NAVIGATING THE YELLOW BRICK ROAD

"While I served in the Global War on Terror, the actions and statements of my leadership led me to believe that United States policy did not require application of the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan or Iraq.... Despite my efforts, I have been unable to get clear, consistent answers from my leadership about what constitutes lawful and humane treatment of detainees. I am certain that this confusion contributed to a wide range of abuses including death threats, beatings, broken bones, murder, exposure to elements, extreme forced physical exertion, hostage-taking, stripping, sleep deprivation, and degrading treatment. I and troops under my command witnessed some of these abuses in both Afghanistan and Iraq."

- Captain Ian Fishback of the 82nd Airborne Division in a letter to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), as printed in The Washington Post.




Who would Jesus torture?
by David Batstone

Christians of strong religious faith and sound moral conscience often end up in disagreement. Human affairs are a messy business, unfortunately, and even at the best of times we only see through a glass, darkly.
It is hard for that reason to call Christians to a universal standard of behavior. At this moment, however, we cannot afford to dilute the message of Jesus into meaningless ambiguity. There are certain acts that a follower of Jesus simply cannot accept. Here is one: A Christian cannot justify the torture of a human being.
The practice of torture by American soldiers is a hot topic at the Pentagon, in the Congress, and in the White House at the moment. The U.S. Senate already has passed 90-9 a bill that prohibits "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment" of prisoners in U.S. custody. The lead advocate of the bill, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), was tortured by his captors during the Vietnam War. According to The New York Times, the Pentagon adopted a policy last Thursday to rein in interrogation techniques. The new policy uses much of the same language as the McCain amendment - drawn in large part from the Geneva Convention - to adopt standards for handling terror suspects.
Remarkably, the White House opposes the Pentagon initiative, and threatens to veto any legislation to which the McCain bill gets attached. Vice President Dick Cheney has urged Republican senators to allow CIA counterterrorism operations internationally to be exempt from the ban on mistreatment of prisoners, major newspapers reported.
On Nov. 3, Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff for then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, said during an interview on NPR's "Morning Edition" that memos from Cheney's office practically encouraged abuse of Iraqi prisoners. Though in "carefully couched terms" that would allow for deniability, the message from Cheney's office conveyed the sentiment that interrogations of Iraqi prisoners were not providing the needed intelligence. Wilkerson said soldiers in the field would have concluded that to garner better intelligence they could resort to interrogation techniques that "were not in accordance with the spirit of the Geneva Conventions and the law of war."
Republican senators are among the strongest voices in the growing chorus of criticism. Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) said, "I think the administration is making a terrible mistake in opposing John McCain's amendment on detainees and torture." And Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and co-sponsor of McCain's measure, agreed: "I firmly believe that it's in the best interest of the Department of Defense, the men and women of the United States military that this manual be their guide."
When the existence of secret CIA detention centers became public this week, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) called for investigations - not about whether they violate laws governing human rights - but about how the information was leaked. But members of their own party are keeping the focus where it belongs. The Washington Post quoted Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) as saying, "Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. The real story is those jails."
Admittedly, Christians of good faith part paths when political conflict leads us to consider what constitutes a just and righteous war - or if any war can be just. Though we may not consent on the means, we do consent on the need to confront the spread of evil in the world. Yet we can all affirm scripture when it says, "Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all.... Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" (Romans 12:17, 21). When we confront evil with its own means, those means mark our own character.
In that regard, the practice of torture so fully embraces evil it dehumanizes both the torturer and its victim. No just cause can be won if it relies on torture to succeed. Democracy and freedom cannot result from a war fueled by torture, which is why so many Americans were shocked and angered by the disturbing incidents that took place at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
All the more so, Christians must oppose torture under any circumstances. Consider this: Who would Jesus torture? I cannot imagine Jesus finding a single "exemption" that would justify such an abuse of any individual made in God's image.
Though I bristle whenever I hear someone refer to the United States as a Christian nation - it is such a loaded phrase - many in the Muslim world see us as such. How tragic it would be for Muslims to identify the message and mission of Jesus with torture and terror. We must not allow that to happen.
Action Alert: "Do not repay evil for evil...." (1 Peter 3:9).
Despite strong bipartisan support in the Senate, Republican leaders in the House - including Speaker Hastert - are using a procedural loophole to block an up or down House vote on Sen. McCain's anti-torture measure.

Section 1.3.2
"International law recognizes powers and constraints, and rights and duties, which have qualified the principel of sovereignty in a number of important aspects; sovereignty per se is no longer a straightforward guarantee of international legitimacy. Entrenched in certaint legal instruments is the view that a legitimate state must be a democratic state that upholds certaint common values..."

I have always found the Human Rights issue fascinating. We certaintly didn't have any concept of this historically before the 20th Century. Noone cared how Rome treated those they subjugated through warfare. However, we live in a time where there are actually organizations that cross politic boundaries to speak on behalf of prisoners of war. I do believe there are some boundaries meant to be broken down. The Apostle Paul talks a few times in his letters about "no slave nor free... Jew nor Gentile" and he was a part of the most powerful superpower in the world: Rome. His words were definately subversive. But he didn't talk directly about power structures. He spoke about the interpersonal relationships within the house churches he wrote to. He wanted them to realize that the barriers that had kept them apart were now no longer as powerful. Jews and Gentiles could be unified in love. That seems to be a high value of Paul's in respect to church life. And in my study of the O.T. profits as it looks at money issues for our Economics group it seems often times God was the most upset at how we treated one another. How we treat God's creation is how we treat God. I find human rights to be a secular idea that has its roots in the good news of a reversal of power as found in the Kingdom of God. People valued despite the differences between "us" and "them." I think this is an affront to the United States of America. We have a huge entitlement complex. We talk about human rights but then we, to, commit crimes that go nearly unpunished at both Abu Ghraib and in Guatanamo. I mean how outraged is the "Christian nation" of the U.S. when people from other countries are being abused, some by our own hands? During the Vietnam War Jane Fonda was villified, called a traitor and not an American because she dared to care about and speak out for the women and children of Vietnam. We valued our American soldiers more and so we didn't care what they did to the people of Vietnam, ultimately. Now, atrocities were perpetrated on our soldiers. And I am not saying we should not value American lives. So this seems like a dilemna. Nations have self interest at heart. We have power love at our core. We go to war to "win" something. There are no self-less acts between nations in this global power structure. How do we value eveyone? How do we participate in the most powerful nation in the world and still value those around the world who are trampled on by its power and the power of others daily?

Research:
1. Political Globalization as defined by these dimensions: political power, authority and forms of rule.
2. Modern Nation-State: "inner world" vs. "outer world" (two different sets of choices)
3. Many Easter Civilizations developed in relative isolation, which has kept their influence from spreading as in the West
4. Political rule/power needs war-making ability to be sustainable.
5. The historical growth of Europe which brought global power expansions also brought about the need for an enhanced demand for organizations that can be able to operate on a larger scale.
6. Global Politics captures the idea of how political relationships stretch over space and time. How choices made can affect a wide-reaching population.
7. Shift from international to cosmopolitan law, humanitarian laws which have been enacted that can transcend power of nation-state and can transcend political boundaries.
8. Current shift from purely state-centric politics to a more complex form of multilayered global governance. The potential for a universal political organization is possible (also called "new medievalism")
9. Military Globalization, an argument that all states are now enmeshed in a world military order.
10. Currently there seems to be a return to a traditional pattern of multipolar power politics but with a "firepower gap" that still favors the U.S.