Desiring Machine

This is part of why Bill Clinton was loved so much. He has a sense of humor. Clinton kicking the vending machine is priceless.

Enjoy

An imperative form of the latin meaning “you must have the body”. As a legal matter the key idea is that an individual accused of a crime must be presented to the courts and the public to ensure that they are lawfully detained, and not improperly detained or abused.

Section 9 Clause 2 of the US Constitution states the following:

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Habeas Corpus has a long tradition of bolstering the freedoms and rights of individuals against corrupted and overbearing state power. In the history of the USA it has been suspended only twice. Once under Abraham Lincoln in light of the civil war and once under George W. Bush in 2001 as part of the “War on Terror”.

In the mid 1800’s Habeas Corpus was used as a legal tool to protect runaway slaves seeking freedom in non slave states. Under the Fugitive Slave law of 1850 runaway slaves could be detained by federal marshals under the employ of slave owners from the South. Habeas Corpus required that a recaptured slave must be presented to the courts and public, at which time a runaway slave was often escorted away by an abolitionist mob. The underground railroad network would shuffle the slave away to freedom in another state or country such as Canada after having received custody of the slave under Habeas Corpus. Such was the famous case of Joshua Glover a slave who sought freedom in the state of Wisconsin.

Habeas Corpus was in direct contradiction with the intent and practices of the Fugitive Slave law and the Glover case along with that of his rescuer Sherman Booth created a moment of extensive litigation that ultimately led the supreme court of Wisconsin to overturn the the Fugitive Slave law of 1850. Which led to this opinion from the court:

“They will never consent,” Judge Smith declared, in referring to the right of the states in the enforcement of the law, “that a slave-owner, his agent, or an officer of the United States, armed with process to arrest a fugitive from service, is clothed with entire immunity from state authority; to commit whatever crime or outrage against the laws of the state; that their own high prerogative writ of habeas corpus shall be annulled, their authority defied, their officers resisted, the process of their own courts contemned, their territory invaded by federal force, the houses of their citizens searched, the sanctuary or their homes invaded, their streets and public places made the scenes of tumultuous and armed violence, and state sovereignty succumb–paralyzed and aghast–before the process of an officer unknown to the constitution and irresponsible to its sanctions. At least, such shall not become the degradation of Wisconsin, without meeting as stern remonstrance and resistance as I may be able to interpose, so long as her people impose upon me the duty of guarding their rights and liberties, and maintaining the dignity and sovereignty of their state.”

In the current administration Habeas Corpus has been supsended as part of the “War on Terror”. President Bush has asserted his authority to detain, without access to the courts, citizens that he deems to be “enemy combatants”. This suspension of Habeas Corpus, as described by the constitution, means that Bush has implicitly implied that the USA is under a kind of Marshal Law. I say Marshal Law because in many state constitutions that is the only condition upon which Habeas Corpus can legally be overturned.

The bottom line in my mind is what has happened to the freedom we have in this country that the terrorists so love to hate? If it is true that they “hate us because of our freedom” then it must mean that when Bush is suspending our freedoms like Habeas Corpus he is really just trying to get the terrorists to love us again.

However, I suspect this is more of a case that the terrorists have already won. Having compelled the nation into a kind of Marshal Law means that they successfully mobilized the right wing of this country to do their bidding and change our society in dramatic ways for the worse.

I guess is it not so much “give me liberty or give me death” anymore as it is “give me liberty or give me death by suicide bomber”.

I would rather take my chances with suicide bombers than have a state that at the sole discretion of a president can indefinitely detain its citizens. After all I live in the USA. Not Saddam’s Iraq, or Pinochet’s Chile.

There seems to be a tension developing over where to host the 2008 convention. Kos talks about it here.

My gut tells me that moving the convention to Denver would be a good thing for politics in general, and for either party. I think the NY scenario is in the works because it favors the presumptive ‘08 nominee Hillary Clinton. But I have for awhile felt that the political focus of the country needs to move out west. Being a west coaster myself I guess I hold an implicit bias and distrust of the “east coast political establishment”. But I was enthusiastic about Kerry. Massachusetts holds a special place in my heart because of my grandfather.

But the focus of the political scene out west would be good for the nation as a whole. There are a lot of good ideas out here, and I think the nation needs to break out of its “beltway” thinking when it comes to the national political scene. Gingrich instintively understood this in ‘94 and drove it to victory in the congress and I think Dean “gets it” with his 50 state campaign. I will not deny that New York is the capital of the world in a lot of ways. But that doesn’t mean that they have to dominate everything. And more to the point moving a convention to a western state helps spread things out. The right has been able to cynically employ this Red State/Blue State division to our disadvantage. But the Red/Blue divide is more rhetorical flourish and fallacious thinking than it is reality. The west and the middle of the country is full of vibrant and progessive ideas and movement. Just take a guy like Brian Schweitzer from Montana, or Peter Goldmark from Eastern Washington. There is real thought leadership here. So that being said there is real value in having a convention in Denver. It helps solidify our party with the west, brings the entire nation into the political focus, and will likely turn up a lot of exciting and fresh political thinking.

As I have heard it said before, “Out West Where Its The Best!”

Oh and if you do make it to Colorado be sure to check out The Great Sand Dunes National Park one of the true natural wonders of the world.

I don’t think it gets any more bald face than this:

From bsalert.com:

I am neither shocked nor really suprised at all. But of course I have read too much of that godfather of the “reality based community”, Noam Chomsky:

“The question is whether privileged elite should dominate mass communication and should use this power as they tell us they must — namely to impose necessary illusions, to manipulate and deceive the stupid majority and remove them from the public arena. The question in brief, is whether democracy and freedom are values to be preserved or threats to be avoided. In this possibly terminal phase of human existence, democracy and freedom are more than values to be treasured; they may well be essential to survival.”

~Source: In Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, 1992

The Bush war machine and his political cover of Christian fundamentalism is anathema to me and everything I was brought up to believe in. It is beyond absurb that the likes of Bush can cater to a so called “Christian” vote. And it is even more absurb that his “christian” values somehow provide him cover as an honorable man in the face of his rapacious and destructive war policies.

I consider myself a left wing secular humanist, but that does not mean that I am completely ignorant of Christian values. I grew up in the church and spent the first 8 years of my education in a rural Seventh Day Adventist church school. I attribute this upbringing to my strong aversion to war. Looking back I recognize now that my religious upbringing was fairly enlightened compared to the more virulent strains of political movements that pass for Christianity in our culture today, particularly the kind of churches that Bush seems to gather his support from.

The problem is one of crass cynicism and clever political language that has operated to bolster the right wing by collapsing important and significant distinctions in our linguistic landscape. For example the whole appeal to “values and faith” as a purely Republican matter. The left too often feeds right into this loss of meaning around terms like “values” by more often than not accepting the terms of Christianity as defined by the cynical wing of the neocon noise machine. It is instantly assumed that all Christians and the so called “values” vote is de facto a Republican domain. And furthermore, I have heard friends and acquaintances say fairly hostile and derisive comments about people who call themselves Christians, assuming they are all in the pocket of right wing war mongers like Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney. However, I think it is a mistake to make this assumption and furthermore it elides important doctrinal differences within Christianity and religious practice in the US and throughout the world. Christianity is more than the Vatican and what you might see on the 700 club. There is a rich tradition of people of faith actively and aggressively opposing war and suffering in the world. There are important alliances that people on the left should make with people on the right, despite differences in matters of faith and culture.

Take for example the following statement from the Seventh Day Adventists on the Iraq War:

Churches should not only be known for spiritual contributions — though these are foundational — but also for their support of quality of life, and in this connection peacemaking is essential. We appeal to Christians and people of good will all around the world to take an active role in making and sustaining peace, thus being part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

This is perhaps one of the most forceful statements I have read with respect to war and peace. How often would you hear our corporate media machine actively call for its viewers to be “part of the solution rather than part of the problem”? That is a fairly unequivocal statement, kind of like “you are with us or against us”. The significance of course is that it does assume that we have an important role in making peace and if we don’t pursue this role then we are not merely spectators but actually part of the problem. Our pro war media would never make this claim lest it shake us from our slumbers and rile us into action for peace.

And I know from personal experience that the Adventists take this matter very seriously. As a child in school I remember hearing many stories of Adventists being drafted into War and choosing to become medics. This was the only viable choice. If the state compelled you to go to war then your only option was to seek out a role where you could save lives and would not have to carry a gun. This was an explicit tenet called for and practiced by church members, even in WWII. As a child I remember this making a big impression on me. I was greatly impressed by the principled argument about actively not participating in killing even in the context of a war that you had to fight in against your will.

The bottom line is that there is no red state blue state divide in this country. If we let the elite media and their political and corporate cronies continue to divide us then we will continue to find ourselves respresented by the most brutal and reprehensible forces in our society.

Peace Now!

Think Progress has posted a transcript of Bill Clinton’s interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace. Wallace tries to sand bag Clinton on the Osama Bin Laden question, but Clinton will have none of it. Reading the transcript is refreshing because I think Clinton does a good job clearing the air, and asserting the real record in a firm, forceful and unequivocal way. Clinton is absolutely correct about the political climate of the era towards Osama Bin Laden. As I remember it the “wag the dog” cynicism was the dominant presumption of the day, especially by those who are so actively supportive of Bush and his war policies in the present. Anything Clinton tried to do was immediately presumed to be a smoke screen for Monica Lewinsky. And that is the single biggest thing that angered me about Clinton. He wasted his ability to continue good policy by getting caught up with his interns. It was disheartening because he essentially allowed himself to become a lame duck by this nonsense. However, when it came to foreign affairs Clinton was internationalist and exceptionally competent by ultimately being committed to resolving many of the world’s ills through diplomacy in strategic and effective ways.

I think it will be predictable that Fox is going to spin this interview as “Clinton loses his cool”. I don’t think that is fair because I think the facts are on Clinton’s side.

But this isn’t the first time Clinton gets a little heated when pressed on his record. Amy Goodman and Democracy Now has an interview with Clinton in the days before the 2000 election. On the whole I think Clinton does a good job defending his record against Amy Goodman’s critical interrogation as well.

I never thought I would say this but in this case there is not much difference between Fox News and Democracy Now in their attack style interview of Clinton. This not to say that either Fox or Democracy Now are wrong to challenge a president and people in power.

This is the struggle of a centrist politician like Clinton. For some reason he had a way of attracting haters from both sides. He has to defend himself from the relative fringe of both sides. I think on the whole Clinton does a good job defending himself and his record. I would not give Clinton a free ride on everything but on the level he thought deeply about the issues. And whether you agreed or disagreed with Clinton there is no denying that he was and is quite gifted at crafting effective compromise and public policy that cuts through a fairly divergent field of opinion. And when pressed he can defend his record in an intelligible way. Which more than I can say for our current president.

Generally, I am quite cynical about billionaire philanthropy and the PR tactics of the mega rich. However, Branson’s recent pledge of 3 Billion to fight global warming is commendable. Clinton’s Global Initiative organization seems to be doing a lot to rally people towards action. I remember seeing Branson on the the Daily Show awhile back and Jon Stewart put it to him pretty directly. Stewart basically asked why don’t you put your billions to challenging people to come up with a more fuel efficient car? Branson’s response was interesting. It was definitely an unscripted moment and he was a bit caught off guard but you could sense the gears turning. I think he took this challenge seriously. I am glad to see people actively engaging long term vision on engery policy. Who knows what material results Branson’s efforts will bare but he does deserve our respect for trying. I might just have to start flying Virgin Air.

John Frusciante is perhaps one of the greatest living guitar players out there. He always brings silky smooth riffs and hooks to the Red Hot Chili Peppers. I am especially grooving on the song Hey from their latest release Stadium Arcadium. The hooks and guitar work are simply heavenly, smooth, thoughtful, and pensive.

Frusciante’s life story, rise and fall with drugs and falling out of the Chili Peppers in the 90’s is certainly a cautionary tale. But to hear the story of his reunion with the Chili Peppers is heart warming. And the turn around has been nothing short of amazing with the Chili Peppers putting out the best albums of their career in the last several years. It is great to hear a true artist back in the swing producing intensely great songs.

UPDATE:

After initially posting this I went and checked out some of Frusciante’s solo work on iTunes. I purchased two albums Curtains and The Will to Death. I am speechless. This music is so beautiful. Very different from traditional RHCP music. John’s music is very much like solemn prayers to a divine presence. Church music really. I didn’t really know John’s music outside of the Chili Peppers. This is truly some of the best music I have listened to in a long, long time. Fresh, unique, fundamentally beautiful, introspective and spiritually envigorating. John is like some beautiful angel bringing us music from another otherworldly place. His music and his muse are full of meditation. His voice angelic. Kind of reminds me a little bit of Cat Stevens.

What is really amazing about Frusciante is how prolific and prodigious his output has been. And the quality seems to be consistent. Many of his solo albums come from 2004 where he released 6 albums in 6 months including “Curtains” and “The Will to Death”. A profound feat in itself. It is really amazing stuff. My words cannot really give it its proper due. You just have to listen.

And for the record I want the song Unchanging played at my funeral. It is one of the most lovely hymns I have ever heard. Ecstatic and redemptive.

Unchanging:

And we will show that wherever you are
that is where all time starts
It’s a pleasure to die
a pleasure to be gone
Into the sky we move on
Life is unchanging
It let me go
Life gave me up
and I have no control
Everything goes a way that I do not
I clean up the clouds I ride
I’ve never been up where I see the others climb
Seems like it must be nice
Laughters an ugly friend of mine
We share the best and the worst of times
Everyone goes where they belong
Nobody goes elsewhere
Never much thought goes to being
right or wrong

I am actually quite appalled at the level of juvenile equivocation made in this Washington Post article by Dana Milbank Bush’s Bill Suffers a Torturous Day in Committee. He opens this article with the following statement:

House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), fighting to preserve the use of harsh interrogation techniques, speaks with some authority on the subject: He was subjected to seven hours of cruel and unusual punishment as he tried to get the legislation through his committee yesterday.

Sensenbrenner can speak on authority about torture because he had a rough day in congress supporting the president’s de facto support of torture? Is this for real? This is the worst kind of nonsense journalism that is bringing this country down. Why the equivocation? Why can’t we be better served by our press and our government in addressing these issues seriously? The rest of the world must laugh at our feeble attempts to address the torture question. It seems that John McCain is about the only one who really brings gravitas to the discussion. And that must just make the republicans furious because really he is beyond reproach on the issue having spent years in a prison camp. McCain’s principled stand is such a marked contrast to the rest the chicken hawk crowd out there who feebly attempt to support the president and his reprehensible and duplicitous stand on torture policy. I applaud McCain for bringing seriousness to the issue because it is deadly serious.

But what I don’t understand is how someone like Milbank can even make a statement equivocating torture and a difficult congressional meeting. And then turn around and casually state that Sensenbrenner can speak “with authority” on the question of torture. I am sorry this is not authority. It is a gross equivocation in my mind. And does more to tarnish the Post’s reputation for serious journalism, than enhance the debate and inform the American public.

But I suppose there is always equivocation when confronted with difficult questions such as torture. It seems when you have nothing constructive to offer to the discussion the only recourse is to joke about it.

As a student in college I spent an academic quarter in South Africa towards the end of the Clinton administration. As part of my study there I looked into the Truth and Reconciliation commision set up to address human rights violations that occured under apartheid. The findings of the Turth commission are worth a read for anyone interested in torture and what can happen to a nation as it goes down that dark path.

Equivocation seems to be a truism when there is really no defensible position that can be taken, a position the republicans find themselves in because of Bush’s failed leadership. For me one of the most provocative moments in the truth commission was reading about the notorious Cape Town police chief Jeffrey Benzien and his now famous “wet bag” torture method, prized for its efficiency in breaking most victims in a matter of minutes. Here is the description as Benzien described it:

The suspect is made to lie on the ground on his stomach, with his hands handcuffed behind his back. Benzien then sits on the small of his back, with his feet between the victim’s arms. A bag soaked in water is then pulled over the head of the victim and twisted tightly around his neck, cutting off the air supply to the victim. The suspect is then questioned. From time to time, the bag is released to avoid the victim losing consciousness. The bag is only removed when the victim shows signs of wanting to talk.

According to the evidence of Benzien, his technique was so effective that he invariably got the desired results within a matter of thirty minutes. The suspect was usually undressed and sometimes he was blindfolded before the wet bag was put over his head. This was done to disorientate the suspect. The wet bag is held tight over the victim’s head and is released to prevent him from suffocating. The victim is usually under considerable distress. Benzien concedes saying to some of his victims that they would be treated like animals if they did not co-operate and refused to answer questions.

However more shocking than the graphic depictions of the torture itself, is the equivocation of the perpetrator when interrogated during the truth commission. While appearing before the truth commission Benzien astonished audiences when the following exchange occured between him and Ashley Forbes one of his survivors:

MR BENZIEN: May I just ask a moment here. You say you were arrested on what date?

MR FORBES: The 16th.

MR BENZIEN: And if I understand you correctly, you are saying subsequently the 16th of each month, I would assault you?

MR FORBES: The 16th, not of each month, yes, but on each month, that that would be the day on which I was to expect an assault?

MR BENZIEN: Sir, in the spirit of reconciliation and I have been trying to be as honest with this court as I can, I deny and Mr Forbes, if I am denying this, then one of us two are lying.Because after you initial arrest and your initial interrogation, I concede on the Saturday I assaulted you. I then assaulted you I think it was on the Monday evening, that was after that we went for the steak, am I correct?

After that, I took you on investigation to the Eastern Cape. Whereas to refresh your memory, and I am not saying it flippantly, as you said it was the most Kentucky Fried chicken you have ever eaten. Either after that or prior to that, we attempted to go to the Western Transvaal where you were going to do some pointing out.

Could you remember the time that you had seen snow for the first time? Can you remember what happened in the snow? The husband and the wife and the two children who were taking photo’s of you playing in the snow along the N1?

Your trip to Colesberg, where you braaied with me that night and with the rest of the Unit, therefore Mr Forbes, in the spirit of honesty and reconciliation, I am sure you are making a mistake about the 16th of every month was the day that I would assault you.

MR FORBES: Mr Benzien, maybe I will take you through the next time that I was assaulted and I will just see if there are aspects of that torture that you may remember.

For example on the second occasion do you remember that I was wrapped in the carpet?

MR BENZIEN: That was the Monday, the Monday night.

MR FORBES: Do you remember for example that my clothes were removed and that the wet bag method was again used on me?

MR BENZIEN: I would concede it could have happened.

MR FORBES: Do you remember after that, putting me onto a chair and then saying to me that you are going to break my eardrum and then hitting me against my ear?

MR BENZIEN: No, Sir. Not saying I am going to break your eardrum. I gave you a smack that evening on your ear and days later you told me that you think your eardrum was broken. You were examined by a District Surgeon in Queenstown if I am not mistaken, but you had also been sitting at the open window in the vehicle.

MR FORBES: Do you remember saying that you are going to give me a blue eye and then hitting me against my eye?

MR BENZIEN: No Sir. If I can again, please emphasise to the court, at that stage Mr Forbes had not been placed under Regulation 29 yet. I knew he had to be examined by a Doctor.

MR FORBES: Do you remember saying that you are going to break my nose and then putting both your thumbs into my nostrils and pulling it until the blood came out of my nose?

MR BENZIEN: I know you had a nose bleed. I thought it was as a result of the smack I gave you.

What is really remarkable is the reference to the chicken dinner. When confronted with the truth of his victim’s torture experience Benzien does the only thing he can equivocates and tries to paint a rosy picture.

Some of the most insightful lyrics I have ever heard come from Leonard Cohen’s There is a War.

There is a war between the rich and poor,
a war between the man and the woman.
There is a war between the ones who say there is a war
and the ones who say there isn’t.
Why don’t you come on back to the war, that’s right, get in it,
why don’t you come on back to the war, it’s just beginning.

I have always liked the sublime paradoxical calculus and insight of the line: “The is a war between the one who says there is a war and the one who says there isn’t”. Even though this song was written in the 70’s it seems very precient today and even more profound in light the confrontational times that we find ourselves in today.

As a true artist Cohen doesn’t offer any advice, merely observation and insight. Knowing that there is a war doesn’t help you any more than knowing that there is not a war. As so many things in life these are beyond our immediate control and will. Hence the paradox in Cohen’s words. However, I find comfort in Cohen’s song because I somehow find it useful to know that the world is on fire. Better that than to sleep through the party, right?

I offer you three videos that can only confirm the suspicion that there are those who want to add to the fire:

Jesus Camp. A Christian madrasah in North Dakota?

Leftist Radicals and the case of Josh Wolf in San Franisco

Islamic Mob Rule at the Trial of Three Christian Terrorists Convicted in Indonesia to the Death Penalty.

No matter what political stripe, you are likely to find yourself in agreement, dissent or dismay with at least one or any combinations of these videos.

But alas I remain optimistic because as a freedom loving, rule of law believing, ultra liberal, Christian school upbringing, privileged White Male I know that this is all statistical noise. I have a trust that cooler heads prevail ultimately. It is just a shame that the noise machine can attract so much attention. Attention whores in an attention economy. That is font of our times and the source the clamour.

Welcome to the war. We will resume our normal broadcasting of peace and prosperity just as soon as we can elect cooler heads to high office.