[Newspoetry] Speaking to bloody-minded fearers of terrorism

[Donald L Emerick]

Speaking to bloody-minded fearers of terrorism

I recently emailed 30 or 40 people known to me through a right-wing religious correspondent's CC list.
I enumerated as best as I could -- which all of you who know me will know to have been prolix, at best,
and simply opaquely incomprehensible otherwise -- although, perhaps, both qualities are almost always
common to my writing, because I speak until I think that I have said enough, which is usually until
I find that I am exhausted, simulating the exhaustion of the subjects that I explore.  Yes, yes, all that
is fraudulent pretense, I suppose, but I desire to be no other kind of writer -- not for all the tea in China.

I was trying to persuade these second-hand communicants of the common web node, that the topics
of that node's correspondence were wrongly reasoned.  In the first, easy piece, the webber spoke
for the relaxation of the separation of the line between church and state: "just let us have prayer,
oh voluntary prayer, at all public functions for, afterall, we are a christian nation..."  Well, you can
imagine what I said, until I decide to post it here, but most decidedly I decried, once again, such lunacy.

The other note was really bifurcated, for a second distinct line of right-wingers sent me an entirely different
message, by composition values, but opining much the same themes as the first right-wing webber had.
Instead of my patented almost boiler-plate response, as in the reply to the topic of church-state prayers,
I carefully rolled out 4 or 5 pages of general explanation -- most logically, to be sure -- to counter the themes
of the two pro-war protagonists, to the silently listening ears of the 30 or 40 CCers.

Two of them wrote back.  One briefly said, "Well, Don, I quite agree with you, but you know my husband is
like almost every ape up in the trees right now, waving his bones, throwing shit at all things Iraq..."  Well,
of course, I translate what she said -- but the idea is that when the big alpha ape of the tribe has decided,
every other ape in the pack had better go along to get along, or else face social ouster.

The second writer rolled a page length note to me, saying quite threateningly, "You young hippies never
know what you are talking about; I've been waiting a long time to argue with one of you guys..."  I carefully
explained in an interim letter the facts of my present age.  I could have been a hippy, and almost was one,
but I never could relax enough my anxiety to become one; so, in a kind of cowardice, I only fellow traveled
with those who were much closer to be hippy than I was -- and I regret having been such a coward, I feel
my shame even to this very day.  But, anal retentive that I am, I forgive myself; I accept my cowardice now.
A lot of the latent hatred of the right wing rests on the wholly mistaken belief that the left wing is somehow
keeping them from getting all of the consumer goods that they desire -- as if the left wing were getting them.
A false and over-nurtured jealousy is constantly stoked by Rush Limbaugh and his evil-minded compatriots.

I also responded to other accusations, to dislodge the presumption of ignorance, which right winger leapt to give me.
Indeed, the right wing -- which refuses to listen to all the questions about the evidence that could NOT have possibly
ever have justified this war -- or any war -- now leaps to the claim that "the war protesters do not know what this
war is all about..."  And, I saw this demonstrated on a PBS special, of all places, where a professor at some Virginia
school said, "This war is about freedom..." and "the protestors don't have a clue of what this war is about".... and then,
I thought, well, of course, if the first statement is in disputable, and if the second statement reflects that the subjects
of that second statement do not believe the first statement is true, then of course the second statement is true, as well...
but this is a kind of question-begging that I thought that PBS would expose to ridicule... instead of allowing to be
broadcast as the kind of mindless propaganda that it is...  But, I also carefully wrote a letter of protest, explaining
most carefully their failure of rationality, which -- as with all such letters -- I expect never a reply, nevermore.  And,
had that professor really been put to the test, the PBS interviewer could have said, and how do you know that
the people who are supporting the war are better or worse informed, as to whether they have a clue or not...  But,
as PBS did not even ask that balanced a question, I also had to mention that failure of objectivity to them as well...

Well, anyway, back to the story of my second respondent...  after my second "credentials" justification of
my first missive, the fellow writes back, more politely, explaining, somehow, or perhaps merely stating,
that he had a couple of sons near military service age, and that, while he had been in the streets protesting
in Chicago '68, he was a conservative christian now, and thought that this killing had to happen sometime
because Bush, whom he liked a lot for evangelical reasons (a logic I can not yet quite grasp), had said it must]happen sometime, and sooner was better than later, because the longer you wait, the more likely evil will act to harm you...

Well, it was more like reading my long run-on sentence, but his actual second note was a page in length.  I then posted
my most formal and comprehensive reply, on the failing quality of the evidence justifying the Bush decision to go to war.
I append it here, for anyone caring to peruse my writings, further.

Why do I write this note?  Well, once I put my thoughts into writing (hah! you might say; yes, you might well say that).
I feel much better.  I can read them over several times until I have a much better idea of what the words say.  Some days
later, I will read them again, noting more carefully my many communicative mistakes, and then again, more time will pass,
and more times will I return to (some of) my own past writings, and sometimes recognize some thought in them, as having
some particular merit, or illustrating well some foible of mine.  I never quite tire of reading my own writings -- I remain my
most faithful listener, and I bid to me, as I bid to you --

Thanks for listening,
Donald L Emerick
********************


Dear Steve,

In criminal law, over the centuries, we have developed various principles to
guide the use of extreme force.  For instance, we have a doctrine of hot
pursuit, which sanctions the use of more brutal police methods, as long as
there is a continuing connection between a pursuing police officer and a
fleeing person, who is rationally suspected by that officer of having
committed some violent crime.  The pursuing officer is allowed to disregard
some aspects of search-and-seizure rules as long as that connection is a
live one.  Once time intervenes, though, and once the suspected felon has
fled into hiding -- gone to earth as it were -- then the hot pursuit
doctrine fails, and the constitution's protective requirements become
applicable.  To apprehend that suspected felon thereafter requires us to
observe more strictly due process, such as obtaining search and arrest
warrants.  Without such restraints upon the use of extreme force, the police
could freely seize any person, at any time, for any reason, detain
(imprison) them for as long as they thought was necessary, and otherwise
seize and impound all of their property.  We guard our freedoms by
balancing, on the scale of necessity impelled by immediacy's urgency, the
different public interests in removing (1) clear and distinct danger from
violent individuals versus (2) the less distinct kind of danger that comes
from an over-powering state.

On this analysis alone, regarding this present war as a justified
continuation of the first war fails if the government has not strongly
presented the continuing connection of an some immediate dire threat.  Here,
the alleged felon had gone to earth, and the more ordinary due process rules
of international law apply to the situation.  The last war was clearly over,
however uneasily we had accepted its outcomes.  We had accepted the
responsibility, thereafter, of ensuring that Hussein's Iraq did not repeat
its violations of the sovereignties of other nations.  We banned Iraq's
possession of all those military capabilities that could constitute an
offense threat.  We rigorously enforced the terms of that uneasy peace
continuously.

However, we have not successfully shown any kind of substantial evidence of
an intended and deceptional violation by that Iraqi regime of these
sanctions.  We alleged, for instance, that Iraq had gone out to begin buying
the kinds of tubes that could be used in a nuclear program.  But, that
alleged evidence was quickly shown to have been clearly forged, although the
identity of the forgers is not yet known.  It could have been produced by
field operatives of either the Israeli or CIA intelligence services.  The
falsified evidence could have been produced by any party that wished to make
it appear that Iraq was guilty of some substantial violation.

Similarly, Mr. Powell and Mr. Blair identified a few sites that he alleged,
from aerial photos, were certain to be places where proscribed offensive
weapons were being produced.  UN inspection teams immediately went out to
those places, searched thoroughly, as only scientists on the ground could,
and found literally nothing.

Third, Mr. Powell and Mr. Bush have repeatedly referred to a terrorist camp
operating in northern Iraq.  Yet, almost immediately, the person who was
named was identified by other news sources as (a) operating a camp in an
area of Iraq where the US no-fly zones protected that alleged terrorist and
his camp and (b) as a Kurdish liberator who was an enemy of the regime in
Baghdad.  So, the nature of this evidence was distorted, for it points out
that Iraq had no power to end this terrorist's activity, even though it was
present on Iraqi soil.

Fourth, Mr. Powell and Mr. Bush allege, from intelligence sources, that Iraq
had produced four (4) tons of VX nerve gases.  However, a British
intelligence officer leaked the intelligence source documents.  In the same
testimony that established this VX, the witness also said that Iraq had also
finally destroyed all of this weapon and its delivery systems in the mid
1990s, because they (rightly) feared that it would soon be uncovered by the
UN inspectors, and that the US might use such dated materials as a pretext
to resume war.

Fifth, the Sammud missiles were voluntarily disclosed by Iraq in their
declarations.  In UN tests some 35% of these missiles proved to be able to
fly further than any missile could.  Quite legitimately, Iraq defensively
said the weapons tests were conducted on empty missiles, ones that had no
guidance and no payload (warhead).  Once such additional weights are
factored in, Iraq would be quite right, that the Sammud weapon was not a
proscribed offensive weapon.  However, the UN inspectors said that all of
the Sammuds had to be destroyed.  After initially resisting this strong
order of the UN inspectors, Iraq began full compliance, and had destroyed
40+ of the 100 or so missiles within a few days of this UN order; Iraq only
stopped destroying these weapons when the US announced that it would begin
an invasion of Iraq within 48 hours unless Iraq immediately surrendered,
unconditionally.

Sixth, Mr. Bush and Mr. Powell have alleged that there exists some kind of
connection between bin Laden, may he be cursed forever, and Iraq.  However,
the only alleged instance of any contact between Iraq and any chief of bin
Laden's forces is wholly a contrived event, based upon the slender fact that
one of those chiefs, after being seriously wounded, flew into Iraq, was
treated at a hospital there, and later flew out again.  While we might not
like the fact, Iraq never agreed with us about the status of bin Laden and
his forces.  Providing humanitarian care to another person, who is no enemy
of your own regime, is not any kind of violation of international law.
Otherwise the same kind of lawful neutrality that Switzerland provided in
central Europe would have been impossible.  So, even admitting the medical
treatment of that chief in Iraq does not make Iraq into any kind of ally of
bin Laden.  Indeed, bin Laden and Hussein have each literally declared the
other to be as serious an enemy to their groups as the US is to either of
them.  World diplomats could only polite laugh up their sleeves when they
heard Mr. Powell repeat this wholly outrageous notion to them.

About the only two major claims, of the many kinds Mr. Bush and his hawkish
team have made, that has not been disproven to date are (a) the allegation
that Iraq has mobile bio-weapon labs (as many as 9 have been claimed by the
US) and (b) the allegation that prohibited weapons, or (more critically)
their labs, are hidden someplace in the deserts around Baghdad.  However,
given the complete failures of evidence to date, it begins to look like the
CIA was completely right and the defense intelligence board that Bush's
hawkish civilian advisory board dominates was rather completely misreading
the evidence.  When you add the possibility of a dire misreading of foreign
intelligence to the suppression of the CIA's quite different assessments of
the threat, then you would be right to doubt the legitimacy of this war.  It
begins to look as pretextually manufactured as the war against Vietnam.
When you add to this stew, the evidence of seminars like the one that
Rumsfeld hosted last year, which identified the Saudi government as the
number one enemy regime in the region, and called for a US invasion of Saudi
Arabia, to be followed, successively, by attacks to remove the regimes in
Iraq and Iran, you can begin to sense why I call this an imperial foreign
policy, and why I feel quite uneasy in according this administration any of
the traditional good will that I otherwise attach quite normally to the
foreign policy of my own country.

Well, there you have about the most complete public statement that I have
made to date about the lack of any good reason to begin a wholly new,
pre-emptive conventional war against a nation that, to date, has never been
credibly shown to possess the kinds of offensive weapons that pose any
immediate and dire threat to the US.  Indeed, given that the regime of
sanctions and inspections, beefed up since last fall, appear to have worked
precisely as was initially desired and hoped, it appears that the US is
making war on Iraq for no good reason at all.  That is why I describe Bush
and his willful coalition as an unruly lynch-mob, which have decided not to
let any orderly civil trials determine the innocence of the innocent or the
guilt of the guilty.  Going along with that kind of unlawfulness would make
me its minor accessory, in some sense -- so I refuse to support my
government, when the evidence so strongly suggests its intentional and grave
wrongdoing.

Thanks for listening,
Donald L Emerick
Don


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/newspoetry/attachments/20030403/0a5595a5/attachment.html