No Easy Answers....(revisited & revised)

"And for me, this war, it's more about preserving our American principles than it is about defeating al-Qaida. We can't become our enemies in trying to defeat them." (former US interrogator Matthew Alexander)

In the process of writing my next Jefferson post, (which ironically begins with "It was a close call. The recent release of the CIA memos was pulling me in the direction of 'commentary' but..." {and here I explain how I resisted getting side-tracked} ) when I could no longer resist getting side-tracked. Re-reading the recent Washington Post updates I've received, I am profoundly impacted by the interrogations information, the 'intense debate' over its release, and the choke-hold struggle over possible prosecution of the involved parties.

Initially, I was pro-torture. (Not for the sake of revenge - such actions only perpetuate the hatred cycle. Nobody wins that one.) My 'pro' orientation rather was produced by goal-specific effectiveness. I saw the core issue as being summed up in the following statements: "The most aggressive interrogation techniques conducted by CIA personnel were applied only to a handful of the worst terrorists on the planet, including people who had planned the 9/11 attacks. ... Information from these interrogations helped disrupt plots aimed at locations in the U.S.,..." (as well as the UK, the Middle East, and South and Central Asia ) - former Director of Central Intelligence for the CIA, 1997-2004, George Tenet, from his memoir At the Center of the Storm. "... al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed... was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess." (CIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described) The New York Times reported this, written in an internal memo by Admiral Dennis Blair, the national intelligence director for President Obama : "High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization that was attacking this country." ( 'Meet the Press' transcript, pg.1) Lastly, former CIA Director Michael Hayden says enhanced interrogation techniques yielded critical, actionable intelligence. (source)

Approaching from the other direction: "...civilian and military intelligence professionals have also gone on record ...with respect to how torture tactics are not only ineffective in terms of getting reliable, actionable intelligence but have fueled recruitment by Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups to the point that, arguably, more U.S. troops have been killed by terrorists bent on revenge for torture than the 3,000 civilians killed on 9/11..." -Larry Johnson, A Memo for Obama

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, as well as others, has stated that such information as indicated in the opening quotes above may well have been gained using other, less radical means. Admittedly, this is a possibility. Larry Johnson, former CIA officer and deputy director of the State Department's office of counter-terrorism in 2005 stated: "What real CIA field officers know firsthand is that it is better to build a relationship of trust" when seeking to gain information from detainees. It would seem to me that in the aftermath of 9/11, time was of the essence, and employing less radical, more 'psychologically-based' methods would most likely have taken more, maybe much more time to acquire crucial information. Time to 'build trust' may have been time that the United States could not afford to spend. And yet, intelligence operatives are acutely aware of the time-sensitive nature of their business, so...

Matthew Alexander (a pseudonym, for security reasons) was in charge of a team of interrogators assigned to locate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the former leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Their success in doing so was a result of "techniques that {were} based on understanding, cultural understanding, sympathy, things like intellect, ingenuity, innovation" rather than brutality. According to Alexander, the rough stuff doesn't work. As I read through the interview, I find myself definitely re-considering a pro-torture stance. During the last 30 minutes of a six-hour interrogation session, because Alexander established a rapport and empathised with a detainee, "he told me that he was friends with Abu Ayyub al-Masri, who is now the current leader of al-Qaida in Iraq and who was Zarqawi's right-hand man." The parting with this information led to the parting of even more, which. provided a pathway to Zarqawi, who, as we know, was later killed by American forces.

As stated above, the reliability of information extracted during the use of torture is an issue. "According to CIA sources, Ibn al Shaykh al Libbi, after two weeks of enhanced interrogation, made statements that were designed to tell the interrogators what they wanted to hear...al Libbi...fabricated the statements because he was terrified of further harsh treatment." (source) In this one instance, at least, the Bush administration made Iraqi war policy decisions based on such faulty information, sources told ABC News. (My note: This is not to say that the 'facts' supplied by al Libbi were actually not true..he just had no knowledge of their veracity or lack thereof. He may have inadvertently provided valuable information, as the subject of this particular interrogation was al Qaeda biological weapons training.)

To be considered as well is al Qaeda's use of U.S. torture policy as a 'rallying cry' and 'recruitment tool', according to Press Secretary Gibbs and others. Implied is the suggestion that the jihadists would be less likely to recruit as many new members, or to fan such an intense flame of hatred towards the U.S. if she refrained from such a policy. Maybe. How can such a factor as that be measured? Or proven? Perhaps when history looks back on itself, at a future date...at this point in time, I think any such result would be negligible. But that is just my opinion, and I am apparently wrong. A former U.S. special intelligence operations officer tells us otherwise in a December, 2008 interview on AlterNet. "...the No. 1 reason these foreign fighters gave for coming to Iraq was routinely because of Abu Ghraib, because of Guantanamo Bay, because of torture practices. In their eyes, they see us as not living up to the ideals that we have prescribed to."

ooo

Democratic strategist Eric Yaverbaum considers the releasing of these memos to begin with, 'a flawed strategy', and sums up the torture/CIA memo debate this way: "Nobody is going to do anything differently that is a terrorist." (source) I tend to think Yaverbaum has it right, as far as the declassified interrogations information subduing terrorism, at least.

Former CIA director General Michael Hayden, quoted above, expresses serious concerns over the repercussions of the once-classified memos being made public. Hayden considers the release a "mark of political maneuvering" and says it "hurts the CIA's ability to conduct the job it is tasked with doing...It really gets into the head of CIA officers who are consistently asked to do things that are on the edge, lawful, but on the edge, in the defense of the republic." The former CIA chief is concerned about the power of doubt affecting the agency's operatives on future missions, knowing now "that the legal opinions on which their actions are based are subject to political change and political wind," thus hindering their effectiveness in action.

ooo

I wonder, might this very unsettling, messy, we-wish-it-would-just-go-away-but-it-WON'T! legal and ethical quagmire in which the the United States of America now finds herself , be akin to a deeply buried, rusted piece of metal festering in flesh. Corrosive, toxic...deadly. Perhaps this is our chance to remove it, and be healed.

Jesus talked about how the Pharisees of his day were like white-washed tombs, full of decay and death on the inside, lookin' good on the outside. Point is, it's what on the inside that matters. The intangibles endure. What do we, as people, as Americans want to endure? When I started this post, I did not know why I was writing it, or where it was headed. But I have done a complete 180' by now. I am broken, and broken-hearted, for so many reasons.

This article has taken its toll on me. I'm pretty sure in some places I'm not even making sense, nor connecting the dots right! There is so much more I'd like to cover, but this is too draining. Instead of anymore 'torture' reading, I've started a slow and thorough examination of our Constitution, and am heading back to things Jeffersonian.

ooo

Re-Visiting pre-Election Concerns

"There’s growing concern that under President Obama, the United States of America will turn into the United States of Europe. " - Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel, American Center for Law & Justice, "Is Our Sovereignty at Risk?"



Please, please, God, let me be wrong...

Reading the above article recently, I saw exactly what, during the 2008 election campaign, I had feared might become true being put into words by Jay Sekulow. Then Senator Obama's charisma concerned me. Hitler was charismatic. Jim Jones was charismatic. Jesus gets your attention, He can be riveting - but I doubt that He would be called charismatic. Charismatic people have a magnetism that can draw you...in the wrong direction. Too late, you realize you were duped.

People love to be caught up in the swell of emotion, passion, purpose. It feels good and offers {false?} hope. It is almost a resurrection. From despair or just plain same-old, same-old, we are thrust into the apparent promise of a new tomorrow...but I cannot emphasize enough the importance of the truth - the hidden agenda, hidden perhaps even from the one enacting it, (at first, anyway...) If you know the Lord, and look to the Spirit of truth to guide you into all truth (John 16:13), then you need to be doing that now.

Reading Bible prophecy, it is often commented that the United States of America does not appear to be represented. Prophetic studies are not my strong suite, but even I have noticed that. It has been suggested that America becomes absorbed into the European Union, and I fear this may be so. I cannot bear to believe it, but I can see how it could happen.

Please, please, God, let me be wrong...



" President Obama is embarking on a new and troubling direction for our nation. Many are calling it the “Selling of America” – surrendering our national sovereignty – our constitutional framework – all in the interest of international cooperation." - Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel, American Center for Law & Justice, "Is Our Sovereignty at Risk?"


In recent days and weeks, watching broadcasts of our new President speaking, I experienced the first flicker - barely a flicker, even - of my pre-election concerns reviving. I thought, It's just me. But it isnt't just me, I see now, after reading the transcript of Sekulow's interview with Glenn Beck. There is not always a place for a spirit of 'co-operation'. Sometimes open-minded, boundary-blurring initiatives can allow for the swallowing up of that which should not be swallowed up. So, while "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men" (Romans 12: 18) is godly counsel for sure, there are apparently times when it is not possible. There are times when what seems to be a blessing is not that at all, but a curse in disguise.


We who see things in this light are in stellar company. Consider the following -

"...believe me, fellow-citizens...history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government." - George Washington, from his Farewell Address, 1796

Upon leaving his second term in office as President, coupled with years of military strategic and combat experience, Washington counseled retaining always national sovereignty. He counseled avoiding permanent alliances, partnering with 'favourite nations', which he believed would lead to "...concessions to the favourite nation" which ultimately would prove injurious to the one conceding. Washington foresaw "unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained." And he also considered such attachments to foreign nations to provide the potential for the "illusion of an imaginery common interest in cases where no real common interest exists." Washington saw the betrayal and/or sacrificing of national interests, presenting itself as "gild{ed} with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good..."

A wolf in sheep's clothing?

For "extraordinary emergencies", Washington allowed for temporary alliances, but otherwise, he adjured young America to "have with them {foreign nations} as little political connection as possible."

I know it is a different world now, an age of terrorism, nuclear threats and world-wide economic disaster. International cooperation is mandated for the securing of international safety, but how far should America take this? Can we safely ignore George Washington's directives in the process? I don't see how anyone can think that we could...yet some do. (Related topic)

Read Jay Sekulow's article.




All quotations (except Jay Sekulow's) are taken from Washington's Farewell Address, found in George Washingtin: In His Own Words, Harrison & Gilbert, editors.

Convicts & Courtesans (Part 2)

(see Part 1)

When we last left the shores of what was then known as Sydney's Cove, Australia, an assortment of female felons were departing the 'Lady Juliana', a prisoner transport ship just arrived from England. It was July, 1789, and the women had been sent as desperately needed solutions for a sickly, starving penal colony comprised mainly of men.

In today's post, we're going to learn a little bit about some of those women, the events that brought them to Australian shores, and some unexpected aftermaths.

ooo

In 1789, English law could be harsh. For bullying and stealing the clothing off an eight year old girl, eleven year old Mary Wade was sentenced to death. While awaiting her execution in Newgate Prison, a " dark, wet, vermin-infested" place of horrors, young Mary met Rachel Hoddy. Rachel was a prostitute who had been tried about six months earlier, and was also sentenced to death, also for stealing clothing - although in Rachel's case it was from her client. (I cannot resist pointing out that her client's name was Nimrod. I just cannot resist...). Anyway, as it turned out, in March of that year, in celebration of being cured of what was considered a form of madness, King George III declared that all women on death row should have their sentences commuted to transportation. Five days later, Mary, Rachel and a couple hundred other women and girls set sail for Australia.

Now, if you think about it, (and ya don't need to think too long before the pieces start to come together!), you've got some crafty women on this ship, hungry, desperate and, I think it can be safely assumed, not too highly principled! Mix that with the ship's crew (we're talking men here, sailors to be precise...not known for a genteel manner!) and, well...I think you get my point. In fact, authoress Sian Rees has researched and written a book about the almost year-long voyage of the 'Lady Juliana', and its title - The Floating Brothel. The ship's steward, John Nicol, includes a chapter about the voyage in his memoirs (The Life and Adventures of John Nichol, Mariner), in which he tells us something of the women themselves, as well as conditions aboard the boat.

Sexual pressure definitely existed, but perhaps good came of some of it. Seven babies were born aboard the ship, one belongng to Nichol himself and the woman he took as 'wife'. (As did many of the crewmen and officers.) These women were delivered from a rotting, disease-infested dungeon as well as the sentence of death. They were provided with food and drink, clothing and medical care. And though records indicate some violent seasickness! these 'ladies' did have the daily opportunity to breath fresh air, and feel the sunshine. Compared to their previous dire straits, the women were, in a sense, actually truly free.

There were apparently some entrepeneurial woman aboard the 'Lady Juliana'! "Elizabeth Barnsley — a wealthy and successful shoplifter convicted of theft — used {her} money and influence to procure better lodging and even to create business opportunities on the ship." At ports-of-call, the former prostitutes plied their trade, much improving their financial condition. Money talks, and it spoke up for better food and sleeping arrangements for some of them. Fortunes began to improve. "By the time they reached Sydney Cove, they were fit and healthy, and some had even amassed enough money to support themselves." (source)

I don't know of records existing that would've documented the actual conditions surrounding the women once they set foot on land and began to settle in to a new life, and life-style. It's hard to imagine that there would've been no perhaps forced contact. Who knows, maybe some of the ladies ganged up on the men! But, over time, connections were made, relationships developed, children were born and families were formed. This kind of cohesiveness brought stability with it, and gradually a more normal society came to exist in Sydney's Cove. The phoenix rose out of the ashes.

ooo

Our clothes-stealing little bully, Mary Wade, sentenced to die at the tender young age of eleven, instead lived to the ripe old age of 87, and became the matriarch of one of the largest families in the world, with over 300 descendants alive during her lifetime.

Rachel Hoddy, our lady of ill repute, thrived almost beyond belief. During her time at the penal colony, she paired off with one of the convicts and eventually gave birth to six or seven children; leaving him once her sentencing was completed, Rachel received a land grant, obtained a license to sell wine & beer, and opened her own pub,'the Horse and the Groom'. Additionally, Rachel became a homeowner. She acquired not one but two houses! May I say, way to go, Rachel!!! (source)

Yet another one of the women prisoners aboard the "Lady Juliana" was Ann Marsh, convicted of stealing some wheat from an open market in London. Once her sentence was served, "Ann... founded the Parramatta River Boat Service, a line that still runs today." She "... became one of Sydney's foremost entrepreneurs, owning a pub, a butchery and general store..." (source)

In more than one reference source, these convict women, as well as unknown others arriving that day in 1789, from across an ocean, almost a year's journey away, are called the founding mothers of Australia. And so they were.

ooo

I can't help but be reminded, as I read about these scurrilous, crafty, bawdy women who were destined for a place in the genealogy of a world-famous city, of another such woman - Rahab the harlot of Old Testament fame. Though a prostitute, you will find her name in the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the King of kings and Lord of lords. (Matthew 1: 5)

ooo

This post was inspired by a PBS television broadcast, Secrets of the Dead: Voyage of the Courtesans.

...so What is It with this whole 'First Lady' Thing?

Yesterday I was reading an article about the rise in Michelle Obama's popularity ratings. Having read as well many of the comments on the article, I find that, a day later, I am still more than a little bit aggravated as concerns the need of many to put-down. Don't get me started...too late, people, I'm headin' for the warpath...! I woke up this morning forming this post in my mind, and though I've detoured onto checking stats, e-mail, etc., & feeling guilty for not getting started cleaning! I have officially caved in to my need to express this aggravation...

This topic can be approached from various angles, not just the 'put-down' one. There's the whole 'projection' issue, too... and why are we even doing any of this in the first place? Who made us judges of another, judges of a woman following her man who is following the call of his God? How arrogant are we! Really, right now, I am teed-off enough that I don't know whether to cry, throw something at the wall, or spit! (And yes, I realize I'm probably reacting to people judging me, as well, I get that...sorry, back to Michelle...)

There is no doubt that a whole host of issues are wrapped up in this woman. And we, as what have been termed 'sentient beings' (on various Star Trek episodes!) feel, think, react, and express (as I am doing right now.) And it does occur to me that some people are unable to control their reactions, (again, me right now...) this observation not meant as a put-down, btw, just an observation, that's all. Some people are bi-polar, have chemical or other imbalances...for the rest of us, however, my question is - why are we going for the jugular, right out of the gate? Why do many if not most of us zoom in on the negative?

Really...why?

Again, a whole host of answers are most likely possible. Jealousy and insecurity get my vote, or a sense of powerlessness.

So I refer the reader to the timeless advice of one of my favorite authors, the apostle Paul (who really got attacked, btw, and more than just verbally...) -

"...whatsoever things are true...honest...just...pure...lovely...of good report...virtue...praise, think on these things." (Philippians 4: 8)

ooooooooo

Here we have the original 'positive-thinking' teaching. Its roots are found in the Word and mind and heart of God, and it is a powerful antidote to the ugliness of gossip and spite.

And I know it's often not easy, nor fun, to change our thinking. We'd rather player-hate. The sin nature dwells in the flesh, and flesh is what we're used to and comfortable in. Unfortunately, the sin nature in the flesh produces such things as hatred, envy & strife. Vicious stuff. So it's good to know we have help. You save yourself as well as others when you try to "think on these {positive} things" .

And, lest it should appear that I think I'm above all this, and never focus on the negative...not true. Oh, yeah, I do tend to think I'm riding 'above it all'... until I realize that my mind is filled with the awareness of all the negative aspects of the current situation, or the people around me...I'm just not saying it. out loud. I really try to not make things worse. So that's a starting point...we all need to try to not make things worse, when we have the opportunity.

May the Lord help us all to think differently. May His hand continue to be upon our nation, and may He guide and protect those who serve in its government and its defense.

ooo