Det har kommit svar på nedanstående inlägg, som jag i min tur har kommenterat. Klicka här.
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 16:43:19 +0100 (MET)
From: Leif Erlingsson <leif@lege.com>
To: sdh@lege.net
Subject: [sdh]: Kan kyrkans äldster rädda den amerikanska konstitutionen?
Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 16:43:25 +0100
Resent-From: sdh@lege.net
________________________________________________________________
|
| Klicka på "Svara alla" för att svara till listan: sdh@lege.net
|_______________________________________________________________
Olja i våra lampor
Det talas mycket om i kyrkan att vi inte har så mycket tid kvar,
att vi måste sätta våra hus i ordning, ha olja i våra lampor
(liknelsen om de tio ljungfruarna) och på alla sätt vara
förberedda för svåra tider -- både andligt och materiellt.
Kan bara rädda oss själva?
Vissa medlemmar som jag talar med delar min lägesanalys av
världshändelserna, men menar att allt vi medlemmar kan göra är
att rädda oss själva och vår egen familj -- och arbeta med våra
hemlärarfamiljer o.s.v.. De menar att orättfärdiga ledare
förleder människor till stor orättfärdighet och ondska, och att
det inte finns något vi kan göra åt det. »Bush kommer att ha
mycket att stå till svars för«, sade en person t.ex. i dag i ett
privat samtal med mig.
Finns ändå en chans att ge världen mer tid
Själv har jag känt att det ändå har funnits en chans -- att det
kanske fortfarande finns en chans -- att ge världen lite mer
tid. För jag tror kanske ändå inte att _människorna_ i världen
har mognat så i orättfärdighet att det inte finns lite mer tid
för omvändelse. Jag tänker att det kanske rentav är så att de
nuvarande farliga omständigheterna är precis det som öppnar
mångas hjärtan för Evangeliet. Om vi visar solidaritet och med
vårt ledarskap stöder fredsprocessen så kan vi nå många
uppriktigt engagerade människors hjärtan. Kom ihåg att även dem
som kämpar mot evangeliet kan bli de starkaste förkämparna för
evangeliet. Frälsaren valde ju Saul, säkert inte minst för att
Saul var hängiven i sitt arbete även om det var att riva ned
kyrkan. Även Alma den yngre var hängiven att riva ned kyrkan.
Frälsaren vill ha hängivna själar. Både Saul (som blev Paulus)
och Alma den yngre blev också mycket starka krafter för det
goda. Om vi alltså vill vinna engagerade människors hjärtan så
får vi kämpa sida vid sida med dem, mot den orättfärdighet som
förleder människorna till mycket stor ondska. Vid en närmare
granskning står det nämligen helt klart att det som nu sker på
initiativ av USA:s ledare i USA och i Irak är mycket
orättfärdigt. (Mer om det senare.)
Kan kyrkans äldster rädda den amerikanska konstitutionen?
Joseph Smith lär ha sagt att tiden ska komma när [USA:s]
konstitutionen ska hänga som på en skör tråd. Orson Hyde
sa att profeten hade sagt ungefär att tiden skulle komma när
både konstitutionen och landet skulle vara i fara för att
kastas omkull, och att ``om konstitutionen överhuvudtaget
räddas, så kommer detta att göras av äldsterna i denna
kyrka''. [1]
Spencer W. Kimball har sagt (min egen översättning):
Stridslystna folk perverterar patriotism. Vi är ett
stridslystet folk, lätt distraherat från vårt uppdrag att
förbereda för Herrens andra ankomst. När fiender uppstiger
så ägnar vi ofantliga resurser till tillverkandet av gudar
av sten och stål -- skepp, flygplan, missiler,
befästningsverk -- och förlitar på dem för skydd och
befrielse. När vi hotas blir vi anti-fiende istället för
för-Guds Rike; vi övar en man i krigskonst och kallar honom
för patriot, sålunda, enligt Satans förfalskning av sann
patriotism, perverterande Frälsarens undervisning: "Älska
dina fiender, välsigna dem som förbannar dig, gör gott mot
dem som hatar dig och bed för dem som föraktfullt använder
och förföljer dig, så att ni må vara er Fader i Himmelens
barn" (Matt 5:44-45 i egen översättning från King James.
Folkbibeln lyder så här: "Älska era ovänner och be för dem
som förföljer er. Då är ni er himmelske Faders barn.") [2]
När jag fick klart för mig allvaret
När jag fick klart för mig allvaret i det som nu pågår i USA,
detta var hösten 2002, kände jag stor förtröstan just på kyrkans
äldster och att vi i enighet skulle kunna hjälpas åt med att
låta sanningens ljus lysa på lögner och bedrägerier som -- det
ser jag nu -- hotar själva fundamentet till den nordamerikanska
federationen. Jag hade full förtröstan på att bara jag
meddelade andra det jag själv upptäckt av djup orättfärdighet
och dubbelmoral i den nuvarande amerikanska regimens agerande,
så skulle strax andra heliga ta till sig detta, och i sin tur
varna andra. Jag såg framför mig hur jag och andra som liksom
jag insett allvaret kunde sprida denna insikt till våra syskon
utan att första presidentskapet behövde utmana regimen genom ett
officiellt ställningstagande. Jag såg framför mig hur vi med
all vår kunskap kunde bidra med ledning och stöd till en freds-
rörelse som kanske inte riktigt drivs enligt evangelieprinciper,
men som trots det arbetar med långt mycket rättfärdigare medel
än den amerikanska regimen. Helt klart hade jag väl inte för
mig hur detta skulle fungera -- jag arbetar alltid så som jag
känner mig inspirerad, utan att förstå hela bilden. Jag bara
börjar.
Istället har jag med inte så lite förvirrade känslor som följd
fått klart för mig vilken divergens det finns i åsikter om vad
det är som pågår bland bröderna och systrarna i kyrkan. Jag
ger några exempel på detta med hjälp av en diskussion i
Meridian Magazine som jag har "hakat på" i slutet av detta mail,
som fotnot 13. [13]
Somliga Heliga uppfattar kritik av George W. Bush som om det
hade varit kritik av självaste Evangeliet eller Profeten. Min
ödmjukhet har ifrågasatts, för att jag har vågat misstro Amerika
-- det sägs ibland rent ut att jag skulle hata Amerika.
Jag är långtifrån fullkomlig vad gäller personlig ödmjukhet, men
jag arbetar varje stund och timma på denna -- vilket behövs och
är nödvändigt med tanke på mitt stolta hjärta -- och kanske just
därför så vet jag att detta gör jag inte för att förhäva mig
eller för att göra mig märkvärdig, utan därför att jag känner en
andlig nödvändighet att göra det.
Ett rättssamhälle i upplösning
Det jag säger är alltså att den amerikanska konstitutionen är i
fara -- och att detta kan vara början på något som kommer att
leda till ett nytt amerikanskt inbördeskrig, och oavsett hur det
går med det så kommer lidandet i det av mig och många andra
älskade Amerikas Förenta Stater att bli oerhört stort.
Det jag också säger är att det fortfarande går att rädda
situationen -- genom att alla äldsterna i Herrens kyrka arbetar
tillsammans med alla andra goda krafter för att dels avstyra ett
orättfärdigt krig och dels påbörja en omdaning av Amerika till
att älska sina fiender, välsigna dem som förbannar henne, och
till att göra gott mot dem som hatar henne och bedja för dem som
föraktfullt använder och förföljer henne. Att göra detta
tillsammans med och gemensamt med alla goda krafter som nu
organiserar sig. Att ge dessa goda krafter Evengeliets
vägledning, att bli LEDARE som leder världen mot omvändelse.
Vi måste komma ihåg att om vi är rättfärdiga så kommer antingen
Herren inte att låta våra fiender komma över oss -- detta är ett
speciellt löfte till innevånarna i Amerika -- eller så kommer
han att utkämpa våra slag för oss. Vad behöver vi rädas när
Herren är med oss? [2]
Det är långtifrån bara medlemmar i kyrkan som talar om att älska
dem som hatar oss. Fredsrörelsen talar detta språk. Och blir
utsatt för spott och spe, arresterade och uppmanade att lämna
landet. Det finns en oerhörd potential av själar som kan lära
sig mer om evangeliet och evangelieprinciper. Och med
evangelieprinciper kan såväl USA som Irak och många andra länder
räddas. Det är inte enligt Herrens sätt att USA ska gå till
anfall mot Irak eller mot någon annan. USA borde istället vara
en ledare i rättfärdighet.
För Herren är allting andligt
Det som måste åstadkommas är oerhört. Handelsunderskottet varje
år i USA är c:a 5%. Detta måste vändas ned till 0, minst.
Helst ännu mer, så det blir plus. För Dollarn överges som
reservvaluta över hela världen, och USA kan inte längre få
gratis-pengar när världens centralbanker köper Dollar. För att
inte USA:s ekonomi ska totalkrasha måste export och produktion
öka, det betyder att hela produktionsapparaten måste
effektiviseras. Detta kräver rättfärdiga människor. Just i
denna kritiska tid, när miljoner och åter miljoner människor --
även i USA -- har förstått allvaret, så finns det fantastiska
möjligheter att NÅ UT. ATT SPRIDA GODA EVANGELIEPRINCIPER till
hela samhället. Men vi kan inte göra det genom att stå bredvid.
Vi måste engagera oss i de sammanhang som vill åstadkomma
förändring. Om dessa sedan kallar sig "Republikaner",
"Demokrater", "Socialister" eller något annat, det spelar ingen
roll. Frälsaren gjorde inte skillnad på folk, och det ska inte
heller vi göra.
Den som sätter händerna i detta verk får inte vara rädd för att
bli bespottad, förlöjligad eller till och med oskyldigt
fängslad.
Tiden har alltså faktiskt redan kommit när både den Amerikanska
konstitutionen och själva USA är i fara för att kastas omkull.
Om konstitutionen överhuvudtaget räddas, så kommer detta att
göras av äldsterna i Jesu Kristi Kyrka av Sista Dagars Heliga.
[1] Kan vi göra något mer än att rädda oss själva och de våra?
Ja, härom tvista de lärde. Jag själv har tänkt att jag kan
göra mer, och har verkligen försökt. Men jag tror inte att jag
kan göra så mycket ensam. Mer än att vinna goda människors
respekt utanför kyrkan, och vinna mina föräldrars och syskons
och andra släktingars respekt, för att jag kämpar för det goda.
Med kyrkan har de inte alltid förstått det, men när vi arbetar
tillsammans mot bedrägerier, lögn och övergrepp på mänskliga
fri- och rättigheter och för en fredlig lösning på konflikter --
ja, då ser de klart och tydligt att jag vill det goda. Det kan
bli ett andligt vittnesbörd för dem också, hoppas jag.
Evangeliet är otvetydigt, detta krig är orättfärdigt. Genom att
visa att jag som Sista Dagars Helig _tar_ _i_ och kämpar med all
kraft mot detta orättfärdiga krig, och ibland förklara varför
även kriget strider mot Evangeliet för dem, så vinner jag
respekt för kyrkan och Evangeliet hos dem. Jag visar att Sista
Dagars Heliga är engagerade i praktiska, konkreta etiska frågor
"här och nu", istället för bara "i en framtida evighet". Att vi
tar tag i att göra saker av egen kraft istället för att alltid
förvänta att Herren ska göra allt åt oss.
Finns oenighet bland medlemmar?
En sak som kan sabotera visionen om att kyrkans äldster kanske
skulle kunna rädda konstitutionen och USA denna gången är om vi
inte ens är överens om vad problemet är. Utan enighet kan vi
inte åstadkomma mycket.
Det kanske är så att det inte är möjligt att erhålla enighet
bland kyrkans medlemmar i denna fråga. Det är kanske så att det
inte spelar någon roll att många av oss förstår i det närmaste
hur det kommer att gå till när hela världsekonomin faller ihop
som ett korthus (se sista punkten nedan), utan enighet kan vi
ändå inget göra för att stoppa det från att hända just nu.
LÄGESSAMMANFATTNING I PUNKTFORM:
o Bara därför att USA stoppade Hitler kan man inte bemyndiga
dagens USA att företa sig vad som helst. [3]
o Omfattande nedmontering av medborgerliga rättigheter i USA.
[3] Bara som ett exempel så är det förbjudet för en
bibliotikarie att berätta för bibliotekskunder att deras
varje transaktion på Internet är övervakad av Homeland
Security.
o Ingen annan koppling mellan 11-9 och Irak än amerikansk
retorik. FN är till för att bevara freden. USA har
förbundit sig att följa internationella konventioner. [4]
o USA plågar och torterar sina fångar. [5] [6]
o USA håller bortåt 3000 fångar på obestämd tid helt utanför
varje juridiskt kontrollsystem. [6] [7]
o Godtyckliga arresteringar. [8] [9]
o Godtyckliga deporteringar av andra länders medborgare till
etniskt ursprungsland snarare än till hemland. [10]
o USA ser sig inte bundna av ingångna internationella avtal.
När Saddam resonerar så ska han bombas. När en individ
resonerar så sätts han eller hon ofta i fängelse. Varför
förväntar sig USA att andra stater ska följa ingångna avtal
när man inte själv ser sig förpliktigad till det?
o Den allmänna opinionen är det som kan "tvinga" USA att följa
sina åtaganden. En gång hade USA ett "moralkapital" som,
kände inte bara amerikanarna själva, gav dem "rätt" att
ingripa med våld i andra länder. Detta kapital är nu
förslösat.
o Intensivt förlöjligande av all regimkritik. Man är "dum i
huvudet" eller "oamerikansk" om man inte tycker som Bush.
Speciellt hårt förlöjligade är de "intellektuella". Denna
taktik är långtifrån ny, den tillämpades framgånsrikt mellan
1932 och 1939 i Tyskland. Exempel: http://www.gop.com/ --
se åsne-symbolen. Under denna ikon låg tidigare en sida där
man kunder "rapportera" "Democrat Attacks". Man har
tydligen blivit uppmärksammad på hur illa det ser ut, och
ersatt denna rapporteringssida med info(?) om motståndarens
kandidater. Men åsnesymbolen är kvar...
American Academics Who Hate America, Profs Who Hate America,
Harvard's Un-American Activities etc, etc. [11]
o USA avser provocera fram terrorister och angipare genom att
så att säga bekämpa eld med eld. Och genom förebyggande
anfall, för att förhindra motparten att i framtiden kunna
anfalla. [12]
o Tiden ska komma -- har faktiskt redan kommit -- när både
[den Amerikanska] konstitutionen och landet är i fara för
att kastas omkull. Om konstitutionen överhuvudtaget räddas,
så kommer detta att göras av äldsterna i denna kyrka''. [1]
(The time would come when the Constitution and the country
would be in danger of an overthrow. `If the Constitution be
saved at all, it will be by the elders of this Church.' [1])
o USA har ett årligt budgetunderskott på c:a 5% som nu genom
Bush's skattelättnader speciellt för de rikaste kommer att
öka betydligt. Bush monterar ned så mycket han kan av
offentlig verksamhet -- ``det finns inte pengar''. Detta
har många konsekvenser. Dels offrande av orörd natur --
tidigare förbud mot exploatering har avskaffats på bred
front -- men den värsta konsekvensen är nog de ökande
sociala klyftorna och att det inte längre är möjligt att bli
en "self made man" i USA. När hoppet om detta faller
samtidigt som medborgerliga fri- och rättigheter nedmonteras
samtidigt som regimen inte är intresserad av kritiken mot
dess handlande, ja, då är vi på väg till förhållanden som
i förlängningen kommer att ge USA ett nytt inbördeskrig.
o Om USA misslyckas med att styra tillbaka oljepengarna till
Dollar, då blir snart Euro den viktiga Petro-valutan -- och
därmed även den viktiga reserv-valutan för all världens
centralbanker. Redan med Iraks nu sedan 2 år förda strategi
att sälja olja för Euro så har Dollarn gått ned 17%. När
alla centralbankerna säljer sina Dollar så kan den som har
Dollar ta fram skottkärran för att köra Dollar till livs-
medlelsaffären för att kunna handla. USA:s ekonomi kommer
då att krasha värre än Argentinas. När och om detta händer
så är kanske inte inbördeskriget långt borta. Såvida inte
man tar tag i ekonomin, effektiviserar industrin, ökar
efterfrågan genom kloka publika investeringar (att köpa
bomber och missiler är inte kloka framtidsinvesteringar)
och i största allmännhet återställer förtroendet för den
Federala Regeringen och för de centrala värden som Den
Amerikanska Konstitutionen står för. Kanske detta måste
ske genom enighet bland kyrkans Äldster [1].
REFERENSER
FOTNOT 1. »CONSTITUTION TO HANG BY A THREAD. The statement has
been made that the Prophet said the time would come when this
Constitution would hang as by a thread, and this is true. There
has been some confusion, however, as to just what he said
following this. I think that Elder Orson Hyde has given us a
correct interpretation wherein he says that the Prophet said the
Constitution would be in danger.
Said Orson Hyde: "I believe he said something like this
-- that the time would come when the Constitution and the
country would be in danger of an overthrow; and said he: `If the
Constitution be saved at all, it will be by the elders of this
Church.' I believe this is about the language, as nearly as I
can recollect it." (Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of
Salvation, Vol.3, p.326.)
FOTNOT 2.
»Warlike peoples pervert patriotism. We are a warlike
people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing
for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit
vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel
-- ships, planes, missiles, fortifications -- and depend on
them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we
become anti-enemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a
man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the
manner of Satan's counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting
the Savior's teaching: "Love your enemies, bless them that
curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them
which despitefully use you, and persecute you; "That ye
may be the children of your Father which is in heaven."
(Matthew 5:44-45.) We forget that if we are righteous the
Lord will either not suffer our enemies to come upon us --
and this is the special promise to the inhabitants of the
land of the Americas -- or he will fight our battles for
us.... What are we to fear when the Lord is with us? Can
we not take the Lord at his word and exercise a particle of
faith in him? (76-29) After war we must help rebuild.
There is but one race -- humanity. We can hardly have a
heaven in our own country and leave a hell outside. If we
have peace now it must be a world peace. If we have economic
security and individual liberty here we must export it to
all other countries. The young men of other countries share
also our desire for a better world with equal justice and
liberty for all. (53-01)« (The Teachings of Spencer W.
Kimball, p.417)
FOTNOT 3.
_______________________________________________________________
|
| http://www4.svd.se/webx?14@@.eecc235/17
|
|
| Peter Wersäll - 2003-01-09 kl. 18:51 (Inlägg 18 av 127)
|
| Dagens USA är inte gårdagens !
|
| Bara därför att USA stoppade Hitler kan man inte bemyndiga
| dagens USA att företa sig vad som helst. Sverige måste vara
| en stark röst för internationell rätt. Efter attentatet i
| New York förra året har USA´s utrikes och inrikespolitik
| spårat ur. Bara man nämner ordet terrorister så är plötsligt
| allt tillåtet för att utradera dessa från jordens yta. Om så
| några hundratusen oskyldiga råkar komma ivägen för
| bombardemanget så tycks det inte bekymra, åtminstone så
| länge man inte själv råkar bli drabbad. Jag håller med
| Sverker Åström att det är anmärkningsvärt tyst från våra
| ansvariga politiker. USA är inte var det var under andra
| världskriget. Här några exempel på den nuvarande
| administrationens riktningsgivare:
|
| * USA har försökt att blockera FN´s fördrag mot tortyr.
| * USA´s soldater skall vara immuna mot anklagelser för brott
| mot mänskliga rättigheter.
| * USA bemyndigar sig rätten att definiera vem som är
| "terrorist".
| Denne kan tas ifrån ekonomiska och juridiska rättigheter.
| * USA upprättar fångläger på Cuba av
| koncentrations-lägermodell och
| behandlar krigsfångar på ett sätt som strider
| mot internationella lagar.
| * USA tar sig rätten att döda ``terrorister'' var
| som helst i världen, utan föregående FN beslut.
| (jmf händelserna i Yemen )
| * USA anser sig ha förstahands- och oinskränkt
| rätt att med våld (krig) invadera och bomba
| länder som USA anser stödja terrorism
| eller på annat sätt utgöra hot mot USA´s
| intressen. Detta oavsett vad FN beslutar.
| * USA har tillsammans med Storbritannien under
| månader bombat civila och militära mål i
| Irak. Detta har ej bemyndigats av FN och
| medges ej av de beslut fattade om flyg-
| förbudszoner i södra och norra Irak.
| * De sanktioner som USA och Storbrittanien påfört
| Iraks folk under tolv år har enligt FN bidragit
| till att 1,4 miljoner barn dött.
| * USA har tillsatt en styrka (The proactive
| preemptive operations group P2OG ) som
| bland annat skall provocera /stimulera
| reaktioner från terrorister och länder med
| massförstörelsevapen så att de avslöjar sig
| själva och därmed öppnar för snabba tillslag
| av amerikanska styrkor ( enl.försvarsexperten
| William Arkin ). Dylika operationer strider
| mot internationell rätt.
| [ Bra länkar på denna sida till P2OG:
| `P2OG' allows Pentagon to fight dirty, by David Isenberg,
| 11/5/02 http://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/P2OG.html ]
|
| Inrikespolitiskt minskar successivt insynen i
| administrationen och medborgerliga rättigheter har
| inskränkts kraftigt, allt i namnet av bekämpande av
| terrorister.
|
| Som varningstecken kan följande belysas:
|
| * Nyligen av senaten godkända Homeland security
| act som skapar ett "superdepartement" med
| 170.000 anställda. Detta säkerhetsdepartement
| kommer att kartlägga alla medborgare i detalj.
| Vad de köper, deras e-post och tel samtal,
| deras nationalitet, politiska sympatier, resor
| mm.
| Akten inskränker på offentlighetsprincip och
| gör det brottsligt att offentliggöra handlingar
| som rör enskilda företag eller vissa ärenden
| som rör landets styre. Presidenten kan med stöd
| av denna lag ta vilket beslut som
| helst utan att juridiska eller lagliga hinder
| kan resas.
|
| * Den sk. Patriot act som också den nyligen
| antagits försvagar eller sätter ur spel inte
| mindre än 15 lagar som värnar medborgarnas
| privatliv och integritet. Det möjliggör för
| myndigheterna att hålla misstänkt i
| fängsligt förvar under ett års tid utan
| rättslig process. Genom sk. ``president decrees''
| får presidenten möjlighet att använda militär
| för att övervaka och kontrollera civil-
| befolkningen.
|
| * En Kanadensisk medborgare av muslimskt ursprung
| på besök i USA, deporterades
| utan orsak och utan att den kanadensiska
| regeringen kontaktades till sitt ursprungsland !
|
| * De allmänna valen i USA har kritiserats starkt
| på sistone pga oegentligheter i samband med
| de senaste president valet. Då fabricerades
| listor på 1000-tals individer vars röster
| förklarades ogiltiga.
|______________________________________________________________
FOTNOT 4. Om Förenta Staterna ingår ett avtal då är Förenta
Staterna bundet av detta avtal. Vad är då "Förenta Staterna"?
Enligt den amerikanska konstitutionen så tycks endast den
Federala Regeringen vara bundna av sådana avtal, inte de
enskilda staterna. Detta kan i avseende t.ex. på dödsstraff
utmätta gentemot minderåriga, som Förenta Staterna genom
Internationella fördrag förbundit sig att inte utmäta, ge som
konsekvens att den Federala Regeringen inte kan utmäta ett
sådant straff. Men, fortfarande enligt den amerikanska
konstitutionen, så är inte de enskilda staterna under någon
sådan förpliktelse. För att ett sådant fördrag ska gälla för en
enskild amerikansk stat så måste det således förhandlas och
undertecknas med varje enskild stat. Följaktligen bör varje
enskild stat bemanna ett eget utrikesdepartement och egna
ambassadörer, etc.
Men, och detta är ett stort men, vad gäller Förenta Staternas
agerande i andra länder, så är det ju inte enskilda stater som
agerar, utan då är det ju just den "juridiska personen"
"Förenta Staterna" som agerar. Och denna "person" har ingått
bindande avtal, som oavsett konstitutionen, binder den
juridiska "personen" "Förenta Staterna" till de ingångna
avtalen. Konstitutionen har ju inte någon internationell
giltighet utan reglerar bara de interna maktförhållandena mellan
den "juridiska personen" "Förenta Staterna" = den Federala
Regeringen, respektive de enskilda amerikanska staterna.
FOTNOT 5. Powell's Dubious Case for War By Phyllis Bennis
February 5, 2003 http://fpif.org/commentary/2003/0302powell.html
»A key component of the alleged Iraq-al Qaeda link is based on
what Powell said "detainees tell us". That claim must be
rejected. On December 27 the Washington Post reported that U.S.
officials had acknowledged detainees being beaten, roughed up,
threatened with torture by being turned over to officials of
countries known to practice even more severe torture. In such
circumstances, nothing "a detainee" says can be taken as
evidence of truth given that people being beaten or tortured
will say anything to stop the pain. Similarly, the stories of
defectors cannot be relied on alone, as they have a
self-interest in exaggerating their stories and their own
involvement to guarantee access to protection and asylum.«
FOTNOT 6. Expressen onsdagen den 5 februari 2003: "Guantana
mera". Det intressanta med artikeln är att den refererar till
en stor artikel i Washington Post om ett större globalt
fångsystem. Artikeln berättar om tortyr -- att fångar skickas
till exempelvis Jordanien och Marocko med medföljande frågor som
där plockas ur fångarna, USA vill inte veta hur -- och att det
rör sig om 3000 fångar varav endast 625 sitter i burarna i
Guantanamo Bay.
FOTNOT 7. February 20, 2003 edition of the Daily Journal (LA's
legal newspaper): Defying Law, Bush Administration Locks Up
Americans in U.S. Territory By Erwin Chemerinsky:
»Since Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush administration and the Ashcroft
Justice Department have engaged in many practices that involve
unprecedented violations of rights. Among the most troubling has
been the claim of the authority to detain individuals without
complying with the Constitution and without any semblance of due
process. So far, the judiciary simply has deferred to the
administration.
* Jose Padilla. The most egregious case involves Jose Padilla,
an American citizen arrested at Chicago O'Hare Airport for
planning to build a "dirty bomb." Although Padilla was arrested
on May 8, 2002, no charges have been filed against him. Instead,
the administration says that he can be held forever as an "enemy
combatant."
On Dec. 4, 2002, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York upheld Padilla's detention. Padilla v.
Bush, 2002 WL 31718308 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2002). The court said
that the government can detain a person as an enemy combatant so
long as it shows "some evidence" in support of its action.
The claimed authority of the Bush administration is sweeping and
enormously troubling. The administration says that it can hold
an American citizen for a crime in the United States without
complying with the provisions of the Bill of Rights.
The Framers of the Constitution were deeply distrustful of
executive power and of the police. The Fourth Amendment provides
that generally before a person is arrested, a neutral judge must
find probable cause. The Fifth Amendment provides that before a
person can be tried, an independent grand jury must indict the
individual. The Sixth Amendment provides that before a person
can be imprisoned, an impartial jury must convict.
The Bush administration says that none of these rights applies
if it labels the person an enemy combatant. Yet there is no
escape clause in the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments that
says that they don't apply when a person is called an enemy
combatant rather than a criminal. Nor is there any provision in
Article II of the Constitution, which defines presidential
power, that gives the president the authority to suspend the
Bill of Rights.
There is no precedent for the Bush administration's claim of
authority. No Supreme Court case, and for that matter no case of
any court in the United States, ever has upheld the government's
authority to detain a person indefinitely without complying with
the Constitution by labeling the individual an enemy combatant.
In the government's briefs, it has cited to only one Supreme
Court case as authority for its position: Ex parte Quirin, 317
U.S. 1 (1942). In Quirin, the court upheld the use of military
tribunals for individuals who were apprehended entering the
United States to commit acts of sabotage on behalf of Germany.
The opinion, however, did not mention a power for the government
to hold people without any trial. There is an enormous
difference between trying a person in a military tribunal, as in
Quirin, and holding the person without any trial, as is the case
with Padilla.
The Bush administration's position has no stopping point. Could
those who bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City been held
without trial as enemy combatants? Could drug dealers with
alleged ties to Colombian drug lords be held indefinitely as
enemy combatants as part of the "war" on drugs?
Under the Bush administration's approach, the executive branch
has virtually unlimited authority to hold people without
constitutional protections by calling them enemy combatants.
The court in Padilla's case said that the government need only
show "some evidence" to support its claim that an individual is
an enemy combatant. There is no basis in American law for a
"some evidence" standard as a basis for denying a person's
liberty. It is a very flimsy basis for imprisoning a human
being.
* Yaser Hamdi. Yaser Hamdi is an America citizen who was
apprehended in Afghanistan, allegedly for fighting for the
enemy. His situation is thus identical to that of John Walker
Lindh. Like Lindh, Hamdi was brought to the United States. Hamdi
is being held in a military prison in South Carolina. Unlike in
Lindh's case, the U.S. government has filed no charges against
Hamdi and claims that it can hold him forever as an enemy
combatant.
Last summer, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a
District Court decision and held that Hamdi did not have a right
to consult with an attorney. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 296 F.3d 278
(4th Cir. 2002). On Jan. 8, the 4th Circuit reversed a District
Court order compelling the government to answer questions
justifying the detention of Hamdi. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 2003 WL
60109 (4th Cir. Jan. 8, 2003). The court ruled that there is no
basis for judicial review of detentions by the United States of
U.S. citizens apprehended abroad and detained in the United
States. The 4th Circuit said that courts must defer to executive
power.
There is no precedent for the 4th Circuit's claim that an
American citizen can be imprisoned in the United States without
any access to the courts. The court's approval of unreviewable
power to imprison a person is at odds with the most basic
principles of the Bill of Rights.
* Guantánamo detainees. Almost 600 individuals are imprisoned
at Guantánamo, some now for over a year. A story in the L.A.
Times on Dec. 22, 2002, quoted top-level executive officials as
admitting that the administration now knows that many are being
held there by mistake. They now know that many did not
participate in or have any information about terrorism.
Nonetheless, the officials said that the plan was to hold these
individuals indefinitely.
The administration's actions are in clear violation of
international law. The Third Geneva Convention requires that
there be a "competent tribunal" to determine who is a prisoner
of war and who is an unlawful combatant.
Last spring, Secretary of State Colin Powell recognized this
provision and said that all who were fighting for the Taliban
are prisoners of war, whereas those fighting for al-Qaida are
unlawful combatants. Powell acknowledged that international law
requires a tribunal for determining the status of these
individuals. Almost a year later, no tribunal has been convened.
Moreover, the International Covenant of Civil and Political
Rights, ratified by the United States in 1992, states: "Anyone
who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be
entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that the
court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his
detention." Article 9(4), 999 U.N.T.S. 171, 176. Also, the
treaty provides that "[n]o one shall be subjected to arbitrary
arrest and detention." Article 9(1), 999 U.N.T.S. 171. The
United States approved these provisions, but the government
clearly is ignoring them.
So far, the courts have been unwilling to review the
administration's actions at Guantánamo. A petition for habeas
corpus was filed in the District Court for the Central District
of California pursuant to a statutory provision that allows a
habeas petition to be brought on behalf of another. 28 U.S.C.
Section 2242.
In November, the 9th Circuit affirmed the District Court's
dismissal of the case on the ground that the petitioners lacked
standing because they did not have a relationship with those
being held in Guantánamo. Coalition of Clergy v. Bush, 310 F.3d
1153 (9th Cir. 2002).
Two other lawsuits were filed in District Court in the District
of Columbia; one was brought by the Kuwaiti government on behalf
of 12 Kuwaiti nationals, and the other was brought by citizens
of Australia and the United Kingdom on behalf of relatives.
In Rasul v. Bush, 215 F.Supp.2d 55 (D. D.C. 2002) (the decision
in the combined Kuwait and Australia cases), the court held that
no court has jurisdiction to hear this claim based on Johnson v.
Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950). In Johnson, the court ruled
that federal habeas corpus was not available to German citizens
who had been caught in Japan and were tried and imprisoned in
China. The District of Columbia Circuit heard oral arguments in
Rasul in early December.
But Johnson does not support the claim that individuals can be
imprisoned on U.S. territory with no due process. In Johnson,
there was a trial; the Guantánamo detainees are being held with
none. In Johnson, the government never brought the defendants to
American territory; the military base at Guantánamo is American
territory under the terms of the U.S. treaty with Cuba.
Imprisoning a human being is obviously a profound deprivation of
freedom. The U.S. Constitution and international law require
that it be exercised only subject to procedural protections. The
Bush administration's claim that it can imprison a person
without due process or judicial review is disturbing and
unsupported by any judicial precedent. The courts must assert
their basic role in ensuring that any person being imprisoned
have some form of judicial review.
Erwin Chemerinsky is Sydney M. Irmas Professor of Public
Interest Law, Legal Ethics and Political Science at the
University of Southern California. He was one of the petitioners
and co-counsel in the 9th Circuit in Coalition of Clergy.«
FOTNOT 8. »Andrew J. O'Conner från Santa Fe, New Mexico, en
tidigare allmänn försvarsadvokat, blev den 13 februari 2003
arresterad och förhörd i fem timmar av Secret Service agenter.
Hans brott? Han hade skrivit "Bush is out of control" i ett
Internet chat-rum, och arresterades för att ha hotat
Presidenten. Bernadette Devlin McAliskey från Irland blev
(liksom även vår Svenske Guillou, se Aftonbladet torsdag 6 mars
2003 sidan 8) blev stoppad vid en mellanlandning i USA.
McAliskey blev dessutom kvarhållen och förhörd (Guillou tilläts
efter långa diskussioner flyga vidare men fick veta att om han
mellanlandar en gång till i USA så blir han gripen). McAliskey
blev redan som 21 åring medlem i det brittiska parlamentet. Hon
har fått nycklarna till städerna San Francisco och New York.
Men i Chicago färra månaden togs hennes fingeravtryck och hon
fotograferades. När en av männen sa att de skulle kasta henne i
fängelse och hon replikerade att hon hade rättigheter så fick
hon veta att hon inte skulle göra chefen arg, för "han skjuter
människor". "Efter den 11 september," sa en polis, "så har
ingen några rättigheter". McAliskey fick aldrig klart för sig
på vilket sätt hon skulle vara ett hot mot USA. Hon har aldrig
dolt sitt förakt för Irak-kriget, kanske det var skälet?«
( http://truthout.org/docs_03/030503A.shtml Arrest Me
By William Rivers Pitt )
FOTNOT 9. Marchers Protest Arrest of Man for Wearing Peace
T-shirt http://truthout.org/docs_03/030703F.shtml
FOTNOT 10. Min bror hörde detta på TV-nyheterna i USA och jag
har rapporterat det sålunda i ett mail till en bekant:
»Other clear signs that people of muslim roots are less worth is
the case with the Canadian citizen that was deported not to his
home country Canada, but to the country he was born in without
the Canadian government being contacted. This has lead to the
Canadian government having issued warnings to some of it's
citizens not to travel by way of US airports (the Canadian that
was deported to a muslim country instead of to his home country
was just changing flights in the US, he wasn't traveling to or
from the US).« Fler referenser till samma story om Maher Arar:
http://islamonline.net/English/News/2002-10/13/article20.shtml
http://montrealmuslimnews.net/arar6.htm . Sök på "Maher Arar"
på Internet för massor av fler referenser.
FOTNOT 11: American Academics Who Hate America
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2159
So a US website wants students to target professors who question
the war on Saddam. Oh, grow up... as quoted by "Campus Watch in
the Media" http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/229
http://www.campus-watch.org/pf.php?id=229
Profs Who Hate America http://danielpipes.org/article/923
From the Halls of Academia -- Debate between Daniel Pipe (of
Campus Watch) and one of the professors he was criticizing in
his "Profs Who Hate America" http://danielpipes.org/article/988
Campus Comedy -- A bogus controversy over McCarthyism continues
http://reason.com/hod/tc102802.shtml
Harvard's Un-American Activities
http://danielpipes.org/article/480
"Suicide attacks" against American academia
http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/paper/index.php?article=1021
Academics are not the ones who are failing America
http://ogb.wfu.edu/issue/2002/01.17/editorials/acta.report.column.asp
Conservative Watch -- The Campus Crusades
http://www.zmag.org/ZMagSite/Nov2002/Berkowitz1102.htm
All of the above search results were obtained from
http://www.google.com/ using the search string
"american academics against the war".
What I did _not_ find was what I was looking for, which was some
mention of the organization "American Academics against the
war", that according to Stockholm City Tue 14 Jan 2003 page 12,
quoting TT, have sent 35 people from 28 american universities to
Iraq after 30 000 teachers signed a petition to president George
W Bush asking not to start any war ("Organisationen Amerikanska
akademiker emot kriget har skickat 35 personer från 28
amerikanska universitet till Irak sedan 30 000 lärare skrivit
under ett upprop till president George W Bush om att inte starta
något krig").
FOTNOT 12. Bra länkar på denna sida till P2OG:
`P2OG' allows Pentagon to fight dirty, by David Isenberg, 11/5/02
http://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/P2OG.html
FOTNOT 13. Meridian Magazine diskussionen:
_______________________________________________________________
|
| THE BELOW ARTICLE TOGETHER WITH THE LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
| FOLLOWING IT CLEARLY EXEMPLIFY THE VERY DIVERGENT VIEWS
| AMONG THE LATTER-DAY SAINTS ABOUT THE IRAQ WAR AND RELATED
| ISSUES.
|
| Source: The Meridian Magazine (From "About Meridian
| Magazine": » ... That's why President Hinckley's words
| rings with such power: "I urge you with all the capacity
| that I have to reach out in a duty that stands beyond the
| requirements of our everyday lives, that is, to stand
| strong, even to become a leader in speaking up in behalf of
| those causes which make our civilization shine and which
| give comfort and peace to our lives. You can be a leader.
| You must be a leader..." «. And leaders must be informed.)
|
| ____________________________________________________________
|
|
| http://meridianmagazine.com/editorial/021007bofm.html
|
|
| About the Author: Geoffrey Biddulph lives and works in Rio
| de Janeiro, Brazil. He is the First Counselor in the
| bishopric of the Jardim Botanico ward. He is proud of his
| beautiful wife Sara, his two lovely daughters, Camila and
| Isabella, and his stepson Edgard.
|
|
| The Book of Mormon and War
| by Geoffrey Biddulph
|
| Once again the world is convulsed with debate about war. And
| once again the issue is Iraq.
|
| Observing this debate from Brazil is undeniably edifying. I
| have the pleasure of living in one of the most pacifist
| societies in the world. Brazil is known for soccer, samba,
| Carnaval, beaches and fun -- certainly not for its
| military tradition. There is an old joke that whenever
| things got tense in Brazilian history between rival
| generals, they would line up their munitions and troops, and
| whoever had the largest army was declared the victor without
| going through the trouble of an actual battle. Then the two
| sides would get together for a soccer match and a friendly
| party.
|
| Most Brazilians I know are openly contemptuous of President
| Bush's policy towards Iraq, which they see as unnecessarily
| belligerent. Given that I am by nature a pretty peaceful
| person, I can understand their position.
|
| But given that I am a Latter-day Saint, I also know there
| are other sources of wisdom to help determine the correct
| position on issues such as whether a certain war is just.
| The most important source of wisdom is the Book of Mormon,
| which is filled with enough just war theory to keep teams of
| military historians extremely busy.
|
| The Book of Mormon describes a whole series of battles and
| wars over thousands of years, culminating in the ultimate
| war that Mormon himself witnesses resulting in the
| decimation of the Nephites. Just to drive the point home, we
| get the description of the destruction of another group of
| people called the Jaredites, who annihilated themselves
| through a cycle of wars over hundreds of years. The Book of
| Mormon skims over many of the peaceful times -- the
| description of a perfect, tranquil society that existed from
| 35 AD until about 200 AD is summed up in just a few pages.
| When it comes to the issue of war, the point of the Book of
| Mormon is to show that by abandoning the Gospel of Jesus
| Christ, the earlier inhabitants of the Americas were left
| with no moral underpinnings to prevent them from wars of
| complete destruction. Their societies devolved into ``one
| continual round of murder and bloodshed.'' (Mormon 8:8).
|
| There is one point about war that the Book of Mormon drives
| home with absolute clarity: the downfall of the Nephites and
| the Jaredites began when the people began to lust after war
| and vengeance. Their wars were just when they were defensive
| wars, but the moment the hearts of the people changed to the
| point where they enthusiastically went to war they were
| sowing the seeds of their own destruction.
|
| The Nephites and Lamanites suffered because ``every heart
| was hardened, so that they delighted in the shedding of
| blood continually.'' (Mormon 4:11). The Jaredites' fall was
| caused because ``Satan had full power over the hearts of the
| people; for they were given up unto the hardness of their
| hearts'' (Ether 15:19) and they became ``drunken with anger,
| even as a man who is drunken with wine.'' (Ether 15:22).
|
| Critics of the Bush administration policy often make this
| claim about groups supporting the war against Iraq. These
| people, they say, are eager to go to war when war is not yet
| necessary.
|
| Indeed, the Bush administration's position on national
| security clearly makes a case that in the new world order it
| is necessary for the United States sometimes to preemptively
| act. Until now, the United States has usually been able to
| rely on its geographical isolation to separate it from the
| hostilities that regularly break out in other parts of the
| world. U.S. war policy has been mostly defensive in nature.
|
| But time and technology have changed the rules. Just a
| little more than a year ago, the United States suffered the
| worst assault ever by a foreign power in terms of
| casualties. The Bush administration is concerned that Iraq
| is preparing to launch a similar attack. The Bush
| administration is clearly proposing a new foreign policy:
| the United States will aggressively seek out and destroy
| groups wherever they may be that are a threat to national
| security. This is a groundbreaking change.
|
| But does this change involve a change in the attitude of the
| American people? Are Americans becoming bloodthirsty and
| eager to go to war, as did the Nephites, Lamanites and
| Jaredites of old?
|
| The answer is clearly no. Americans have historically been
| opposed to war and seen it as a last resort. We were slow to
| involve ourselves in both World Wars I and II, and have
| rejected foreign military involvement whenever possible. In
| fact, Osama bin Laden saw this lack of aggressiveness as a
| sign of weakness and openly declared to his supporters that
| he was emboldened to act against the United States because
| it is soft.
|
| Despite suffering the worst attack on its own soil in its
| history, the United States did not launch a new crusade
| against Muslim extremists. The American people were quick to
| reach out to Muslims around them and reassure them they had
| no personal grudges. President Bush took the leadership on
| this issue, meeting with Muslim leaders and declaring
| ``Islam is peace.'' This point was driven home quite
| forcefully by the U.S. action in Afghanistan, which involved
| the unprecedented scene of U.S. troops simultaneously
| dropping bombs on the bad guys and packets of food for the
| civilians.
|
| By the standards set forth in the Book of Mormon, the
| American people passed the first and most important test of
| a people about to launch a righteous war. There is no
| evidence that Americans are eager to go to war and ``drunken
| with anger,'' as were the Jaredites.
|
| Still, that does not mean the war against Iraq is just. We
| have to dig much deeper into the scriptures to arrive at a
| cogent opinion on that issue.
|
| One approach is to look at some of the military heroes in
| the Book of Mormon and see how they conducted themselves
| when faced with war.
|
| Here are some of the greatest ones:
|
| King Benjamin In about 130 BC, King Benjamin reigned in the
| Americas. He had been a mighty warrior and had defeated the
| Lamanites in battle. But his greatest feat was to coax his
| people into following the ways of God. ``For behold, King
| Benjamin was a holy man, and he did reign over his people in
| righteousness -- by laboring with all the might of his body
| and the faculty of his whole soul (King Benjamin) did once
| more establish peace in the land.'' (Words of Mormon 1:18).
|
| One of King Benjamin's greatest traits was that he worked in
| the fields alongside his people instead of idling away his
| time and living off of taxes imposed on his subjects. King
| Benjamin gave one of the greatest speeches ever in the
| scriptures on the importance of service: ``when ye are in
| the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service
| of your God. Behold, ye have called me your king; and if I,
| whom ye call your king, do labor to serve you, then ought
| not yet to labor to serve one another?'' (Mosiah 2:17-18).
|
| King Benjamin was a highly successful leader who brought
| peace and prosperity to his people but never fought an
| offensive war. His wars were purely defensive, intended to
| fend off Lamanite invaders and protect his people.
|
| Ammon Ammon was another powerful man who served as a
| missionary among the Lamanites in about 90 BC. He was strong
| enough to fight off an entire group of Lamanites who
| attacked him, but his battles were only defensive struggles,
| never aggressive attacks. Ammon is a great defender of
| religious freedom, constantly exhorting his people to allow
| others to believe what they will. Ammon was constantly beset
| by Lamanite opponents, but in the end he decided entirely
| against violent responses.
|
| He reminded the people that they were quick to believe the
| Lamanites would never change their nature: ``they laughed at
| us to scorn -- for they said unto us: Do ye supposed that ye
| can bring the Lamanites to the knowledge of the truth -- and
| moreover they did say: Let us take up arms against them,
| that we destroy them and their iniquity out of land.'' (Alma
| 26:23-25).
|
| Ammon saw another solution besides violence: ``We came --
| not with the intent to destroy our brethren, but with the
| intent that perhaps we might save some few of their souls.''
| (Alma 26:26) Ammon and his friends went ``from house to
| house -- and we have been cast out, and mocked, and spit
| upon, and smote upon our cheeks -- stoned -- bound -- and
| cast into prison.'' (Alma 26:28-29). They did all this so
| they could change the hearts of a few people. In the end,
| the Ammonites renounced violence altogether, becoming among
| the most righteous people in the Book of Mormon. They see
| their former battles as acts of murder and ask God to
| forgive them.
|
| Moroni. Captain Moroni is perhaps the greatest hero of the
| Book of Mormon. ``If all men had been -- like unto Moroni,
| behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken
| forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the
| hearts of the children of men'' (Alma 48:17).
|
| Moroni is a great military leader, but his campaigns take
| place under strict rules of conduct. First, he prepares
| ``the minds of the people to be faithful unto the Lord their
| God.'' (Alma 48:7). Second, all of his military preparations
| are defensive and they are all fought on home soil. He never
| takes the battle into the enemy's territory. Third, he is
| described as ``a man that did not delight in bloodshed.''
| (Alma 48:11).
|
| He taught his men never to give offense to the enemy and
| never to raise their swords unless it was to preserve their
| own lives. Moroni was more than a military leader. He wanted
| to be a good example for his men. His heart gloried in
| ``doing good, in preserving his people, yea, in keeping the
| commandments of God, yea, and resisting iniquity.'' (Alma
| 48:16).
|
| Mormon. Mormon was the last in a long line of great Nephite
| military leaders. He was chosen to be a leader at a young
| age, and led his men to a great victory. But by then it was
| impossible for him to convince them to change their ways and
| turn to God. The people gloried in violence and none of them
| followed the commandments. He constantly preached to them
| asking them to change, but they would not.
|
| Mormon ``did utterly refuse from this time forth to be a
| commander and a leader of this people'' (Mormon 3:11). By
| this time they had become more evil than the Lamanites they
| were fighting, and Mormon could not justify leading them any
| more. Why? ``Behold, the judgment of God will overtake the
| wicked; and it is by the wicked that the wicked are
| punished; for it is the wicked that stir up the hearts of
| the children of men unto bloodshed.'' (Mormon 4:5). In the
| end, Mormon believes that his own people are just as wicked
| as the people he is fighting.
|
| It seems to me there are some clear trends and rules for
| warfare that come through in the Book of Mormon:
|
| First, it was essential for people to ask God for help and
| support and to be faithful to God's commandments. This is
| something all Book of Mormon heroes constantly emphasize.
|
| Second, it is important to exhort the people not to let
| themselves be filled with rage and hatred for their foes.
| The attitude should be one of pity and shame, quickly
| turning to brotherly love at the first sign of a foe's
| willingness to change his attitude. Remember that there is
| no such thing as a foe that will never become a possible
| future ally. Consider the recent examples of the Germans and
| the Japanese who, because the United States took the correct
| posture in dealing with them after defeat, are now among the
| staunchest allies. Because of American benevolence, the
| Russians have gone from unremitting rivals to friends in the
| space of a few years.
|
| Third, any military activities that take place should only
| be defensive in nature. Offers of surrender should be
| honored. It is appropriate and expected for a righteous
| military force to help rebuild the societies of those who
| are defeated. Advanced technology should be used only for
| responding to specific aggressive threats. Espionage should
| be focused on specific threats.
|
| Fourth, missionaries and other emissaries must travel to the
| lands of the defeated to teach them the ways of Christ and
| the ways of democracy and freedom. Any people, including
| those who are the most backward, can change and accept God's
| true path, democracy and liberty. They must be shown clearly
| and through face-to-face contact that their supposed enemies
| are people just like they are. They must also be exposed to
| democracy and freedom so that they can make changes in their
| societies that will allow these ideals to take root.
|
| Fifth, after a battle, righteous victors should withdraw
| from enemy territory as soon as possible, offering aid and
| assistance but avoiding occupation.
|
| In addition, the Doctrine & Covenants lays out a clear
| doctrine for warfare: ``This is the law that I gave unto
| mine ancients, that they should not go out unto battle
| against any nation, kindred, tongue or people, save I, the
| Lord, commanded them. And if any nation, tongue or people
| should proclaim war against them, they should first lift a
| standard of peace unto that people, nation or tongue; And if
| that people did not accept the offering of peace, neither
| the second nor the third time, they should bring these
| testimonies before the Lord; then I, the Lord, would give
| unto them a commandment, and justify them going out to
| battle against that nation, tongue or people. And I, the
| Lord, would fight their battles, and their children's
| battles, and their children's children's, until they had
| avenged themselves on all their enemies, to the third and
| fourth generation.'' (D&C 98: 33-37).
|
| So, by this definition, will the United States be fighting a
| just war against Iraq? I believe the issue is open to
| different interpretations. There are cases where the Book of
| Mormon extols the virtues of pure pacifism, and we should be
| careful to consider that side of the discussion. Still, I
| think there are many reasons to believe modern-day
| revelation favors preemptive activity against Iraq.
|
| 1) The United States is currently led by a president who, by
| all the available evidence, sincerely believes in God and
| truly wants to do the Creator's will. I believe he is
| praying to our Father in Heaven to receive guidance and is
| trying to be faithful to His commandments.
|
| 2) The American people are not filled with rage toward their
| potential foes.
|
| 3) Most of our military preparations have been defensive in
| nature. We are, however, taking on an offensive war. This is
| a change of policy that is justified by the threat of an
| opponent who is clearly trying to develop nuclear and
| chemical weapons and use them for regional and, if possible,
| world domination. After America wins the war, it will help
| rebuild a better Iraqi society with a level of freedom
| unavailable today. This will certainly include massive
| economic aid.
|
| 4) Missionaries will have another country to visit. This
| could be the beginning of a huge change of heart among
| Iraqis and perhaps others in the Middle East.
|
| 5) The United States has no interest in conquering territory
| and will immediately turn the country over to a governing
| coalition the moment Saddam Hussein is defeated. As soon as
| the situation stabilizes, U.S. troops will withdraw.
|
| 6) It appears to me that the United States has lifted up a
| standard of peace to Saddam Hussein multiple times, and he
| has not relented. Other Arab leaders who supported terror
| against the United States, such as Omar Khaddafi in Libya,
| have changed their ways over time. It is worth noting that
| nobody is talking about overthrowing Khaddafi. Saddam
| Hussein has not changed his ways, and is anxiously trying to
| acquire nuclear weapons. Have our leaders petitioned the
| Lord as much as He commands in D&C 98? It is difficult for
| me to know for sure, but I believe we have.
|
| There is an additional point that is worth considering: If
| we do not stop Saddam Hussein now, when will we? The task
| will be much more dangerous after he succeeds in acquiring
| nuclear weapons. Would it have been better to attack Germany
| in 1937, when Hitler was relatively weak, or to wait to
| declare war until 1941? If we had attacked in 1937, perhaps
| a few thousand would have been killed. World War II resulted
| in the deaths of millions.
|
| It's difficult to know exactly how the heroes of the Book of
| Mormon would have responded to the horrors of modern war
| technologies. The only possible comparison is to imagine
| what Capt. Moroni, for example, would have done if he had
| discovered the Lamanites were planning to poison the
| Nephite's water supply to kill thousands. It is reasonable
| to think he would have used force to stop the Lamanites.
| That is an apt comparison to what the Bush administration is
| planning on doing in Iraq today.
|
| Almost all of the heroes of the Book of Mormon -- and in
| the Bible -- eventually had to fight to defend themselves.
| Battles appear to be part of the learning experience on
| Earth for many people. Sometimes violence is simply
| unavoidable.
|
| So, it appears I am one of a very small group of people
| living in mostly pacifist Brazil who favors a preemptive
| invasion of Iraq if necessary. Brazilians often like to say
| that it is the very bellicosity of American foreign policy
| that got the United States in trouble with the rest of the
| world in the first place. Why can't the United States be
| more like Brazil, they say, and be friends with everybody?
| Brazil is a large country and has no enemies; how did the
| United States go wrong?
|
| I sometimes have to gently tell my Brazilian friends that
| they have it a bit backwards. The character of Americans is
| that they, like many of the Book of Mormon heroes of old,
| have done everything possible to avoid conflict and
| involvement in violent world affairs. Unlike others empires
| in world history, America has had world leadership thrust
| onto it. Most Americans would clearly prefer not to be
| empire-builders, but they cannot escape from that destiny.
|
| But such power creates resentment and enemies -- Iraq, Iran,
| al Qaeda and others. These enemies are bent upon the
| destruction of the United States and everything it stands
| for.
|
| Meanwhile, Brazil has enjoyed U.S. protection since the
| Monroe doctrine in the 19th century. Brazil has not had to
| worry about building a large army to protect itself because
| the United States is fulfilling that role. If the United
| States were suddenly to announce tomorrow it could no longer
| afford to protect the entire Western Hemisphere, Brazil's
| fate could be a very different one.
|
| It will not come to that anytime soon. But protection starts
| by taking care of maniacal dictators before they can loose
| their madness upon an unsuspecting world.
|
|
|
| ___
|
|
| LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
| Meridian Magazine
| Wednesday, March 5, 2003
| http://meridianmagazine.com/letters/
|
|
|
| Letters to the Editor
|
| The Book of Mormon and War
| (See article
| http://meridianmagazine.com/editorial/021007bofm.html )
|
| Right Scriptures, Wrong Conclusions
|
| Geoffrey Biddulph cites all the right scriptures in his
| article on the Book of Mormon and Iraq and comes to exactly
| the wrong conclusion. As he notes over and over the Book of
| Mormon does not justify aggressive war. Yet we will be
| conducting a preemptive strike if the United States attacks
| Iraq. Granted the people of the United States are not filled
| with anger against that nation, but the President surely is.
| Unfortunately, we all will suffer if he continues in his
| course. The surest way to provoke a retaliatory terrorist
| attack from Iraq is for us to attack first. If not from Iraq
| itself, our invasion of a Muslim country will throw fuel on
| the fires in the mideast and create more recruits for
| terrorist organizations. I thought we had learned the
| lessons of patience in our policy of containment and
| deterrence with the Soviet Union, but the aggressive desire
| for action against an enemy is too much for our President to
| resist. We are likely soon to be plunged into war in
| contradiction to the Book of Mormon policy.
|
| Richard Bushman
| Columbia University
|
| ___
|
| Our Enemies Are Gadianton Robbers
|
| As a member of the church and an officer in the United
| States Army, I was impressed with Brother Biddulph's
| insight. I believe his assessment is accurate. Not only on
| the global situation in the mideast, but the views of the
| American people as a whole, the position and global role
| this country must take, and the correlation with the Book of
| Mormon. Well said Brother Biddulph...
|
| I might also add another correlation: the enemies that we
| are and will face are the Gadianton Robbers! Like the those
| throughout the Book of Mormon and specifically in the time
| of Heleman, the new global enemy isn't easily identified
| which forces new strategies to combat this new enemy.
| "...Having usurped the power and authority of the land;
| laying aside the commandments of God, and not in the least
| aright before him; doing no justice unto the children of
| men; Condemning the righteous because of their
| righteousness; letting the guilty and the wicked go
| unpunished because of their money; and moreover to be held
| in office at the head of the government, to rule and do
| according to their wills, that they might get gain and glory
| of the world, and, moreover, that they might the more easily
| commit adultery, and steal, and kill, and do according to
| their own wills--" (Heleman 7:4-5). "...who dwelt upon the
| mountains, who did infest the land; for so strong were their
| holds and their secret places that the people could not
| overpower them; therefore they did commit many murders, and
| did do much slaughter among the people" (3 Nephi 1:27).
| "...for the Gadianton robbers had become so numerous, and
| did slay so many of the people, and did lay waste so many
| cities, and did spread so much death and carnage throughout
| the land, that it became expedient that all the people, but
| the Nephites and the Lamanites, should take up arms against
| them." (3 Nephi 2:11)!!!!
|
| A different kind of enemy regrettably demands a different
| kind of approach.
| May we remain righteous in our desires with an eye single to
| God is my prayer and I believe the prayer of our President
| and other influential leaders throughout the world.
|
| Branden Clark
| Las Vegas, Nevada.
|
| ___
|
|
| I feel that the author of the article on the Book of Mormon
| and War is interpreting the Book of Mormon to fit his own
| beliefs. He says that if we follow the Book of Mormon, we
| must go into the country that we have defeated and teach
| them the gospel, and the principles of democracy.
|
| That, is not what the Book of Mormon teaches. We have the
| example of Nephi and Lehi in Helaman chapter 5, who went
| into the middle of a war and preached the gospel in the
| middle of enemy territory during the war and by their
| preaching, they stopped the war and converted the enemy. We
| have the example of Ammon who went into Lamanite territory
| before the enemy was defeated and converted many thousands
| of people to follow Christ. We have Alma who told us that he
| knew that the gospel should be preached first to a people
| since the power of the Word had a greater effect than that
| of the sword upon the people's hearts and minds.
|
| The righteous wars of the Book of Mormon were all defensive,
| or commanded by the Lord, similar to the Old Testament wars.
| This Iraq war is not defensive, it is overtly offensive, and
| this war is not commanded by the Lord. The author states
| that he feels that the President is receiving guidance from
| the Lord and I agree with that. All people receive guidance
| from the Lord, but 99.999% of those people do not follow
| that guidance. That is why it is sad to say that almost all
| men, as soon as they have a little authority as they
| suppose, immediately begin to exercise unrighteous
| authority. Bush is no different from almost all men.
|
| The author also says that we must go into war without anger
| in our hearts, and that is one of the conditions to having a
| righteous war. The mere fact that most Americans are not
| angry doesn't justify the killing of thousands of people. We
| weren't angry at Vietnam either, and still killed millions
| of people.
|
| There has not been sufficient evidence for us to believe
| that Saddam wants world dominion. Doubtless that is his
| fondest dream, but he has sought to do nothing of the kind.
| He attacked Iran and Kuwait and his own people, but he is
| not suicidal. He wants to remain in power, but he cannot do
| so if he attacks the giant U.S.A. He and his country will be
| eliminated immediately if he does that and he knows that.
| There is no reason for us to fear him as our leaders would
| have us to fear him. I quote for you a great commentary for
| our day by Pres. Kimball and his thoughts pertaining to
| righteous war: ``We are a warlike people, easily distracted
| from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord.
| When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the
| fabrication of gods of stone and steel-ships, planes,
| missiles, fortifications-and depend on them for protection
| and deliverance. When threatened, we become antienemy
| instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of
| war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan's
| counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior's
| teaching:
|
| "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to
| them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use
| you, and persecute you;
|
| "That ye may be the children of your Father which is in
| heaven." (Matt. 5:44-45.)
|
| Curtis Strong
|
| ___
|
|
| Ironic
|
| I find it ironic that Brother Biddulph's essay "The Book of
| Mormon and War" comes the very day after Elder Nelson said
| "As a church, we must renounce war and proclaim peace".
|
| Brother Biddulph makes assertions about bin Laden, the New
| World Order, righteous war and recent history that are
| questionable, but for brevity I will only answer his last
| six, summarizing points.
|
| 1 - We do not know if President Bush "sincerely wants to do
| the Creator's will." Indeed, his support of the Patriot Act
| shows a contempt for the inalienable rights our Creator has
| bestowed.
|
| 2 - There does seem to be a blood thirst among many
| Americans. In our war in Afghanistan we killed more
| innocents than did the terrorists of 9-11. We carelessly
| dismissed this as "collateral damage". But since not a
| single Afghani was involved in that attack, why should they
| bear the cost of "collateral damage"? It seems that too many
| wanted "an eye for an eye, a life for a life", were "drunk
| with anger" and didn't much care if the revenge was wreaked
| on those responsible for the 9-11 attacks or not.
|
| 3 - There is no justification of an offensive war. I think
| D&C 98: 33-37 pretty much condemns that. Japan's attack on
| Pearl Harbor was a "preemptive attack" but there are no
| Americans who thought it justified. Brother Biddulph says
| preemptive war "is justified by the threat of an opponent
| who is clearly trying to develop nuclear and chemical
| weapons and use them for regional and, if possible, world
| domination." Many countries fall into that category--Russia,
| China and North Korea for example. Not only do these
| countries have greater weapons capability than Iraq but have
| made real threats of imminent attack. Yet we've never seen
| the need for "preemptive" action against these countries.
|
| 4 - The hope of increased missionary opportunities can
| never justify the killing of thousands. God loves His Iraqi
| children as much as He does Americans. Do you honestly
| believe that He wants us to kill people just so we can then
| go teach them the gospel? I find that argument repugnant.
|
| 5 - It is precisely because of our imperialistic
| encroachment in the affairs of other nations that we face
| the threat of terrorism and war. We currently have US troops
| in over 200 nations! We still have soldiers in Bosnia, (we
| were supposed to be out in 18 mos. That was 8 years ago.)
| Haiti, Panama, Kuwait, Korea, Saudi Arabia to name just a
| few.
|
| There was never any attempt to rebuild Iraq after the Gulf
| War. Instead Iraq has endured 10 years of subjugation and
| occupation. Our boycotts have caused the death of millions
| of Iraqi children from starvation and lack of medicine. What
| must Heavenly Father think when He hears the anguished cries
| of these millions of parents who could do nothing to save
| their children?
|
| 6 - What standard of peace have we offered Hussein? We've
| issued ultimatums, demanded his total compliance with UN
| resolutions, encouraged his people to assassinate him,
| boycotted his country and starved his people. I don't recall
| any offers of rebuilding, feeding or any "massive economic
| aid".
|
| The words of our first president still ring true: "Observe
| good faith and justice towards all Nations. Cultivate peace
| and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this
| conduct; and can it be that good policy does not equally
| enjoin it?"
|
| Sincerely,
| Charlene Nelson
| Casselton, ND 58012
|
| ___
|
| Missed Something
|
| I thought Brother Biddulph's article in Meridian Magazine
| was very insightful on the current situation we find
| ourselves with regard to going to war. It seems to me,
| however, you have missed something very important. It isn't
| whether or not we should go to war against Iraq, it's the
| Constitutional and legal dither we find ourselves in that is
| the issue. Certainly Saddam Hussein is an evil man who is
| definitely a threat not only to the U.S., but to all the
| world, including his Arab neighbors. I would love to see the
| Iraqi people freed of this monster, but I don't want the
| U.S. to be alone in this struggle. We are also the example
| to all the world of how government ought to run. What
| example are we setting to North Korea, China and other rogue
| states if we employ a policy of regime removal? We become a
| rogue nation of the worst kind because we're the most
| powerful nation on earth! If we go to war in Iraq, or
| anywhere, we need the support of the world, and in
| particular the Arab nations that have hitherto been very
| supportive of us. We need to do things legally. To just
| march in with our military might and strength on a mission
| of regime removal, is flatly uncharacteristic of our
| previous foreign affairs policies. Preemptive strikes should
| be undertaken when there is smoking gun evidence that our
| country and/or our allies are in immediate danger. So far,
| the Bush administration has not produced any such evidence
| (except in the mind of British PM Tony Blair). If he had,
| all nations would be rallying around him to get Saddam
| rather than encourage weapons inspection first.
|
| Since Sept 11, we have seen secret courts with secret
| agendas, the rights and privacy of ordinary US citizens
| denied, due process of law denied and citizens held without
| charge or access to legal counsel --- all in the name of
| Homeland Security and now the Senate is debating whether or
| not to give the president unlimited powers of war,
| circumventing Congress' Constitutional authority. In short,
| if Mr. Bush's plans are legislated and implemented, we will
| no longer have separation of powers in this country and all
| people will be subject to police surveilance, secret courts
| (tribunals, they're called). Not at first, of course, but
| eventually, the Bill of Rights will be worthless.
|
| I'm agreeing with you that we have a horrid tyrant in
| Saddam, but I wonder if our own president isn't setting
| himself up to be a king -- and tyrant--- himself.
|
| Connie
| Logan, Utah
|
| ___
|
|
| More Convinced
|
| I was impressed to read the article concerning the Book of
| Mormon and War, by Geoffrey Biddulph. I hadn't considered
| that. He made some very good points. And after reading the
| scriptural references listed, I'm even more convinced that
| we are right and will prevail...should we have to fight.
| Thanks again.
|
| Ed Deusenberry
|
| ___
|
|
| Brigham Young and War
|
| Here is what Brigham Young said:
|
| "Of one thing I am sure; God never institutes war; God is
| not the author of confusion or of war; they are the results
| of the acts of the children of men. Confusion and war
| necessarily come as the results of the foolish acts and
| policy of men; but they do not come because God desires they
| should come. If the people, generally, would turn to the
| Lord, there would never be any war. Let men turn from their
| iniquities and sins, and, instead of being covetous [greedy
| Americans] and wicked, turn to God and seek to promote peace
| and happiness throughout the land, and wars would cease. We
| expect to see the day when swords shall be turned into
| ploughshares, spears into pruning hooks, and when men shall
| learn war no more. This is what we want. We are for peace,
| plenty and happiness to all the human family. JD 13:149.
|
| Our traditions have been such that we are not apt to look
| upon war between two nations as murder; but suppose that one
| family should rise up against another and begin to slay
| them, would they not be taken up and tried for murder? Then
| why not nations that rise up and slay each other in a
| scientific way be equally guilty of murder? "But observe the
| martial array, how splendid! See the furious war horses,
| with their glittering trappings. Then the honor and glory
| and pride ... must be sustained, and the strength and power
| and wealth of the nation must be displayed in some way; and
| what better way than to make war upon neighboring nations,
| under some slight pretext?" Does it justify the slaying of
| men, women, and children that otherwise would have remained
| at home in peace, because a great army is doing the work?
| No: the guilty will be damned for it. JD 7:137.
|
| Russell A. Peek
|
| ___
|
|
| Misinterpreting Elder Russell Nelson's Talk
|
| Editor's Note: Following General Conference, many media
| outlets ran a story titled ``Mormon Church Makes Anti-War
| Statement'' (See CNN:
| http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/West/10/06/mormon.conference.ap
| CNN.com - Mormon church makes anti-war statement - Oct. 6,
| 2002 » Mormon church makes anti-war statement SALT LAKE
| CITY, Utah (AP) -- The Mormon church issued a strong
| anti-war message at its semiannual General Conference,
| clearly referring to current hostilities in the Middle East,
| advocating patience and negotiation, and urging the faithful
| to be peacemakers. "As a church, we must renounce war and
| proclaim peace," said Russell M. Nelson, a member of the
| Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' Quorum of the
| Twelve Apostles, which acts under the direction of church
| President Gordon B. Hinckley. Nelson never directly
| referring to Iraq or current moves toward war, but he
| mentioned the conflict in the Middle East and said
| "resolution of present political problems will require much
| patience and negotiation." The Golden Rule's prohibition
| of one interfering with the rights of others was equally
| binding on nations and associations and left no room for
| retaliatory reactions, Nelson said at the meeting Saturday.
| Descendants of Abraham -- Christians, Jews and Muslims --
| "are in a pivotal position to emerge as peacemakers," he
| said. «) to which the Church responded that he had been
| misinterpreted. Here are your letters in response:
|
| Media Rules?
|
| I have long been convinced that the media rules this nation.
| They want sensational stories and if they can't find them
| they make them up! We as a nation urge them on by letting
| them know that's what we want. Until we stop craving
| sensational stories we will be misled by a press trying to
| please their public! This is the case with the comments by
| Elder Nelson and most other news we see and hear! Take all
| with caution!
|
| Rene' Walker
|
|
| Beautifully Put
|
| How beautifully put were Elder Nelson's words. How vain and
| shortsighted the person who reads the entire talk and comes
| away with any other feeling than Loyalty to God and Country.
| It should be mandatory reading for anyone who is in
| politics, political position or political reporting to read
| Ezra Taft Benson's "GOD, FAMILY and COUNTRY". As Elder
| Nelson spoke, could one not feel his love and the love of
| the Savior whom Elder Nelson is a special witness of, come
| flowing through? Could not anyone listening not feel the
| depth of his research and commitment to speak truth without
| guile and without error?
|
| How thankful I am for the Meridian and all of you who work
| so hard to bring it to us.
|
| Mick
|
| ___
|
|
| I was happy to read this article to correct my confusion
| about Brother Nelson's remarks. I intended writing the First
| Presidency to see if this was the Church's view on this
| subject.
|
| I was in agreement with President Bush's feelings concerning
| Iraq, so when I heard Bro. Nelson's remarks I did feel very
| confused. Our local paper interpreted them as I did so I am
| pleased to have read this article.
|
| Thank you,
| Mrs. Doramae Michael
|
|______________________________________________________________
__
sdh@lege.net [ http://sdh.lege.net ] - Listans adress
sdh-request@lege.net - Listans Administrator
(Subject: unsubscribe om du inte vill vara kvar.)
[Just nu är vi 27 personer på sdh@lege.net.]
Copyleft © 2003 Leif Erlingsson eller respektive författare
Updated 27 October 2003
Det har kommit svar på ovanstående inlägg, som jag i min tur har kommenterat. Klicka här.