War is always a crime

Why is this not in bold-face on the front-page of every U.S. newspaper? American and Iraqi researchers, led by doctors from Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, write in the prestigious British medical journal, The Lancet, that more than 100,000 Iraqis have died since the US-led invasion of the country than would have died otherwise. These new figures are much higher than any previous estimates, which generally said that between 10,000, and 37,000 Iraqis died directly or indirectly as a result of the March 2003 invasion. The Times of London reports Friday that the survey attributes most of the extra deaths, many of whom were women and children, to "airstrikes by coalition forces." The international team that did this study by visiting homes of people in Iraq say that their estimate is conservative. British and U.S. officials are not responding seriously to the numbers but are conceding that they were done by a respected and reputable group. People need to demand answers. People need to understand the nature of war and the suffering it causes.

It must be evident to anyone that the war in Iraq has been out of proportion with any risk posed to anyone inside or outside of Iraq. I fail to understand how anyone can look at what has gone on in Iraq and not believe it was a mistake. Yes, Saddam is gone. (Those of us involved in the human rights struggle had been protesting his rule since the late 1980's. No one paid attention until he invaded Kuwaiti oil fields.) The world benefits whenever a despot is deposed.

We, however, defied the United Nations best judgment, using faulty intelligence on weapons of mass destruction which provided the rationale for this war and launched a violent assault upon Iraq without exhausting every other avenue available to us.

The results have been a nightmare-come-true. Over 1,100 American deaths. Over 8,000 Americans wounded. Now, we must face the fact, that we may have caused, directly and indirectly, the deaths of 100,000 deaths in Iraq. Even Saddam didn't kill at that pace.

My bottom line: If Bush loses on Tuesday, it will be because enough U.S. citizens have seen the truth in what Winston Churchill once said:

“Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.”

If Bush wins, it is because too many of us have wrapped ourselves in the flag, and turned a blind eye to the folly of war.

Death Penalty for Teen Offenders?

Lee Boyd Malvo, the teenage partner of assassin John Allan Mohammed that terrorized the East Coast over a year ago has been sentenced to life in prison. He was 17 at the time he took part in the shootings.

This brings to light a question that was argued before the Supreme Court a couple of weeks ago. Should 16 and 17 year old murderers be sentenced to death? While the Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty does not, in and of itself, constitute cruel and unusual punishment (Gregg v. Georgia, 1976), they are re-visiting the practice of applying capital punishment to teen offenders.
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=scotusexecute14&date=20041014

Why might the Court reverse itself? In a recent decision, Atkins v. Virginia (2002), the Court ruled that it WAS a violation of the 8th Amendment to execute offenders that are mentally retarded. Does it logically follow that teens should not be given the ultimate punishment?

What do you think? Should the Court revise the meaning of “cruel and unusual punishment” with respect to juvenile offenders or do you think this is a matter best left up to the Congress and the individual states to decide?

Civil Discourse, factions, and Jon Stewart

There has been a lot of discussion about the intensely bitter debate that we have seen this political season. Is it a sign that our republic is in decline? Can we overcome the insults and personal attacks to come together as a nation? Whose fault is this? Does it take a late-night comic like Jon Stewart to public smack around the “partisan hacks” that masquerade as journalists these days? I hope that all of my current “We the People” students are forming ideas about this topic. The Framers feared this sort of thing would tear apart our republic.

In reality, this nasty tone has been building for years. One factor may be the rise of iconoclastic political commentators. People like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Moore, Al Franken, Ann Coulter and others have developed large audiences by using humor and outrageous statements to make their political points. (Except for Ann Coulter. I've never found her to be funny or clever. My guess is that if she was overweight and her face was more asymmetrical that she would have never landed herself a job as a TV commentator.)

You can make an argument that these entertaining political writers, filmmakers, etc. are doing good because they reach people who might not otherwise be paying attention. Hopefully a lot of those people go beyond the infotainment they provide and search for some real and serious discussion of politics.

Others say that we sowing the seeds of destruction by spreading political hatred. I encourage you to read a piece republished in today’s Seattle Times by Gary Alan Fine. (He is John Evans Professor of Sociology at Northwestern University – a big shout out to Jessica Joslin!) He makes some excellent observations about today’s political climate.

When I was young, my parents insisted that I show respect for the president,whoever he was and whichever party he represented. He was the president of all Americans, and we collectively selected him. My parents were not alone.

The hatred that has spewed across the land — first in conservative "red" territory under Clinton, then in liberal "blue" regions under Bush — has the potential, if allowed to continue, to erode the very possibility of political compromise.

Professor Fine continues:

I believe that our parents were correct for two reasons.

First, a nation consumed with bitter partisanship makes compromise and political transition more difficult. Hatred easily translates into mistrust and suspicion. The remarkable aspect of American politics is that despite a vibrant two-party system,
electoral losers lose gracefully and winners win with admiration for those over
whom they have triumphed. But intense anger in the system has the potential to
make a transfer of power difficult and has the potential to create political
deadlock when such vitriol enters the halls of Congress.

Second, the translation of policy difference into claims of extremism ignores that our two major parties are, in general, quite similar in their policy prescriptions. Both parties support national defense, economic growth through capitalism, protection of the environment, participation in global peacekeeping organizations, quality education and aid to families in need.

He concludes that:

We surely can judge what a politician has done during a political career and what policy prescriptions he or she is proposing, and we can be noisy in our support or rejection. We should judge the recent past and the alternative
futures proposed. This is productive civic engagement; anger and vituperation
over imagined youthful failures is not.

Understanding this may help us step back from the precipice of our politics of passion. Intense anger may satisfy our lust for absolute certainty. But in a society in which we must negotiate, this anger hardens our souls and debases our options. Politics becomes war, not persuasion.

If you'd like to read the piece in its entirety, click on the following link: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002070413_polhatred24.html

For a similar view from a Christian pastor, Rev. Dr. Joan Brown Campbell, click on http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1025/p09s01-coop.html

Her conclusion is wonderful:

So in a divided nation where passions are running high over war, a tight presidential race, joblessness, and antagonistic media, let us remember the
common good....

But being civil to an adversary does not mean sacrificing core principles, because in challenging an adversary, you can separate what that person says from who they are.

A word to the wise: Reserve your passions for loving, speak forcefully to what you believe, and always reserve for yourself the possibility that you might just be wrong.

What do you think? Follow the directions at the top of my page to post your comments!

Who is gonna take this election?

Well, I haven't posted anything here in a long time. I had a busy summer and the school year is a little crazy. My son Anthony is sophomore at MRHS now and is the treasurer of Amnesty International. My wife is teaching 1st grade in the Kent School District. My youngest son is doing well in 7th grade and might be the most anti George W. of the whole darn Democratic family.

Anyway, I am wondering what you are thinking about the upcoming presidential election. It is less than two weeks away, and may be as unbelievably close as in 2000. Have you gotten "into" this election? Who do you think is going to come out on top? Would you like to persuade any other visitors to this site that they should vote for Bush or Kerry?

Respond here and let us know what you think!

I am very nervous about the whole thing. I am planning on doing some canvassing for Kerry this weekend. I encourage you to get involved. It is going to be close, and for a lot of reasons, I think this is an extremely important election!