qimugtua

To The Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Khamenei

2007-05-08T20:18:00.000-07:00

His Excellency Ayatollah Sayed Ali Khameni
The Office of the Supreme Leader

Your Excellency:

I read today with sadness an article in the Washington Post concerning Haleh Esfandiari, a dual U.S.-Iranian citizen who serves as the director of the Middle East Program at the Smithsonian Institution's Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. The entire article can be read at this link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/08/AR2007050801276.html?hpid=topnews. I am filled with dismay at the news of her detention and incarceration in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

It is, in my limited experience, a fact that confrontation leads to increased confrontation, and that compassion leads to increased compassion. I wish that contact across cultures could be encouraged in the interest of our shared humanity, rather than discouraged in the interest of politics. I hope that you can intervene in the case of Haleh Esfandiari and permit her to return in peace to her home.

Thank you for your time and patience. I hope someday that we may all come together in peace.

Yours most sincerely,
-qimugtua

REAL ID

2007-05-08T20:14:00.000-07:00

I'm writing to voice my opposition to the national digital identification cards proposed under the REAL ID Act. I do not want our government to create and maintain a national identification system.

Respectfully yours,
-Qimugtua

Without cause

2007-02-06T16:44:00.000-08:00

From the Washington Post:

"The Justice Department removed a prosecutor in Arkansas without cause in order to make room for a former aide to presidential adviser Karl Rove aide, a senior Justice official conceded in testimony today."

I suppose, literally speaking, it's not that Ed Cummins was removed for no cause, but rather that he was removed for no fault of his own. The cause certainly appears clear enough. At my work, I wonder how that would go over? If my manager fired me to replace me with someone who had better connections with uper management, I'm thinking that wouldn't go over well at all. Living ethically is a full-time endeavor. We have to consider not only our own interpretation of our own intent, of which we have a biased view anyway, but consider how our actions will be perceived by others.

문

2006-07-21T20:54:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine warned me that Mun was spreading malicious stories about me in the dorm. She apparently really had it in for me, which I found surprising. I had no feelings one way or the other about her. She was, I think, a junior in college, and it was my first year. I assumed, and still assume, that she simply didn't like my personality. I was, I'm sure, a bit loud, a bit over the top, a bit too in love with everything and everyone.

I walked around for days, perhaps weeks, unsure what to do. How was I going to fight back? Retaliate? Then one day, I was walking down the hallway carrying a long stem rose that came from I don't know where any longer. Did I buy it with the intention of giving it to someone that I couldn't find? Did someone give it to me? I walked past Mun's room and she was sitting on her bed, holding court with all her friends spread out around her. Without a thought in my head, I found myself striding into her room. I can still see her face, looking up at me with a clear expression of anger, transformed to confusion as I held out the rose. I handed it to her, and she took it, as I said, "Life is too short." Her friends "awwwed" and I left. And from that day on, Mun was kind to me. I'm convinced it's not because she suddenly liked me, but because I was nice to her, in front of her friends, and she would have come across as a jerk if she had responded in any other way.

I read an article, perhaps in the Washington Post, perhaps at cnn.com, I read a quote of a person in Lebanon. They spoke of watching on television a young Israeli girl writing something on a missile before it was launched. They observed that she was most likely not writing any peaceful sentiments. They bemoaned the fact that such hatred and violence was manifest in one so young. They hoped that, when that missile landed in Lebanon, that someone would take a small piece of the blasted house after the missile landed and would write "Peace" or "Love" and send it back to the young girl.

We see all around the world examples of where violence as a response to violence leads. I think that individual in Lebanon had it exactly right. The only response to violence that has a prayer of ending violence is a gesture of love, of acceptance, of shared humanity.

A Higher Standard

2006-06-22T20:11:00.000-07:00

Today on Fresh Air Terri Gross interviewed Joseph Margulies, the author of Guantanamo and the Abuse of Presidential Power, and Richard Samp of the Washington Legal Foundation. Mr. Margulies argued the position that Guantanamo reflects the policies of an administration that claims all power derived from wartime but disavows all accompanying restrains and restrictions. Mr. Samp presented the view that Guatanamo is legal, it could be a lot worse, and people should be more careful what they ask for.

I'm reminded of a high school debate in which I had to argue that the New Deal was worth its incredible price tag. It was a reasonably easy side to take, but at the end I was reprimanded for ignoring the emotional argument. What value do you place on the life of a child? If the program saved a single mother, and it was your mother, was it worth the cost?

Alright, I'm still floundering in that particular debate, but perhaps I can do clearer with Guantanamo. The U.S. is without question the most powerful country in the world, and in the history of the world. If, in all its power, it cannot adhere to a higher standard, then what hope is there? If at this point in history this country cannot afford to treat each member of humanity with all possible respect and restraint, then when will it occur?

"If one takes a life, it is as if he has killed all of humanity, if one saves a life, it is as if he has saved all of humanity."

Yes, we are powerful enough to do as we will to whomever we will. But what grace is there in that? If we dehumanize a single life, then we dehumanize all lives. There is no us and them, there is only thus, and we are all imprisoned by the policies of our elected leaders.

Kinsley and Kafka

2006-06-15T21:17:00.000-07:00

I just saw an editorial in the Washington Post that criticizes the Kafka-esque nature of the arguments by which the CIA defends the secrecy of its operations. In it, Mr. Kinsley writes:

But your rights and mine are not supposed to be at the whim of the government, let alone the president. They are based in the Constitution and the willingness of those we put in power to obey it -- even as interpreted by judges they may disagree with."¹

Amen.

¹Kinsley, M ( 2006, June 16). The Name Is Kafka...Franz Kafka. The Washington Post, p. A25.

Gutknecht E-Line

2006-06-15T20:14:00.000-07:00

I received a note today from Congressman Gil Gutnecht's office:

Each week, I send my constituents a personal e-mail called the E-Line. It features breaking news from Washington on gas prices, taxes, Iraq and other issues; links to informative articles and websites; and a message board for you to tell me what you think.

Click here to view last week's E-Line and sign up for future editions. Should you ever wish to stop receiving the E-Line, the option to discontinue this e-mail is always provided.

I took the opportunity to thank him for the note, reinforcing my call for this government to share all information with its citizens:

Dear Mr. Gutknecht:

Thank you for the sending me the e-line invitation; I'll be sure to sign up. In the words of that great Republican President Abraham Lincoln, "democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people." I strongly believe that such a democracy is only possible if the electorate is well-informed of the activities of its government. This is why I worry so much about reports that our government has taken a number of actions on behalf of our country, in the name of our country, but without the informed consent of the people of our country. I'm thinking in particular of the policy of "extraordinary rendition," reported "black sites" operated by the CIA, the data mining of our citizen's phone calls by the NSA, and other anti-terrorist activies apparently practiced by various branches of our government. Whether or not such activities are appropriate for our country to engage is almost beside the point; I'm perhaps more concerned that we the people are excluded by our government from participating in the policy debate by the pervasive secrecy of our executive branch. Frankly, I don't agree that it's in our country's best interests to keep policies secret from our citizenry. I believe that pertinent details of such policies should probably be kept secret, but not the policies themselves. Such secrecy may represent a government for the people, but it can be neither of the people nor by the people, and the phrase "police state" comes to mind. What do you think?

Yours sincerely,
[Qimugtua]
Rochester, MN 55904

NRCAT

2006-06-13T06:04:00.000-07:00

The Washington Post today carried an article ¹ covering an advertisement campaign launched today by the National Religious Campaign Against Torture. The first paragraph of the published statement of conscience reads:

Torture violates the basic dignity of the human person that all religions hold dear. It degrades everyone involved --policy-makers, perpetrators and victims. It contradicts our nation's most cherished ideals. Any policies that permit torture and inhumane treatment are shocking and morally intolerable.²

I immediately endorsed the statement; will you?

Our country apparently elected President Bush because he is a good man, strong in his convictions. When I learn that he issued a signing statement in response to the McCain Amendment:

"The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."³

then I have a hard time reconciling the good and strong. I think that he's either a good man, weak in his convictions, who is being taken advantage of by the people that have surrounded him, or I think he's a man with a broken moral compass who puts himself above the law, where the law is the writ of the people who the President is supposed to serve.

¹Cooperman, A ( 2006, June 13). Religious leaders urge U.S. to ban torture. The Washington Post, p. A04.

²http://www.nrcat.org/statement.asp

Doves and Predators

2006-06-11T19:43:00.000-07:00

Don't get me wrong; I have high tolerance for ambiguity. Ratchet and Clank, for example, has to be one of the most enjoyable video games ever. But this sort of article makes me feel queasy: In the sights of a joys tick killing machine. Ratchet and Clank are imaginary. It's make-believe. It's over the top. But quotes like this:

As I stood talking into a camera on a remote airstrip in Kandahar, a Predator drone circled the sky, putting me into its sights with its high-precision cameras -- and just a trigger away from being turned into the charred remains of a Hellfire missile.

and this:

I was told that one of the Predators in front of me recently fired a Hellfire missile at a group of Taliban insurgents, killing 12 of them. It was launched by a young woman who is 23.

are glorifying the killing of real people by a machine that reduces the taking of life into a different kind of video game, and it frightens me. The purpose of this article is too clearly meant only to share the thrill of the remote kill. In the same issue, this article appeared: Beheaded man's father: revenge breeds revenge. The author clearly couldn't believe that Nicholas Berg's father wouldn't be thrilled that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had been killed:

But at some point, one would think, is there a moment when you say, 'I'm glad he's dead, the man who killed my son'?

and Michael Berg's response:

No. How can a human being be glad that another human being is dead?

______

It's the juxtaposition of these two pieces that I find so disconcerting and revealing. The Predator is praised; the pacifist is marginalized, and I'm off to uneasy sleep.

Oh, an article in the Washington Post, Public Secrets by Robert G. Kaiser: that's what I meant to write to the General.

Dove clip art from www.aperfectworld.org:

Dear General Hayden

2006-06-02T19:50:00.000-07:00

First, congratulations on your successful appointment as Director of the CIA, the honor of which is eclipsed only by the scale of the responsibility which you have accepted. I wish you the best of luck in your position.

I missed the Senate hearings, but I have before me a copy of your opening statement. In the first paragraph, you state that "there is probably no agency more important in preserving our security and our values as a people than the Central Intelligence Agency." General, I'm troubled by the accounts I've read over the last few years concerning some of the strategies employed by the CIA, the NSA, the Defense Department, and other agencies charged with protecting our country's security. I'm frightened that these agencies have, in their efforts to protect our country, engaged in actions that have in fact undermined our country's values. I'm afraid that in the years following the 9/11 attacks, we have actually caused significant damage to the spirit of our country by violating some of the most basic principles associated with the United States. In the frequently quoted words of Walt Kelly, "We Have Met The Enemy and He Is Us."

First, I'm distressed at reports of the practice described in the press and elsewhere as "extraordinary rendition." I believe strongly that we need to operate according to procedures by which we can hold ourselves accountable. I believe that operating by the principle that the end justifies the means is inherently corrosive and will inevitably result in a darkening of our country's light. There is no other nation in a better position to take the moral high ground, and that it is our imperative to do so; otherwise, we have consigned to the world and our future to darkness.

Similarly, I'm perturbed by reports of so-called "black sites", and in particular the reported secret prisons administered by the CIA in countries around the world. Again, the operation of such prisons is not only conducive to the mistreatment of the prisoners, it flies in the face of the transparency and accountability for which our traditional system of law is rightfully held in high esteem around the world. When I think of the secret prisons administered by Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and other repressive regimes that litter history, I can't help but weep to consider ourselves in the same company.

Finally, reports that our agents are practicing abusive techniques of interrogation, including sensory deprivation, wall-standing, hooding, subjection to noise, deprivation of sleep, deprivation of food and drink, waterboarding, etc, fill me with anguish. The fates of Habibullah and Dilawar are direct examples of the dehumanization that result from a climate where torture is permissible. Whatever the political tides of the day, these people are, indeed, people, like all of us. The collateral damage of these practices is to our own souls.

Let me quote again a paragraph from your speech:

"As we do our work, we will have difficult choices to make and I expect that not everyone will agree 100 percent of the time, but I would redouble our efforts to act consistent with both the law and a broader sense of American ideals. And while the bulk of the Agency's work must, in order to be effective, remain secret... the CIA is protecting [ the American people ] ... in a way consistent with the core values of our nation... I did that at NSA and .... I pledge to do it at CIA."

General, it's becoming clear in my mind that while the specific actions of the intelligence agencies might need to remain secret, the policies under which those actions are taken cannot be. The "core values of our nation" are not codified in any one body of text that the architects of these policies can consult, but are instead in constant evolution driven by public discourse of democracy. For example, General, recently it was reported that the NSA has been collecting phone logs in the creation of a vast secret database. Is this policy consistent with the core values of our nation? It is certainly not consistent with my core values; there are too many instances in our recent history where officials have abused the power available to them. Without a broader dialog, how can one determine whether such activities adhere to our values or not? The implementation of secret policies that are kept hidden for the good of the people the policies purport to protect begins to smell to me something like totalitarianism.

You said: "Accountability is one thing--and we will have it--but true accountability is not served by inaccurate, harmful, and illegal public disclosures... CIA needs to get out of the news." General, I would ask if you believe that the stories in the press concerning rendition, secret prisons, torture, and the collection of phone logs within the United States are included in the public disclosures that you want to see get out of the news. If so, sir, and I'm afraid that the answer will be in the affirmative, then I respectfully beg to disagree, and disagree most vehemently. I believe that we must, as a nation, discuss exactly the policies that led to these actions, for our entire country will be held accountable for these actions by the world and by history. If it turns out that these actions are indeed consistent with the core values of our nation, then it will fall to me to either reexamine my own values, or to wrestle with the values of the nation. In the meantime, I believe that my values are in fact generally representative of the values of the nation, and that it is in fact the intelligence agencies that are acting out of touch with the countrymen they represent.

Walt Kelly image is ©O.G.P.I.

Dear Mr. Gutknecht

2006-06-01T19:57:00.000-07:00

My wife apparently wrote to you expressing her opinion concerning same-sex marriage. She forwarded me your response, and I feel compelled to argue with your stand on this issue. You take the position that "the one man and one woman model... has served society well for thousands of years." I would assert that this model has not served some members of our society well at all.

This issue is very personal to me. I have friends raising children who do not meet the one-man/one-woman definition of marriage. The families are loving and the children are remarkable. Any action by my government that seeks to deny them the same rights and protections that my family is afforded offends me deeply. I find that this proposed amendment violates the sanctity of my own marriage, turning it into an elitist and arbitrary institution that is based on something other than love and joint commitment. I don’t know anything about the “activist judges” you reference in your letter, but I’m finding myself evolving from a rather passive political participant of the last 40 years into an activist citizen. I will carefully follow your actions as this bill proceeds, and I will work to either help convince you to change your position on this matter or to help elect another representative who works to protect the rights of all their citizens.

Your most sincerely,

-Qimugtua

Rochester, MN