I'm going through changes again....
Seems like every few years I have to deal with major changes. I really envy people who can stay in one place for 20 years or work for the same outfit from high school to graduation. I was starting to develop the hubris that maybe I'd be one of them after all. But that bubble's been popped (for now).
Right now I'm looking for a new job again. The Government needed to save some mone so they moved some Government Employees around and looked for contractors to bump out of a job. I got picked to be replaced with two Government people and Presto! My old job vanished practically overnight. Now I'm finding that my contractor company hasn't picked me up yet on any new contracts. I shoulda seen it coming but somehow I didn't. I was given a whole two weeks notice. So from a fairly comfortable job with people I was comfortable with doing things I was comfortable doing I'm "out here" looking for a new job.
I've been too proud to talk about it. It seems more personal than personal business. I like most males, define my self-worth around my work. But here I am looking for work and I really don't have the time or the energy to pontificate about grandiose issues. Time for Daimoku and introspection -- and a little self-examination.
All I can think is;
I gotta get me a Job!!!
Suggestions are welcome....
PS Thanks for all the encouragement. (See comments).
It's coming out slowly, these torturous revelations of the US's role in the world-wide institution of state-terror. Maybe now it can end. Neither the cold war nor the old war (this 'war' with the Moslems is an anachronism) ever justified the use of state-terror; torture, disapearances, arrests without due process, or abbrogations of human rights. And in any case it is a horror that the US should be involved in this behavior in any way. But we have been. In yesterday's paper allegations were repeated that the US continues to engage in "renderings" with full intent of letting our allies in the terror war (hardly a war on terror if we are committing acts designed to scare people):
In yesterday's Post, A U.S. government official who visited several foreign prisons where suspects were rendered by the CIA after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, is quoted saying:
"It's beyond that. It's widely understood that interrogation practices that would be illegal in the U.S. are being used." (note: )
Investigations are finally starting; "The CIA inspector general recently launched a review of the rendition system, and some members of Congress are demanding a thorough probe. Canada, Sweden, Germany and Italy have started investigations into the participation of their security services in CIA renditions." But I doubt anything will come of them except some fluff and then they'll be quietly buried, a few perpetrators given punishment and the rest promoted. These practices have to be stopped, not encouraged, and the US should realize that it does not encourage democracy to use them.
In today's Times a report tells how Porter Goss was "not able to tell you that" the CIA had always employed legal methods in it's interrogations. This is because they appeared to have followed the memos written in 2002 which relaxed the rules. In short the CIA has been using methods that are considered Torture under US laws and the Geneva convention, even with prisoners under it's own jurisdiction. And it has been using rendering, as in the case from Afghanistan, to get around even the relaxed rules of 2002. In the Afghan renderings, the CIA officials involved were in virtual control of the prison and it's Afghan jurisdiction was a pure cover:
In my blog I've been talking about the reports of abuse of prisoners by the US in it's efforts to stop Al Qaida. This stuff is important for a number of reasons, and the primary one to me is that if the US is going to be a herald of Democracy and freedom around the world it also has to set an example. But the practical reason this is important is that the notion that somehow this is an effective way to defeat terrorism is a faulty notion and it is illegal.
Intelligence officials will concede that torture is an ineffective way to extract information. But if so, then why use it at all? Well the real purpose is to break and subdue prisoners and bend them to the will of the state. Moreover, when they say that torture is ineffective they are doing a kind of dance, because the more subtle forms of "torture light" that they teach as interrogation methods are often very effective -- at breaking and rendering docile prisoners. When they break a prisoner, he'll tell them anything; but because he's so desperate to please that he'll do this, he won't always tell them stuff of that much value. When the prisoner first breaks he'll lie, later he'll merely blurble. Hard torture doesn't produce this "breaking" alone -- it takes sophisticated psychological technique. What the spokesmen won't tell ya is that often these go together.
The technique is best explained in a book by Arthur Koestler. Though there have been other explainations offered by American Interrogation Experts, the ones offered by the fictional character Gletkin explain the metaphysics of torture as well as the intelligent use of it. They are basically the same explanations, the same rationale, and the same totalitarian principles. The interrogator has to get total control of the prisoner. That can take the form of "legal" methods like making them stay awake for day in or day out, bright lights and relentless questioning, or it can take "illegal" or "semi-legal" forms; our folks use hooding, nudity, shaming, cold water, hot water, physical pain. He only used some of these things and actually left his prisoners some dignity. But in either case the goal and the method is designed to break the persons' physical ability to withstand or resist the questioner. And this works, Gletkin explained to Koestler's character Rubishof, because the people of his country were not ready for civilized behavior. He felt they needed to be broken in, disciplined; that they were wild and untrained. He also felt that when the State was in danger, such wild people wouldn't cooperate with law enforcement any other way. Thus for the sake of the future, the State needed to get the information to protect itself. He tried to explain that once the people were properly broken the world would be able to evolve into the paradice that all wanted. Once they were nicely broken they'd do their jobs and live their lives without needing such intense fear. He said that eventually after years of oppression they'd get to be like workers in the US or Britain, they'd have the habits of working every day, obeying a boss, and respecting authority. The arguments aren't much different for repression everywhere.
I have strong opinions -- as do many people. But learning when to take action and when to hold peace -- that is an art which I'm still working to master. Basically the problem is that I'm often afraid to do anything and act on my opinions about a thing. Case in point is this blog and my efforts to be involved in "talking on the internet." The past few weeks I've been discussing the issue of torture, rendering, and other abuses of human rights here and at the yahoogroup. Specifically this post:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/buddhist_dialogue_group/message/29078. It wasn't my best post ever, there were two grammatical errors and one major typo within it. I should have proofed it before sending it. But I did send it. I also sent a copy to the author I was critiquing. When I saw the grammar errors I was horrorized....
But the nice thing is that he read my letter to him, and he responded graciously. I hope I'm not being rude by telling this story. He didn't make me feel like I was talking to a star at all -- but a fellow human being. I'm not saying this was a touch of greatness. Far from it. We all should be writing these people. Not just pundits, but politicians and others. I don't know where my courage went to. I've got to get it back. Maybe he has helped me do that. I'm greatful.
If we are going to make a difference in the long run, we do have to summon up the courage to talk to these people. They won't always respond so graciously, but if we do present even halfway intelligent ideas sooner or later they may get noticed. That may be the best we ordinary citizens can do, but it is part of living in democracy. One has to act like one does and not let other folks decide that one no longer does. It's like climbing steps. If one tries to jump to the next floor it's impossible. But with steps one can climb to the top one foot at a time. We can make a better country that way.
And the key point of that post:
"The issue isn't really whether the CIA is deporting people for questioning, but how they are doing it and what is being done to those people and how much responsibility the CIA bears for what happens to them."
I hope that at least some people in the CIA or it's Congressional Overseers are thinking about that.
Chris
The US has finally admitted that it has been involved in "renderings" -- which is the process by which Prisoners of the US are turned over to a host government for questioning under US supervision:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/06/politics/06intel.html
The CIA claims as above. But the reality is that the CIA sometimes actually directs the "questioning":
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05065/466476.stm
And the key thing to note is that each incident I've mentioned has resulted in a promotion of the officers involved -- not their reprimand or censure.
What puts a chilling perspective on this, is that current events are consistent with historical events:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/latin_america/
For more visit this thread:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/buddhist_dialogue_group/message/29019
The Tears of Lebanon
He wasn't anyone particular. No better, no worse.
He wasn't particularly brave, nor pure, not rich nor poor.
But when he died on the street his blood pooled into an ocean.
And his spirit remained standing even as people stared in shock.
He stood with his brother, he stood with his wife.
Standing with each other over bodies limp, without life.
Rich ones, poor ones, innocents, body guards.
His son, his daughter, his wife, some friends.
Children's blood and elders;
Their blood ran together in pools on the ground,
and cried out for something. Revenge? No not that!
They stood and beheld the mess that had become their legacy.
And the blood gave them life to stand and cry.
He cried, she cried, they cried together
And somehow they realized there had to be something different.
They cried for a long time, their tears watering the ground.
Their tears created oceans, and salt crystal boats to cross them.
Their tears became jewelled glass windows and water to wash them.
And their tears reached across the years, to heal many wounds.
To put flesh to bones, to send hands out of graves.
To comfort brave children to put fear into knaves.
Their tears became a source of joy.
And something the Men in their helmets could not fight.
How can one kill something that cannot die?
One can kill a body, you can blow up a crowd,
One can car bomb a street corner, you can carpet-bomb a city,
But one can't kill an idea whose time has come,
Not if the one who is charged with the task is crying too.
Has the slaughter become enough to satisfy the ground?
The blood fertilized the fields of death.
And the tears washed away the stains.
And purple flowers bloomed while weeds just died.
The spirits of the dead do live in our Consciences.
Said the Voice hearer:
"Oh those were words I longed to hear,
while hearing many an angry and frustrated sigh,
Or prayers directed to the Great Ineffable one on high,
And tears that dropped to the ground.
I did not hear them."
A Voice said to those who wanted to fight:
"Keep fighting! Spill blood! Poison the earth!
Cleanse the world of your enemies and in the process you die!
Kill in the name of God! I thirst for blood!
Kill the "infidels" -- break mirrors over their heads.
You think you are following me, well you are!
I am not satisfied yet that you understand.
I do not think you will understand,
until you have cleansed each other from throughout the land."
And the Voice Hearer said to God:
"This must be some devil who is talking to me.
A Just god, A Good God, would not do these things!"
And the Voice said:
"I am what I am.
I do not do what you say."
And the Voice Hearer said:
"Will you stop when you are satisfied?"
And the Voice said:
"I am never satisfied.
I am a spirit of hunger."
And the Voice Hearer said:
"The blood doesn't feed you.
We are walking on their shoulders.
And the Voice said:
"Whose shoulders?"
The Voice Hearer replied:
"The shoulders of people who were better than you!
You demand blood from short lived Creatures --
and give nothing in return!"
And the Voice said:
"Ayi! Ayi!"
And he added his voice to the wailing of the spirits.
His tears cleansed the earth.
His people were reborn
and so was he.
Chris
No Comments?