ten steps
Worth checking out: Ten Steps to Restore the United States’ Moral Authority: A Common Sense Agenda for the 110th Congress
This document posted on the Human Rights Watch website provides a good summary of the ways the conduct of the war on terrorism has undermined the consistent application by the United States of basic principles of human rights and suggests a specific agenda for restoring our moral compass. Signatories include Amnesty International, Physicians for Human Rights, the Justice and Witness Ministries of the United Church of Christ, and close to twenty other religious and human rights organizations.
secret proceedings
From a March 8, 2007 article by Andrew Buncombe in The Independent:
Campaigners have condemned the Bush administration’s plan to proceed with secret proceedings [Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRT)] against 14 “high-value” terrorism suspects currently being held at Guantanamo Bay. The suspects include Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, accused of organising the 11 September 2001 attacks.
The military tribunals, scheduled to begin tomorrow, will take place behind closed doors and away from the scrutiny of the media. Hundreds of previous hearings held to determine the formal status of the prisoners have been open to reporters. None of the suspects will be able to have a lawyer present …
Wells Dixon, a lawyer with the New York-based Centre for Constitutional Rights, which represents one of the men due to go before a CSRT, Majid Khan, said: “This is a system designed to obtain a pre-determined result.”
Mr. Dixon said that Mr. Bush had admitted the 14 men had been subjected to “enhanced interrogation” techniques which he said was a euphemism for torture. He added that under the CSRT rules the government could use information obtained under torture. He added: “You don’t know what is true until you have given them a fair trial.”
Secret proceedings, no lawyers, “enhanced interrogation techniques” …… “High-value” suspects or not, this is no recipe for justice, and no recipe for winning the hearts and minds of the international community which is the key to winning the war on terrorism! If we want to win that war, we must show we are committted — truly committed — to justice for its own sake, and to the rule of law as a matter of principle, not just when it happens to suit our purposes or serves to protect those we choose to protect.
pursuing all of the agenda of jesus
It is refreshing to hear of Christian leaders who are not boxed in by particular political constituencies, right or left, who are eager to follow where Jesus leads.
My quarrel with the religious right is that is often a lot more right than religious, that its priorities seem determined more by political ideology than genuine faith. So it was refreshing to hear today the concerns of mega-church pastor Joel Hunter. Hunter is a nationally-known leader in evangelical circles, recently tapped as the next president of the Christian Coalition.
Hunter has resigned the position, citing “differences in philosophy and vision.” He sought to broaden the agenda of the Coalition, to chart a new direction for the organization, addressing not only abortion and gay marriage, but also what he calls “all the agenda of Jesus, the compassion issues as well as the moral issues,” issues of poverty and care for the environment.
When we listen to Jesus, there is hope. There is hope that we will not get stuck in entrenched ideological warfare, but be able to listen to each other as we listen together to Jesus. People like Joel Hunter raise my hopes for future of the church.
The Christian Coalition’s founder, Pat Robertson, has done much to bring public shame to the name, “Christian,” with his narrow-visioned, arrogant, and even hateful pronouncements. Whether you agree or not with Joel Hunter’s positions on the issues — and quite frankly, I know very little other than what I have gleaned from this report — his humility, his sensitivity to the message of Jesus, and his desire to unite, not further divide, the followers of Jesus, is refreshing.
wise words from amnesty international on the saddam verdict
From Malcolm Smart of Amnesty International:
Every accused has a right to a fair trial, whatever the magnitude of the charge against them. This plain fact was routinely ignored through the decades of Saddam Hussein’s tyranny. His overthrow opened the opportunity to restore this basic right and, at the same time, to ensure, fairly, accountability for the crimes of the past. It is an opportunity missed and made worse by the imposition of the death penalty.
Read the rest of the Amnesty International commentary on the Saddam trial.
Tony Blair also acknowledged Britain’s opposition to the death sentence: We are against the death penalty … whether it’s Saddam or anybody else.
tough talk on torture
you decide!
This next Tuesday, President Bush is scheduled to sign into law the Military Commissions Act of 2006. You can read Amnesty International’s detailed critique of the legislation, Turning bad policy into bad law.
Or read the bill for yourself, Military Commissions Act of 2006 … and you decide what you think!
I think it is scary, very scary …
detainee bill passes senate
John Kerry (Democrat): This bill gives an administration that lobbied for torture exactly what it wanted.
No, this administration did not lobby for torture. It lobbied for a free and unfettered hand in conducting its “war on terrorism” by whatever means it deems necessary and effective … which may include means that most people would consider torture. The problem here is not leaders that advocate cruelty, but leaders that believe that they should be given “extraordinary” and unilateral latitude in getting the job done. Getting it done is more important than how it is done.
But one of the cornerstones of democracy is that how it is done is of utmost importance!
————————–
John Warner (Republican): Enemy combatants are unlawful by all international standards in the manner in which they conduct war, and yet this great nation … is going to mete out a measure of justice.
A measure of justice? Why just a measure? Is “liberty and justice for all” mere hyberbole? Is justice to be meted out conditionally, depending on the perceived merits of the accused? Depending on the accused’s presumed political allegiances … religious allegiance … nationality … race? Is our “lawfulness” contingent on the “lawfulness” of our enemies? Of whomever we say is our enemy?
Do you see the very dangerous road down which such rhetoric — and such legislation — is leading us? A road that leads us not toward, but away, from liberty and justice?