The Intolerable Pace of Bigotry

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, is facing some tough questions this morning about controversial comments he made about homosexuality and gays serving in the military during a newspaper interview.

Pace was asked about his view on gays in the military by the Chicago Tribune. His answer was carefully worded, but his meaning was unmistakable.

"My upbringing is such that I believe there are certain things, certain types of conduct that are immoral," Pace said during the tape-recorded interview.

"I believe that military members who sleep with other military members' wives are immoral in their conduct, in that we should not tolerate that."

"I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts."

And I am soo opposed to the military's efforts to kick out adulterers. Why it's nobody's busi....wait....what?....they don't?

Nevermind.

Can we all distinguish between personal belief and public policy? Apparently Gen. Pace cannot.

Pace was asked about his view on gays in the military. He was asked a policy question, not about his personal beliefs. That he offered his personal beliefs as an answer about policy is the problem here. He's entitled to his beliefs. But as Chair of the JCoS, his duty is to the law and to the military. As it stands, substituting his personal beliefs for his duty serves neither.

His views on the morality of gay people themselves is wholly irrelevant to that question. His personal moral beliefs, misguided as they are, cannot be the basis for military policy. Again, he wasn't asked for his view on gay people, he was asked for his view on the policy.

His answer revealed that he was basing his support of the policy, not on the best interests of the military or the law, but on his personal beliefs. And he did so in a very peculiar sort of way. For he expressed disapproval of both adultery and gay people, but only gay people are barred from service. Heck, RW Christians supposedly disapprove just as much of anyone who has sex outside of marriage. And yet if kicked out everyone who has extra-marital sex, there'd be no one left. Somehow no one is claiming that allowing fornicators to serve in the military is somehow" approving="" of="" their="">

At a time when we desperate for people, people with families are being forced into third and fourth tours, we're even allowing some people with criminal pasts - saying that gay people are just a bridge too far morally is not in the best interests of the nation or the military. To disallow gay people from serving on moral grounds, while allowing all manner of other "sinners", speaks of a kind of bigotry that transcends mere personal belief. Why that so-called "sin" is sooo bad that that one alone is grounds for exclusion for service when our nation so needs every able and willing person defies logical explanation. And so it is not without consequence for our nation that the top general would reveal that the fundamental basis for his support of the exclusion of gays from service is a bizarre moral prejudice.

Moreover:

Australian, British, Canadian and Israeli allies at the least are on notice that General Pace thinks that their gay service members are "immoral" and that he supports the hugely failed American "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Every single one of our major allies in NATO, the "coalition of the willing" and the GWoT have open gays in the military. Pace just insulted our allies.

And it is not just side by side with our allies that GLBT service members are risking their lives for our freedom and security.

Gay-rights groups accused the U.S. military of hypocrisy Wednesday after it disclosed a sharp reduction in the dismissal of gays since the beginning of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Pentagon said it dismissed 612 people for homosexuality in its most recent fiscal year, fewer than half the 1,227 dismissed in fiscal 2001.

Gay-rights groups said the numbers show the hypocrisy of the Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which forbids commanders from asking the sexual orientation of service members but requires gays and lesbians to keep their sexual orientation private.

“It is interesting to watch rates of discharge go down when the military needs people the most,” said Bob Kearney, a senior public policy advocate for Human Rights Campaign, a gay-rights group.

The decline in dismissals comes amid simultaneous wars that have strained the military’s manpower.

“It is not appropriate for the U.S. military to tell lesbian and gay Americans that they are worthy of fighting and dying in a war zone, but unworthy of serving their country on the home front during peacetime,” said Steve Ralls, a spokesman for Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which provides legal help to military gays facing dismissal.

But this is nothing new.

Prior to the onset of the Korean War, the Navy typically discharged 1,100 sailors a year for homosexuality. In 1950, at the height of the Korean War, that number dropped to 483. In 1951, only 533 gay sailors were expelled from the Navy. In 1953, when the Armistice was signed, the number of naval discharges for homosexuality jumped to 1,353.

In the three years prior to 1966, the Navy discharged between 1,600 and 1,700 sailors each year for homosexuality. From 1966 to 1967, the numbers dropped from 1,708 to 1,094. In 1968, gay discharges fell again to 798, and they dipped to 643 at the peak of the military build-up in 1969. In 1970, the Navy discharged only 461 sailors for homosexuality.

It's supposedly in combat in particular that the need for trust mandates that gays cannot serve. And yet, repeatedly, at times of war, GLBT people don't seem like such a threat.

And then of course, after the crisis and after their service, then it's time to kick out GLBT people and deny them their benefits. That is the morality of the General Pace. Allowing GLBT people to risk their lives to defend their nation and then kicking them to the curb when their service is over. A real paragon of virtue, indeed.

So the question for the general is regarding the policy, what's more important: Liberty and Security or his personal beliefs. And if it's the later, which it appears to be, then we have a problem.

So here's why Pace is a homophobic bigot and not just expressing a personal moral view.

You see, the key word there is "personal". It's one thing to hold that view for one's own personal life and to live one's personal life accordingly. It's another altogether to use the force of law or to seek to use the force of law to punish others who do not share those personal views. Pace isn't some schmoe. He's the Chair of the Joint Chiefs. He has responsibilities. His "opinion" impacts policy. There are real life consequences to having this bigot in his position. We're no longer talking about an innocent exchange of ideas.

Pace framed the issue well himself in his comparison to adultery. Of course I disagree with the comparison. But let's take it at face value, that both are just as wrong in his eyes. Then explain why his personal view that being gay is "immoral" justifies excluding gay people from service but his personal view that adultery is immoral doesn't preclude the service of adulterers.

It's the fact that the homophobes have taken this so-called "sin" and made it the subject and rationale for punitive legislation that separates their actions and beliefs from merely personal views. Where are the Constitutional Amendments making fornicators second-class citizens? Where are the laws prohibiting divorcees from adopting?

Even within the RW fundie mindset, they clearly have decided that this one "sin" and this one alone is the proper justification for a host of punitive measures. Something other than just personal beliefs has to explain that.

Something does. Small-minded, hated-filled, bigoted, intolerant homophobia.

And there's no sin in calling it what it is.

Read the full post.

Sacrificial Lambs: Ritual Justice in the 'Global War on Terrorism'

In the terror related cases of Lynn Stewart, Jose Padilla, Sami al-Arian and others, it's clear in each case that the prosecution of each person was out of scale with what they were being charged with and that, more importantly to my point, their treatment was not only not necessary to seek justice, but counterproductive.

It's tempting to take these cases and try to make some case about the general erosion of the rule of law or an out of control justice system. But a collection of individual cases do not a broad pattern make. There is something else going on here. So the question I want to ask is: What does the government get out of treating a handful of people, who may or may not be guilty of anything, so horribly?

I'd like to suggest: Ritual Sacrifice.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson

Perhaps that was meant as a stoic warning. But it appears to have been taken as a magic formula.

There are three cases that we need to review.

Case One
Over two years ago, I wrote about the neglected case of Lynn Stewart. Lynne Stewart, a civil rights attorney, was convicted of providing material support for terrorism by assisting her client, Egyptian Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (the “Blind Sheik”), now serving a life sentence for conspiring to commit acts of terrorism in New York City in the months after the 1993 World Trade Center bombings. Stewart continues to insist on her client’s innocence of the charges against him and was in the process of assisting with an appeal. And she now insists that she has done nothing wrong either.

The basis for the government’s claim against her was that, seven years ago, Stewart gave a press release to Reuters from her client stating that he no longer favored a cease-fire between The Islamic Group and the Egyptian government. The problem is that Stewart had been required, in order to gain access to her client, to agree to a Special Administrative Measure (SAM) issued by the Federal Bureau of Prisons denying her the ability to communicate with the outside world on behalf of her client. The penalty, as she understood, was to potentially be denied any additional access to her client.

On October 16, 2006, Lynne Stewart was convicted and received a 28-month sentence, but is free on bail pending appeal.


Case Two
Jose Padilla, a US citizen, was arrested in May 2002 in Chicago. He was detained as a material witness until June 9, 2002, when President Bush designated him an illegal enemy combatant and transferred him to a military prison, arguing that he was thereby not entitled to the protection of United States law. On January 3, 2006, he was transferred to a Miami, Florida jail to face criminal conspiracy charges.

After a protracted battle over Padilla's right to challenge his detention without charges left his status unresolved, the government changed course and decided to indict Padilla on criminal charges, releasing him from military custody. Padilla and four others were charged with "conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim persons in a foreign country ... for the purpose of opposing existing governments and civilian factions and establishing Islamic states under Sharia (Islamic law), and material support for terrorism," according to the indictment. None of the original allegations put forward by the U.S. government three years ago, including an allegation of a plot to use a 'dirty bomb', the claims that held Padilla in the majority in solitary confinement throughout that period, were part of the indictment

While in military custody, Padilla was kept in a Navy prison in Charleston, South Carolina.

He was kept in a 9-by-7-foot cell with no natural light, no clock and no calendar. Whenever Padilla left the cell, he was shackled and suited in heavy goggles and headphones. Padilla was kept under these conditions for 1,307 days. He was forbidden contact with anyone but his interrogators, who punctured the extreme sensory deprivation with sensory overload, blasting him with harsh lights and pounding sounds. Padilla also says he was injected with a "truth serum," a substance his lawyers believe was LSD or PCP.
According to his lawyers and two mental health specialists who examined him, Padilla has been so shattered that he lacks the ability to assist in his own defense. He is convinced that his lawyers are "part of a continuing interrogation program" and sees his captors as protectors.

On August 16, 2006, the court dismissed one of the three counts and partially dismissed another. The case is currently caught up in a competency hearing to determine if three years of torture might have impaired Padilla's ability to assist in his own defense.


Case Three
Sami al-Arian, a professor living in Florida and a Palestinian activist was arrested at the direction of Attorney General John Ashcroft on charges related to terrorism and conspiracy.

He spent two and a half years in prison, in solitary confinement under atrocious conditions. To confer with his lawyers, he had to hobble half a mile, hands and feet shackled, his law files balanced on his back.

His attorneys presented no witnesses or evidence relying on the Constitution and the threadbare nature of the government's case. He was acquitted on all charges. Nonetheless, the government was determined to appeal. Considering his treatment, his lawyers advised al-Arian to take a plea for time served and leaving the US with an understanding that he also not be called as a witness in any other matter. The government lawyers agreed and the plea was submitted. But the judge did not accept the plea and sentenced him to the maximum allowed, an additional 11 months in prison.
But the ordeal was not over, possibly seeking to entrap him in a perjury charge, al-Arian was called to testify in a grand jury case against an Islamic think tank. He is currently being held in contempt for refusal to testify and is in his sixth week of a hunger strike in protest.


There are, of course, other cases. There are the poor souls still in Guantanamo, most of them there because someone had a grudge against them and the US was desperate to believe whatever story was told to them by the people turning them in. Whatever they might have known is now no longer current information. And turning people emotionally and mentally into furniture is not really likely to produce information of any value, even if old news.

Then there's the case of Maher Arar, a Syrian born Canadian, “rendered” to Syria for torture by the US. Syria concluded that he had no terrorist links and he was released and returned to Canada. The Canadians investigated and found no basis whatsoever for his detention. The Commissioner of the Inquiry, Justice Dennis O'Connor, cleared Arar of all terrorism allegations, stating he was "able to say categorically that there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Arar has committed any offence or that his activities constitute a threat to the security of Canada."


Mind you, I'm not really going to get into the actual guilt or innocence in any of these cases. So, for purposes of discussion, go ahead, if you like, and assume them guilty of something. It's still clear in each case that the prosecution of each person was out of scale with what they were being charged with and that, more importantly to my point, their treatment was not only not necessary to seek justice, but counterproductive.

It's tempting to take these cases and try to make some case about the general erosion of the rule of law or an out of control justice system. But a collection of individual cases do not a broad pattern make. There is something else going on here. So the question I want to ask is: What does the government get out of treating a handful of people, who may or may not be guilty of anything, so horribly?

I'd like to suggest: Ritual Sacrifice. Certainly there is an element of playing out these cases for domestic consumption. If no one were being prosecuted or even held for terrorism, then the most ardent supporters of Bush's 'Global War on Terrorism' would most certainly be unsatisfied. And we might detect a note of desperation in the government's urgent need to come up with a success in the GWoT. But that doesn't really explain Padilla's or Arar's torture. It doesn't really explain why the US sought to turn Stewart's trial into a trial about Osama bin Laden.

There is, I think, an element of ritual here. There's an idea that our nation is 'dirty' and must be 'cleansed' of 'terrorist' elements. Of course, all of us want actual terrorists and their supporters stopped, arrested and tried. But if that really were the motivating force behind the treatment of these individuals, then we'd expect a more rational and less counterproductive approach. I think we are left with the only conclusion that these individual's actual guilt or innocence is immaterial to the Bush administration. They are sacrificial lambs. In a real way, their torture is meant as a warning. And in a symbolic way, their torture is meant to ward off Evil.

This theory fits with the largely symbolic nature of the rest of the Bush administration's prosecution of the GWoT and the war in Iraq. While counterproductive towards the actual goals of making the US more secure and bringing democracy to the Middle East, the bloodletting is nonetheless shrouded in noble rhetoric and incantations of freedom and security. As if by saying Freedom is on the March often enough and with the right sacrifice will produce that Freedom.

Even more so in the individual cases being discussed here, the punishment being exacted even before charges or trial appears to be an attempt make the nation more secure through the ritual torture of The Other.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

Perhaps that was meant as a stoic warning. But it appears to have been taken as a magic formula.

Now Podcasting! Click to listen!

Read the full post.