Tag Archives: Obama

GUANTANAMO: Sign the petition to close Gitmo

from Morris Davis, former Chief Prosecutor at Guantanamo Bay

gitmo

I served 25 years in the US Air Force, I was the Chief Prosecutor for the Terrorism Trials at Guantanamo Bay for more than two years, and now I need your help.

I personally charged Osama Bin Laden’s driver Salim Hamdan, Australian anathema David Hicks, and Canadian teen Omar Khadr.  All three were convicted … and then they were released from Guantanamo.  More than 160 men who have never been charged with any offense, much less convicted of a war crime, remain at Guantanamo with no end in sight.  There is something fundamentally wrong with a system where not being charged with a war crime keeps you locked away indefinitely and a war crime conviction is your ticket home.

As of April 29, 2013 – 100 of the 166 men who remain in Guantanamo are engaged in a hunger strike in protest of their indefinite detention.  Twenty-one of them are being force-fed and five are hospitalized.  Some of the men have been in prison for more than eleven years without charge or trial.  The United States has cleared a majority of the detainees for transfer out of Guantanamo, yet they remain in custody year after year because of their citizenship and ongoing political gamesmanship in the U.S.

That is why I am calling on Secretary of Defense Charles Hagel to use his authority to effect cleared transfers from Guantanamo and on President Obama to appoint an individual within the Administration to lead the effort to close Guantanamo. Obama announced on April 30 that he plans to do his part to close Guantanamo, but he has made this promise before.  Now is the time to hold him to his promise and urge him to take the steps necessary to dismantle Guantanamo Bay Prison.

If any other country were treating prisoners the way we are treating those in Guantanamo we would roundly and rightly criticize that country.  We can never retake the legal and moral high ground when we claim the right to do unto others that which we would vehemently condemn if done to one of us.

It is probably no surprise that human rights and activist groups like the Center For Constitutional Rights, Witness Against Torture and Amnesty International have been outspoken critics of Guantanamo.  It may surprise you that a former military prosecutor and many other retired senior military officers and members of the intelligence community agree with them.

The Patriotic thing, the American thing, the Human thing to do here is to Close Guantanamo.  

Please join us in the fight by signing this petition.

REFLECTION: After the election, much work to be done

Shelley Douglassby Shelley Douglass
Pax Christi USA Teacher of Peace

It’s afternoon at Mary’s House, the day after Thanksgiving.  Our guests are out – Ashley, who is just 21, has gone with her two girls to sign the lease on an apartment.  She is packing and expects to be moving out on December 1st.  She will be living with her baby’s father, who has begun a new and better job as a warehouseman after working for WalMart for over a year.

Bernice, who has just begun receiving Social Security, is also out.  She stayed with a friend over the holidays, and drove around distributing turkeys from their church like Lady Bountiful. She will probably be home tonight, and spend the weekend recuperating from all her activity.  She will also be packing, having found an apartment for the first of the month.

Being able to share food is one of the joys of Mary’s House too, and thanks to a couple of parishes we were able to share bags of groceries, and even a ham and a turkey.  In about two weeks we’ll be distributing toys and clothing as part of Angel Tree programs – another happy time.

When Ashley and Bernice move out, the house will be quiet and empty.  Our third room is already vacant, its occupant having moved in with a friend a couple of weeks ago.  Now we are preparing for our Advent Retreat, this year with Dr. Vincent Harding.  Mary’s House will provide beds and some quiet space for a few folks during the retreat, and after that we will take our yearly break for rest & rehab – rest for us, and rehab for the house.  I’m looking forward to a quiet Advent after the excitement of the retreat, with some time to reflect on the ideas Vincent shares.

Alabama is preparing now for winter – our first freeze is on the way.  I pulled some old drop cloths out of the shed to put over the gerbera daisies so they’ll last for a while.  We will go around and lock all the windows, creating an airtight seal, and we’ll all wear lots of clothes because we keep the house chilly to save money on gas.

Right now the house smells wonderful because the tenth pan of retreat lasagna is almost ready to come out of the oven.  I’m in my favorite chair, and our two parrots are napping on their cages.  Jackson, our hospitality dog, is snoozing on his pad, worn out from cleaning all the cottage cheese containers as I emptied them.  The never ending chore list is over on the desk, waiting further action, but for now there’s time to be quiet and mull over the last few weeks, a busy and sometimes noisy time.

As I go about the business of the house, I’ve been thinking over the results of the election two weeks ago.  I have major reservations about President Obama’s policies in a number of areas, yet I am very glad that he won.  I think his victory sends a message about the direction in which people want to move, whatever his actual policies will do.  In general people seemed to be voting for  inclusion, help for those who need it, and a sense of the common good.  I find that hopeful even when I doubt that the current policies will lead to those ends.

We actually watched the election results for a while – we have a working tv at the Tracks House, where Jim writes.  I was struck by the contrast between the two campaigns.  The network we watched had a split-screen setup, which showed the Romney and the Obama election night gatherings side by side.  What a difference – the Romney campaign group seemed to be totally white (and older); the Obama group was a wonderful mix of everybody, a colorful blend of “all of us”.  You  didn’t really need to read all the analysis of the election after seeing that.

I’ve been watching the PBS series “Eyes On the Prize” over the last month – it’s in our library system and easy to check out.  Vincent Harding, our retreat leader, was an advisor to the series.  Out of that experience he wrote a book, Hope and History (Orbis) which I’ve also been reading.  The combination of Dr. Harding’s book, the filmed history, the movie “Lincoln” – which we saw on our anniversary – and the election – made a deep impression on me.  It said that we are part of a struggle that began long ago and will continue into the future.  Those of us who worked for justice in the 50’s and 60’s, in however small a way, were building toward today.  And those of us who are working today are building toward a future that we can hardly imagine.

There are huge questions unanswered by this election.  As Bill Quigley rightly pointed out in his PCUSA blog, major issues were never addressed.  No one mentioned the death penalty.  No one seriously mentioned global warming.  They both supported nuclear power; no one mentioned nuclear weapons.  No one questioned government violation of our civil liberties, or Guantanamo. No one mentioned the high rate of incarceration, especially of men of color.  No one talked about a just wage. They did argue about abortion, but not in a way that would allow any kind of progress on that issue.  Worst of all, both candidates agreed on drone warfare and all that goes with it.  The good feelings generated by that multi-hued crowd must give way to a sense of work to be done.  There is a huge amount of work to be done!

One of the frustrations of this election campaign was that basic questions could not be raised in a way that was heard by the public.  The Democrats and Republicans are enough alike on most basic issues that only minor adjustments hinge on the election.  Those minor adjustments are crucial in many ways, but the big issues of empire, world domination, greed, control – those never get raised because both parties agree on them.  Some third parties work to ask those questions, but they are not given a voice in the public forum.

The questions we are facing as we become conscious of ourselves as a multi-hued nation are the same questions that faced the Civil Rights movement and the feminist movement:  are we struggling for a piece of the pie, or are we making a whole new pie?  Do we want an empire in which we all share in exploiting the rest of the world?  Or do we want to work for a world where no one is exploited?

As we have seen already, when oppressed people take power in an oppressive system, they become oppressors.  Margaret Thatcher, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Hillary Clinton – women and people of color can internalize the values of empire just as efficiently as white men can.  Indeed, we have all internalized those values, even those of us who struggle against them.  With the election now in our past, we go back to every-day living in this empire.  Our efforts to ask the deeper questions must continue, be more reflective, and cost more.

Continue, because we are only scratching the surface; be more reflective, because we need both to find the roots of empire within ourselves and to raise the question of empire in ways that can be heard; cost more, because questioning the status quo is not popular, and empires don’t just give up their power.  If we were to be at all successful at proposing an alternative kind of nation/people, we can assume that it would be a dangerous proposition.

Post-election, moving into Advent – now is a good time to reflect on the stable where our faith was born.  From the very beginning, the birth of an alternative to empire was threatened by the powers.  Ultimately Jesus’ nonviolent, revolutionary Way of living brought him to the cross. Will we take some steps along that road?

Shelley Douglass is a Pax Christi USA Teacher of Peace. She is the hospitaller at Mary’s House Catholic Worker in Birmingham, a member of Holy Family Parish, and active especially against war and the death penalty.

REFLECTION: Choosing a presidential candidate

Fr. John Rauschby Fr. John S. Rausch,
Pax Christi USA Teacher of Peace

(This article originally appeared in a Peaceweavings in 2004.)

When George Ryan ran for governor of Illinois in 1998, he brought to the gubernatorial race impeccable credentials as a Midwestern conservative. A Republican pharmacist from Kankakee, he joined the Illinois legislature in 1970 as a law and order candidate. Later, he could boast, “I supported the death penalty, I believed in the death penalty, I voted for the death penalty.”

During his tenure as governor, Ryan oversaw one execution, but the experience triggered a flood of moral anguish. A study released after the execution revealed that one-third of the 285 capital convictions in Illinois since reinstating the death penalty were reversed because of fundamental error. No fewer than 13 men were completely exonerated.

In January 2003, shortly before he left office, Governor Ryan issued a blanket commutation that saved 156 inmates from execution, because he was convinced that capital punishment could not be justly administered. Confronted by the facts, Ryan stretched his thinking to embrace a greater, and more consistent, life ethic.

In this election year 2004, many Catholics feel no one candidate reflects fully the social teachings of the church. No candidate appears to have stretched his thinking to adequately include the life issues that range from abortion to cloning, from fair trade to a living wage, from poverty to war.

The U.S. Catholic bishops in their document, ”Faithful Citizenship: A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility,” highlight our moral priorities. The church must protect human life, promote family life, pursue social justice and practice global solidarity. Unfortunately, politics pivots around ideology rather than principle. Presidential candidates bow to special interests, big contributors and assorted political realities. So, how can a Catholic choose a presidential candidate?

Some voters emphasize abortion to the exclusion of other political considerations. While the right to life stands as a primary human right, getting the child born does not finish our moral, economic and political responsibilities to defend life. Indeed, the bishops proclaim a consistent life ethic. Human life is also assailed by hunger, poverty, violence, the death penalty and modern warfare. The bishops write, “A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good.” A single-issue voter trivializes the complexity of the life process.

At the heart of political decision-making stands the common good. That common good, constrained by political realities, consists of the moral values necessary to achieve a just society. The bishops ask, ”What kind of nation do we want to be? What kind of world do we want to shape?”

Presidential candidates project that vision. Sometimes voters get half a loaf; sometimes only a slice must suffice. The example of George Ryan could prove instructive. People of faith might vote for the candidate most open to life issues. Which candidate might stretch his thinking to embrace a greater, and more consistent, life ethic? Who possesses enough integrity to admit mistakes, apologize, change and show genuine compassion?

Since a president appoints key administrators, who will select people respectful of the immigrant, the working poor, the most vulnerable in society? Who will hold corporations responsible for the care of creation and the rights of workers? Who has the vision to alleviate global poverty by fair trade and challenge terrorism through international law and collaboration among nations?

Political greatness is defined as someone who puts the common good ahead of party and career. Given the political climate today, how can people of faith set the expectation for a candidate to meet that challenge?

Click here to read the original Peaceweavings in which this article appeared in 2004.

Fr. John Rausch, a Glenmary priest, is the director of the Catholic Committee of Appalachia and works against mountaintop removal.  He was the recipient of the Pax Christi USA’s Teacher of Peace Award in 2007.

ELECTION 2012: Paying attention

Nick Meleby Nick Mele
Pax Christi USA National Council member

The weeks between the two party conventions and the first of the presidential debates are a good time to consider what two candidates share. From their acceptance speeches and other statements each has made throughout the campaign, President Obama and Governor Romney believe America’s power depends on a strong military force, well-armed and well-prepared, although there are differences in their stated policies. Recent history suggests that an aggressive military policy may not be in the best short-, medium- or long- term interests of the United States, so why is this notion that we need an overwhelming military force so persistent?

One reason is the belief that military force is the reason for America’s preeminence in the global community, but that is at best a dubious proposition. Over several decades of representing the U.S. overseas as a diplomat, I never once heard any foreign official, opinion-maker or ordinary citizen praise our country for its military prowess. (In some countries, like South Korea, where there is a strong American military presence, people were at best ambivalent about our projection of military forces beyond our own borders.) Instead, people praised the United States for its advocacy of human rights, for Americans’ respect for the law in daily life, for our freedom of expression, for our community spirit and civic participation.

Another reason is the sense that our country stands alone in the world, a demonstrably silly argument. The U.S. is inextricably connected to most of the world through economic ties and to many countries by common traditions and beliefs. We do not stand alone unless we lift ourselves up arrogantly above the rest of the global community. Unfortunately, our mythology, combined with our willful ignorance of the conditions and attitudes of the people who live in other nations, reinforces a determination to go it alone, which necessitates accumulating more firepower than any other nation or likely coalition of nations.

Click here to read the rest of this article.

REFLECTION: There is never any justification for violence

Rosemarie Paceby Rosemarie Pace
Pax Christi Metro New York Director

“There is never any justification for violence.”
President Barack Obama, September 15th, 2012

In response to the violent attacks against U.S. embassies around the world, especially in the Middle East, by Muslims enraged over a YouTube video that insults the revered prophet Muhammad, President Barack Obama, in his weekly address said:  “We stand for religious freedom. And we reject the denigration of any religion – including Islam, but there is never any justification for violence. There is no religion that condones the targeting of innocent men and women. There is no excuse for attacks on our Embassies and Consulates.” (Sept. 15, 2012)

I couldn’t agree more.  But then I must ask, how does the U.S.A. explain maintaining the largest, best financed, best armed military in the world at the expense of its own people’s lives and livelihoods?  How does it justify having more military bases in more countries than any other country in the world when it would never condone any foreign base inside its borders?  How does it defend not only having the largest nuclear weapons arsenal in the world, but upgrading what it has while opposing a Nuclear Weapons Convention for which most nations of the world have voted?  Furthermore, how does it claim to support nuclear nonproliferation and ultimate abolition while making nuclear deals with allies like India?  What could be of greater danger to innocent men and women than a nuclear attack?  And what about those drones that have become the weapon of choice, supposedly targeting combatants but wiping out noncombatants in untold numbers?  Why has the U.S.A. opposed United Nations treaties against landmines, child soldiers, and arms trade?  In fact, the U.S.A. is the largest arms trader on the globe.  We travel half way around the world to engage in wars that are known to kill far more civilians than warriors, and then dismiss the civilian casualties as “collateral damage” with limp apologies.  Even here at home, far too many fight for gun rights with the same vigor with which they fight against health care.  Is that not violence against innocents?

In the book of Deuteronomy, Moses gives the Israelites a choice:  “I put before you life and death; choose life.”  Do we choose life in the U.S.A.?  Our foreign (and domestic) policies certainly don’t indicate that we do.  Rather, they suggest that, as a nation, we prefer death.

Where is our outcry?  Where is the outcry of our Church?  The world knows where the Catholic Church stands on abortion, same-sex marriage, and contraception.  Why isn’t it made equally aware of the Church’s stand against war, nuclear weapons, and torture?  When people distort Just War Theory to justify a war, why isn’t that used as a “teachable moment”?  In fact, each of the last several popes has increasingly indicated that a “just war” is likely no longer possible.  On October 2nd, 2003, prior to being named Pope Benedict XVI, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger said:  “…given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a ‘just war’.”

Furthermore, this pro-life Church has spoken clearly against landmines and child soldiers.  It has endorsed a strong Arms Trade Treaty and has called the U.S. to review its use of unmanned drones, noting their indiscriminate assault on human life.  It supports both gun control and the basic right to health care for all.  It teaches an option for the poor, not a budget for the military.

How, then, can we as a nation of supposedly God-fearing people tell others “there is never any justification for violence” when we practice it with such abandon and condone it with our compliance?  Why should we expect other nations to bow to our admonishments when they not only see but are often the victims of our hypocrisy?  Let us apply to ourselves the moral standards we rightfully expect of others.  We might discover far more cooperation when we do.

Rosemarie Pace is Director of Pax Christi Metro New York. She holds a Doctorate in Education from St. John’s University in New York City and an Advanced Professional Diploma in Religious Education from Fordham University’s Graduate School of Religion and Religious Education. 

NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT: Statement from the President on Indonesia’s ratification of the CTBT

“The United States welcomes Indonesia’s ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which provides a strong example of the positive leadership role Indonesia can play in the global effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.  The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is a critical element of the international effort to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and I urge all states to sign and ratify the agreement so that it can be brought into force at the earliest possible date. The United States remains fully committed to pursuing ratification of the Test Ban Treaty and will continue to engage members of the Senate on the importance of this Treaty to U.S. security.   America must lead the global effort to prevent proliferation, and adoption and early entry into force of the CTBT is a vital part of that effort.”

GENOCIDE: President releases statement regarding prevention of genocide, mass atrocities

From Save Darfur Coalition

This morning, the White House released a statement announcing a Presidential Study Directive on Mass Atrocities. The directive details efforts to ensure the United States Government is better able to prevent and respond to mass atrocities and genocide.

Recognizing that ending genocide is a core national security interest–in addition to a core moral responsibility–the directive includes the creation a standing interagency Atrocities Prevention Board “with the authority to develop prevention strategies and to ensure that concerns are elevated for senior decision-making.”

Save Darfur Coalition/Genocide Intervention Network welcomes this important step by the Administration. Download our press release.

View the related Presidential Proclamation that suspends entry into the United States of certain persons who have engaged in serious human rights and other humanitarian law violations and other abuses.