cross-posted at The Blue Herald.)

Cops in Los Angeles

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)


Monday I received a last minute invite to a Dodgers game that night. The four of us had great seats, the best I've ever had a baseball game, right behind home plate, only three rows back (not counting the super special section in front of us!). Too bad the Dodgers stunk up the joint, with the Diamondbacks winning 9-1 (apparently the Dodgers had played a 17-inning game the previous day).

Two guys in front of us were really friendly, filling us in on a few players and the recent Dodgers record, making jokes, even giving us a spare beer they weren't going to drink — and ball park beer ain't cheap! It turns out they were both cops, from Bakersfield (about 100 miles north of Dodgers Stadium!), and probably the nicest cops I've ever met.

In very sharp contrast, the local news has been airing footage of the police assaulting journalists and demonstrators here in town at a May Day rally this past Tuesday. It's a pretty big local story that only now seems to be trickling into national coverage.

Think Progress has some of the video from CNN here. Photos from The Los Angeles Times are here. Jim Swanson has a short post on it here, and will be covering it in this weekend's Blue Herald podcast.

The Los Angeles Times featured several important stories on these events. From "Police action on journalists at melee is assailed":

One day after several reporters and camera operators were injured while covering an altercation at an immigrant rights rally in MacArthur Park, news organizations condemned the Los Angeles Police Department for its use of batons and riot guns against members of the media, and some said they were considering legal options.

"We are sorry for what happened to our employees and find it unacceptable that they would be abused in that way when they were doing their job," said Alfredo Richard, spokesman for the Spanish-language network Telemundo, of the anchor and the reporter who were hurt during the evening rally.

Other members of the media who were injured included four employees of KVEA-TV Channel 52, a KTTV-TV Channel 11 news reporter who suffered a minor shoulder injury, a camerawoman who has a broken wrist and a reporter for KPCC-FM (89.3) who was bruised by a police baton.

"I was dumbfounded," said the KPCC reporter, Patricia Nazario. "I've covered riots. I've covered chaos. I was never hit or struck or humiliated the way the LAPD violated me yesterday."

Nazario said she was walking away from riot police when she was hit in the back.

Wearing a press pass and holding a microphone, she turned around and told the officer, "Why did you hit me? I'm moving. I'm a reporter," Nazario recalled.

Then the officer hit her on the left leg, she said, knocking her to the ground and sending her cellphone flying.

"I was shocked, trying to scramble to my feet," she said. "At that point, I just started crying…. I just felt totally vulnerable.

This was far from an isolated incident:

Pedro Sevcec was anchoring the evening news for Telemundo when he saw the riot police moving slowly toward the news crews.

A few dozen people had gathered to watch Sevcec do his live broadcast.

"The next thing I heard was the shotguns," he said.

Police knocked over monitors and lights and hit reporters and camera operators with batons, he said.

Sevcec said police hit him three times and pointed a riot gun at his face before pushing him out of the park.

An emergency anchor in Miami took over the broadcast.

"It was so ridiculous," Sevcec said. "They know what a TV camera is. This is not a secret weapon."

Telemundo reporter Carlos Botifoll said he was hit by a baton as he was waiting to go live on the broadcast.

He was carrying a microphone and standing in front of a camera.

"We were obviously reporters," he said. "There could not have been any doubt whatsoever."

The cops also knocked over lights, grabbed cameras and threw them. The article continues:

Peter Eliasberg, an ACLU lawyer who helped negotiate the settlement, said that based on broadcast news reports he has heard and viewed, "the police went way over the line," using force that "violates the law and the Constitution."

Marc Cooper, associate director of the USC Annenberg Institute for Justice in Journalism, said the video he viewed of the clash led him to believe that the use of force by police was "unjustifiable and excessive."

"From what I saw, it just seemed gratuitous to go after the reporters," Cooper said. "They weren't really in the way, they didn't really pose a threat and, of course, they were trying to do their job."

L.A. Police Chief William Bratton has expressed his displeasure. From "Chief vows full inquiry into violence":

"The treatment you received yesterday from some Los Angeles police officers … we can't tolerate and won't tolerate," Bratton told reporters at a City Hall news conference, extending his remarks to members of the public also caught up in the incident.

[...]

Questions also were raised about the large number of projectiles fired by officers attempting to control the crowd. At least 240 rounds made of foam, sponge or fiber were fired as police swept through the park about 6:15 p.m. The move came after police clashed with a small group of protesters near the intersection of 7th and Alvarado streets.

"Two hundred and forty rounds with no arrests is of grave concern to me," Bratton said, acknowledging that none of the rounds fired were directly related to the arrests of eight adults and one juvenile during the rally on charges that included assault with a deadly weapon in a rock-throwing incident and public drunkenness. The chief labeled some of the officers' actions "inappropriate."

[...]

In footage shot by Fox News and Telemundo reporters, police officers can be seen grabbing Fox reporter Christina Gonzalez and forcefully pushing her out of the way as she crouched to protect her camerawoman, who had fallen after being struck by a police baton. "I am helping her move, sir!" Gonzalez said, her voice agitated.

The officer is heard saying: "Move her back away from the skirmish line or you're under arrest."

As Gonzalez, whose husband is a retired LAPD officer, struggled to regain her footing, an officer pushed her by the shoulders, spinning her around.

"You can't do that," Gonzalez yelled at an officer, jabbing a finger in his direction. "You cannot do that and you know it."

Jill Leovy, a Los Angeles Times reporter who was at the scene, gives her account here. (The Google map of MacArthur Park is here. You can also switch to a satellite photo view.) Meanwhile, Warren Olney discussed the events on local NPR show Which Way L.A.? (30 minutes long).

This is infuriating behavior by the police. Being a cop can be very dangerous, but when a cop pushes a woman in the back who's already walking away, or grabs a video camera and throws it, or clubs a person who's no threat, absolutely these cops know what they're doing, and they know what they're doing is wrong. It's inexcusable. Some people cannot be trusted with power. A good cop tries to keep the peace and builds community ties. Bad cops abuse their position of authority. Sadly, there have always been people happy for any excuse to beat someone else up, and even more sadly, there always seems to be a percentage of those people in the police force, in the armed forces, and among prison guards. The Brits refer to that attitude as hooliganism (even if they generally don't apply it to cops). Dress a thug in a uniform and give him a badge, but it doesn't make the attitude any more honorable, despite the veneer of respectability. He's still a thug. It's only a question of who he's working for.

According to the Los Angeles Times, there were 25,000-some demonstrators, but only a small percentage were being disruptive. The original rally at City Hall was reportedly much larger, but also overwhelmingly peaceful. Demonstrators shouldn't assault the police either, but throwing a plastic bottle at cops in riot gear isn't remotely comparable to hitting someone with a baton or firing a rubber bullet at him or her — especially when that person didn't throw the bottle! I have no problem with the police arresting those people who reportedly threw debris and such. However, the police went far beyond that, and the video doesn't lie.

New questions continue to emerge and the FBI is now investigating as well. It's encouraging that Bratton, the FBI and others are looking into this, but it's discouraging that it's necessary in the first place.

I'm thinking the Bakersfield Police Department should come down and teach the LAPD something about community relations. This incident has really damaged them here.

Some of the comments on the Los Angeles Times forums about the incident pretty disturbing. It shouldn't be forgotten the L.A. police had a choice. They did not have to react the way they did. Compare the ugly tone they set with the lovely one they destroyed, as described in this Los Angeles Times editorial:

THE TENS OF THOUSANDS who gathered at the base of Los Angeles City Hall on Tuesday bore a blend of messages. Many urged comprehensive immigration reform and complained about the demonization of migrants. Some called for amnesty. Smatterings pleaded for sundry fringe political causes.

But overwhelming all other displays was a sea of U.S. flags, waved cheerfully by people asking to join a country conflicted about their welcome. Other than a Fourth of July on the Washington Mall, it's hard to think of a more full-throated pledge of allegiance.

Choosing between those two tones shouldn't be that hard.

Make sure to listen to further coverage via Jim Swanson's Week in Review podcast, available at 5am this Saturday, 5/5.