25 February 2004
To Those Who Criticize Mel
"Know this: You should judge every person by his merits. Even someone who seems completely wicked, you must search and find that little speck of good, for in that place, he is not wicked. By this you will raise him up, and help him return to God. And you must also do this for yourself, finding your own good points, one after the other, and raising yourself up. This is how melodies are made, note after note . . ." - Rebbe (Rabbi) Nachman of Breslov, 1772 - 1810 Tzaddik (Saint), Torah Sage, Teacher and Chassidic master www.breslov.org
The Passion's Debate
The Urbane R © 2004 P. Scott Cummins
The Passion’s Debate
When considering “The Passion of The Christ” it is important for me to be up front: as a Christian I am enthusiastic in my intellectual and emotional relationship with God. Over twenty five years ago, I was very fortunate to visit Israel and Palestinian territory. We Seattle teenagers spent time in East Jerusalem, in a Palestinian-owned hotel, and were taught to eat kosher by our Palestinian hosts, in preparation for the rest of our trip. I developed a bond with the owner’s son over mutual infatuations with girls and soccer (in that order) as is the case with boys around the world. Aghast, he encountered me on Sunday, observing I was not in church. “You must go to pray” he intoned. “I will take you to Jesus’ church” he concluded firmly.
In Jerusalem I experienced the power of Yad Vashem – an amazing place to bring a teenager: the everlasting memorial for the precious human lives taken by the Holocaust – created so that their suffering may never be in vain through remembrance of their dignity and bravery. The power of Yad Vashem is experienced in a visceral way: the brutal enormity of Holocaust evil on individual human lives, families, communities. The attempt to eradicate systems of laws, belief, culture and human interaction undergirding Judaism – which is at the very bedrock of civilization. That there has been triumph from this assault is testament to the power of people, Jewish people. In America today, I am confident that not only is this a predominant Christian expiation, it is seared into our very souls.
It is worth noting comparison to Christ’s Passion: that it too is of emotive, empathetic feeling. While sharing recrudescent concerns for anti-Semitism - as a Christian I have been taught that all of us are in that mob. Even Peter himself (the “rock of the church”) denied Christ three times during Jesus’ final hours. If Peter was cowed by a mob mentality engendered through the brutally repressive dictatorial Roman regime – then who am I? No one is above the selfishness which Christ transcends through His selflessness. That is the gift of grace. It is given for you – the Christian message is acknowledgment and acceptance of that love. That is the real story of the passion.
It should be clear by now that Gibson’s aim was to make Christianity’s own Zapruder film. Just like that account of John F. Kennedy’s assassination in Dallas, it is a view raising as many questions as answers. Question we must: and God wants us to be in touch (through prayer) with our questions. Gibson would not want it any other way. “Feeling” is Gibson’s watchword; from sympathy and understanding - to the visceral empathetic transcendent love for which the resurrection of Christ is the saving end. In other words, “feel the power” of the Christian message, Gibson implores. Still, the question must be asked: was the orgy of violence really necessary to get the point across? The point could have been made without it – but the raw visceral impact, what of it? Gibson told Diane Sawyer on 60 Minutes: “I wanted it to be shocking. And I also wanted it to be extreme. I wanted it to push the viewer over the edge. And it does that. I think it pushes one over the edge. So that they see the enormity, the enormity of that sacrifice. To see that someone could endure that and still come back with love and forgiveness even through extreme pain and suffering and ridicule.” Sawyer asked if this film represented the version of events - filmmaker as avatar of divine direction. Gibson responded: “No, not at all. Not at all. It really is my vision. I'm not, boy, I'm not taking myself out of the equation here, I'm a proud bugger, I did this. But I did it with God's help. I mean, this is my version of what happened according to the Gospels and what I wanted to show, the aspects of it I wanted to show.” Oh, to what church did my Palestinian Muslim friend take me that Sunday? He took this Protestant Christian boy to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and walked me along the Via Dolorosa to get there. He wanted me to know where Jesus had walked in suffering, he told me. Mel Gibson, it seems, is a lot like that Palestinian boy.
The Passion’s Debate
When considering “The Passion of The Christ” it is important for me to be up front: as a Christian I am enthusiastic in my intellectual and emotional relationship with God. Over twenty five years ago, I was very fortunate to visit Israel and Palestinian territory. We Seattle teenagers spent time in East Jerusalem, in a Palestinian-owned hotel, and were taught to eat kosher by our Palestinian hosts, in preparation for the rest of our trip. I developed a bond with the owner’s son over mutual infatuations with girls and soccer (in that order) as is the case with boys around the world. Aghast, he encountered me on Sunday, observing I was not in church. “You must go to pray” he intoned. “I will take you to Jesus’ church” he concluded firmly.
In Jerusalem I experienced the power of Yad Vashem – an amazing place to bring a teenager: the everlasting memorial for the precious human lives taken by the Holocaust – created so that their suffering may never be in vain through remembrance of their dignity and bravery. The power of Yad Vashem is experienced in a visceral way: the brutal enormity of Holocaust evil on individual human lives, families, communities. The attempt to eradicate systems of laws, belief, culture and human interaction undergirding Judaism – which is at the very bedrock of civilization. That there has been triumph from this assault is testament to the power of people, Jewish people. In America today, I am confident that not only is this a predominant Christian expiation, it is seared into our very souls.
It is worth noting comparison to Christ’s Passion: that it too is of emotive, empathetic feeling. While sharing recrudescent concerns for anti-Semitism - as a Christian I have been taught that all of us are in that mob. Even Peter himself (the “rock of the church”) denied Christ three times during Jesus’ final hours. If Peter was cowed by a mob mentality engendered through the brutally repressive dictatorial Roman regime – then who am I? No one is above the selfishness which Christ transcends through His selflessness. That is the gift of grace. It is given for you – the Christian message is acknowledgment and acceptance of that love. That is the real story of the passion.
It should be clear by now that Gibson’s aim was to make Christianity’s own Zapruder film. Just like that account of John F. Kennedy’s assassination in Dallas, it is a view raising as many questions as answers. Question we must: and God wants us to be in touch (through prayer) with our questions. Gibson would not want it any other way. “Feeling” is Gibson’s watchword; from sympathy and understanding - to the visceral empathetic transcendent love for which the resurrection of Christ is the saving end. In other words, “feel the power” of the Christian message, Gibson implores. Still, the question must be asked: was the orgy of violence really necessary to get the point across? The point could have been made without it – but the raw visceral impact, what of it? Gibson told Diane Sawyer on 60 Minutes: “I wanted it to be shocking. And I also wanted it to be extreme. I wanted it to push the viewer over the edge. And it does that. I think it pushes one over the edge. So that they see the enormity, the enormity of that sacrifice. To see that someone could endure that and still come back with love and forgiveness even through extreme pain and suffering and ridicule.” Sawyer asked if this film represented the version of events - filmmaker as avatar of divine direction. Gibson responded: “No, not at all. Not at all. It really is my vision. I'm not, boy, I'm not taking myself out of the equation here, I'm a proud bugger, I did this. But I did it with God's help. I mean, this is my version of what happened according to the Gospels and what I wanted to show, the aspects of it I wanted to show.” Oh, to what church did my Palestinian Muslim friend take me that Sunday? He took this Protestant Christian boy to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and walked me along the Via Dolorosa to get there. He wanted me to know where Jesus had walked in suffering, he told me. Mel Gibson, it seems, is a lot like that Palestinian boy.
10 February 2004
Michael Medved's review of "The Passion of The Christ"
From www.federalobserver.com
Gibson's right to his 'Passion'
By Michael Medved
SEATTLE - Any honest discussion of Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of the Christ" must begin with recognition of a few undeniable facts:
The movie has been made and will open in thousands of theaters worldwide this month. It will draw eager audiences and become a box office hit - due in part to prerelease controversy, the "must see" factor has reached an almost unprecedented level of intensity among both committed Christians and the cinematically curious. Mainstream Christian leaders of every denomination will embrace the film as the most artistically ambitious and accomplished treatment of the crucifixion ever committed to film. Some critics and scholars will criticize Mr. Gibson for his cinematic and theological choices in shaping the film. But any attempt to boycott or discredit the movie will, inevitably and unquestionably, fail.
No one who has actually seen the movie, as I have, would seriously challenge these conclusions. All the debate about allegedly anti-Semitic overtones misses the point: The organized Jewish community and its allies in interfaith dialogue may not welcome "Passion," but overreaction will provoke far more anti-Semitism than the movie itself.
Gibson financed the film on his own precisely due to his determination to realize his own traditionalist Catholic vision of the Gospel story without compromise to the sensitivities of profit-oriented accountants or other religious perspectives. Jewish leaders feel wounded that he never consulted them on the script or historic details, but he also left out Protestant and Eastern Orthodox traditions.
The possibility of anti-Jewish violence in response to the film has been irresponsibly emphasized and has become, self-fulfilling prophecy. In parts of Europe and the Islamic world, anti-Semitic vandalism and violence occur daily, and hardly need a film by a Hollywood superstar to encourage them. In this context, Jewish denunciations of the movie only increase the likelihood that those who hate us will seize on the movie as an excuse for more of hatred.
The problem with traditional "passion plays" was always the unmistakable association of contemporary Jews with the staged oppressive Judean religious authorities. The high priest often appeared with anachronistic European prayer shawls, skull caps, and side curls. Gibson avoids such imagery - costumes and ethnicity of the persecutors make them look far less recognizable as Jews than do the faces and practices of Jesus and his disciples. The words "Jew or "Jewish" scarcely appear in the subtitles to his movie, spoken in Aramaic and Latin. By agonizing so publicly about the purportedly anti-Semitic elements in the story, the Anti-Defamation League makes it vastly more likely that moviegoers will connect the corrupt first-century figures with today's Jewish leaders.
Of course, rabbis and teachers will feel an almost irresistible urge to respond to interest inspired by "Passion," and will comment on ways in which the Gospel probably distorted the execution of Jesus. Many Jews understand that the canonized accounts were created at a time when early Christians had begun to despair of converting Jews, and instead focused their attention on proselytizing Romans. Hence, orthodox Jews come out looking very bad, while Pilate and other Roman authorities receive less blame.
Putting the New Testament account into this perspective may make sense with Jewish audiences, but insisting on this approach with our Christian neighbors is outrageous arrogance. We may not welcome the stories told by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but Christians have cherished the record for 2,000 years. The fact that anti-Semites have used these accounts as the inspiration for their depredations may prove that those stories can be dangerous, but it doesn't prove them untrue. Jewish organizations must not attempt to take responsibility for deciding what Christians can and cannot believe. If they do, they force a choice between faithfulness to scripture and amiable relations with Jews. The notion that committed Christians can't have one without spurning the other does no service to Jews - or anyone.
Do we feel comfortable when some evangelical observers insist that they know more about the real symbolism of our Jewish rituals - emphasizing their supposed anticipation of Jesus the Messiah - than we do? I enjoyed a stimulating interchange with a pastor in Michigan who emphatically argued that the details of the Passover seder all related to Jesus of Nazareth - with the three matzos representing the Holy Trinity. He offers a Christian understanding of Judaism without demanding that our own teaching must be accordingly adjusted. In our pluralistic society, this pastor enjoys perfect freedom to do so. And we remain free to teach a Jewish understanding of the New Testament - with no effort to suppress or attack Christians for their traditional interpretations of their scripture. That's especially true for a Christian like Gibson who provides a vision of the crucifixion that falls unequivocally within the Christian mainstream.
From a Jewish perspective, the most unfortunate aspect of the dispute involves the renewed focus on Christian scripture when most Americans - including most Jews - remain ignorant of the most fundamental Jewish teachings - other than a general sense that Jews respect Moses and refuse to accept Jesus as Messiah. The interest of Jewish continuity and vitality can hardly be served by a battle over a movie that will succeed with the public regardless of our discomfort. Rather than wasting energy and good will to discredit an artful and ambitious film, we would do more for the cause of Judaism to emphasize the positive and productive aspects of our own sacred tradition.
Michael Medved, author of Hollywood vs. America, hosts a national radio talk show. This article is reprinted with permission from the Winter 2003/2004 issue of The Responsive Community quarterly.
Gibson's right to his 'Passion'
By Michael Medved
SEATTLE - Any honest discussion of Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of the Christ" must begin with recognition of a few undeniable facts:
The movie has been made and will open in thousands of theaters worldwide this month. It will draw eager audiences and become a box office hit - due in part to prerelease controversy, the "must see" factor has reached an almost unprecedented level of intensity among both committed Christians and the cinematically curious. Mainstream Christian leaders of every denomination will embrace the film as the most artistically ambitious and accomplished treatment of the crucifixion ever committed to film. Some critics and scholars will criticize Mr. Gibson for his cinematic and theological choices in shaping the film. But any attempt to boycott or discredit the movie will, inevitably and unquestionably, fail.
No one who has actually seen the movie, as I have, would seriously challenge these conclusions. All the debate about allegedly anti-Semitic overtones misses the point: The organized Jewish community and its allies in interfaith dialogue may not welcome "Passion," but overreaction will provoke far more anti-Semitism than the movie itself.
Gibson financed the film on his own precisely due to his determination to realize his own traditionalist Catholic vision of the Gospel story without compromise to the sensitivities of profit-oriented accountants or other religious perspectives. Jewish leaders feel wounded that he never consulted them on the script or historic details, but he also left out Protestant and Eastern Orthodox traditions.
The possibility of anti-Jewish violence in response to the film has been irresponsibly emphasized and has become, self-fulfilling prophecy. In parts of Europe and the Islamic world, anti-Semitic vandalism and violence occur daily, and hardly need a film by a Hollywood superstar to encourage them. In this context, Jewish denunciations of the movie only increase the likelihood that those who hate us will seize on the movie as an excuse for more of hatred.
The problem with traditional "passion plays" was always the unmistakable association of contemporary Jews with the staged oppressive Judean religious authorities. The high priest often appeared with anachronistic European prayer shawls, skull caps, and side curls. Gibson avoids such imagery - costumes and ethnicity of the persecutors make them look far less recognizable as Jews than do the faces and practices of Jesus and his disciples. The words "Jew or "Jewish" scarcely appear in the subtitles to his movie, spoken in Aramaic and Latin. By agonizing so publicly about the purportedly anti-Semitic elements in the story, the Anti-Defamation League makes it vastly more likely that moviegoers will connect the corrupt first-century figures with today's Jewish leaders.
Of course, rabbis and teachers will feel an almost irresistible urge to respond to interest inspired by "Passion," and will comment on ways in which the Gospel probably distorted the execution of Jesus. Many Jews understand that the canonized accounts were created at a time when early Christians had begun to despair of converting Jews, and instead focused their attention on proselytizing Romans. Hence, orthodox Jews come out looking very bad, while Pilate and other Roman authorities receive less blame.
Putting the New Testament account into this perspective may make sense with Jewish audiences, but insisting on this approach with our Christian neighbors is outrageous arrogance. We may not welcome the stories told by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but Christians have cherished the record for 2,000 years. The fact that anti-Semites have used these accounts as the inspiration for their depredations may prove that those stories can be dangerous, but it doesn't prove them untrue. Jewish organizations must not attempt to take responsibility for deciding what Christians can and cannot believe. If they do, they force a choice between faithfulness to scripture and amiable relations with Jews. The notion that committed Christians can't have one without spurning the other does no service to Jews - or anyone.
Do we feel comfortable when some evangelical observers insist that they know more about the real symbolism of our Jewish rituals - emphasizing their supposed anticipation of Jesus the Messiah - than we do? I enjoyed a stimulating interchange with a pastor in Michigan who emphatically argued that the details of the Passover seder all related to Jesus of Nazareth - with the three matzos representing the Holy Trinity. He offers a Christian understanding of Judaism without demanding that our own teaching must be accordingly adjusted. In our pluralistic society, this pastor enjoys perfect freedom to do so. And we remain free to teach a Jewish understanding of the New Testament - with no effort to suppress or attack Christians for their traditional interpretations of their scripture. That's especially true for a Christian like Gibson who provides a vision of the crucifixion that falls unequivocally within the Christian mainstream.
From a Jewish perspective, the most unfortunate aspect of the dispute involves the renewed focus on Christian scripture when most Americans - including most Jews - remain ignorant of the most fundamental Jewish teachings - other than a general sense that Jews respect Moses and refuse to accept Jesus as Messiah. The interest of Jewish continuity and vitality can hardly be served by a battle over a movie that will succeed with the public regardless of our discomfort. Rather than wasting energy and good will to discredit an artful and ambitious film, we would do more for the cause of Judaism to emphasize the positive and productive aspects of our own sacred tradition.
Michael Medved, author of Hollywood vs. America, hosts a national radio talk show. This article is reprinted with permission from the Winter 2003/2004 issue of The Responsive Community quarterly.
'The Passion of The Christ' more than a movie
From http://www.baptiststandard.com
'The Passion of The Christ' more than a movie
By George Henson
Staff Writer
DENTON--"The Passion of the Christ" will spark a stampede from theater seats to church pews, and Christians need to be ready to answer the questions the movie raises, Steve Pate believes.
Pate, associate director of missions for Denton Baptist Association, predicts a pilgrimage to America's churches not unlike what happened after terrorist attacks on the United States in 2001.
"People came to our churches in droves after 9/11, and they didn't get the answers to their questions, and they're not there now," Pate pointed out. "If we don't get them this time, we may not get another chance, because they are going to stop thinking of the church as a place where answers to life's hard questions can be found."
Pate urged pastors in his association to prepare for the film's Feb. 25 Ash Wednesday opening: "Whatever you've got planned for preaching, you'd better jettison that and answer the questions that people are going to be coming with."
Pate suggested pastors cover subjects such as the accuracy of the Bible, the humanity of Jesus, the necessity of Christ's painful death by crucifixion and evidence of the resurrection.
"This film brings up a lot more questions than it answers, but I don't see how anyone can see it and not think of it as a tool for evangelism. True, this is not the altar call, but it can be the start of a spiritual journey whereby people turn their lives to faith in Jesus Christ," Pate said.
"It really does raise more questions than it answers, but they will know the death that Jesus went through was really brutal. It's up to the church to tell them the beatings and the death on the cross were for them," Pate said.
"The film shows what Jesus suffered, but there's no transference that this was for me. There's nothing in the film like that. The church has to do that."
Denton Association has contracted with the United Artists theater at Vista Ridge Mall in Lewisville for two early showings of the movie.
While the movie will not be shown there during its release on Feb. 25, the movie will be shown one time on both Feb. 23 and 24 in a 300-seat theater. Pate is certain that churches within the association will buy those 600 seats well before those dates arrive.
"As soon as the e-mail goes out to the churches, those seats are gone," he said.
This is simply an opportunity that can't be missed, Pate said. Outreach Inc. has called the film "perhaps the best outreach opportunity in 2,000 years."
In addition to changing sermon topics, Pate also has suggested churches in his association prepare special seeker Sunday school classes so visitors can ask questions rather than just sit through a standard lesson.
In short, he believes churches should depart from their regular routine in order to accommodate people who are drawn by the film.
"I'm a huge planning person, but to quote (Henry) Blackaby, 'Our job is to see what God is doing in the world and to get on board.' It's obvious looking at newspapers, the Internet and television that this is something God is active in," Pate said.
"If churches deal with the questions these people who come are asking, there could be a huge harvest. If they don't, there will not be any."
Pate, who has seen the film, warns Christians not to see the film alone. Instead, he urges Christians to take non-Christian friends or family members with them.
"This movie is so hard to sit through that if someone says, 'I'll go and check it out, and then I'll take someone,' they won't go back," he said.
Pate said he would see the movie again, but he would do it only with a non-Christian and only because "evangelism is what makes my heart beat fast."
Pate also is cautioning youth ministers who take their youth groups to make sure all have signed permission slips in hand, because the film is rated R for the violence of the crucifixion. He also advised youth ministers to provide time for discussion after young people view the film.
"They are going to need to talk about what they have seen," he said.
The film has affected him greatly, he acknowledged.
"To see this film is a life-changing event. I will never approach the cross the same way. See this film, and you will never approach the Lord's Supper the same way. You can't. It's impossible," he said.
"But if you want it to be a life-transforming event, take a lost person to see it with you. Don't go without taking a lost person with you."
While he believes the movie is a great opportunity for the church to show itself relevant to society, Pate is concerned about what will happen if churches fail to take advantage of the opportunity.
"If we don't have answers to society's questions, there is a real danger that the culture will reinvent itself and leave the church right out of it.
"We can't blow this. This is the greatest chance for the churches to show their relevance since 9/11. My worry is that 9/11 was easy, and we blew it. This is hard."
News of religion, faith, missions, Bible study and Christian ministry among Texas Baptist churches, in the BGCT, the Southern Baptist Convention ( SBC ) and around the world.
'The Passion of The Christ' more than a movie
By George Henson
Staff Writer
DENTON--"The Passion of the Christ" will spark a stampede from theater seats to church pews, and Christians need to be ready to answer the questions the movie raises, Steve Pate believes.
Pate, associate director of missions for Denton Baptist Association, predicts a pilgrimage to America's churches not unlike what happened after terrorist attacks on the United States in 2001.
"People came to our churches in droves after 9/11, and they didn't get the answers to their questions, and they're not there now," Pate pointed out. "If we don't get them this time, we may not get another chance, because they are going to stop thinking of the church as a place where answers to life's hard questions can be found."
Pate urged pastors in his association to prepare for the film's Feb. 25 Ash Wednesday opening: "Whatever you've got planned for preaching, you'd better jettison that and answer the questions that people are going to be coming with."
Pate suggested pastors cover subjects such as the accuracy of the Bible, the humanity of Jesus, the necessity of Christ's painful death by crucifixion and evidence of the resurrection.
"This film brings up a lot more questions than it answers, but I don't see how anyone can see it and not think of it as a tool for evangelism. True, this is not the altar call, but it can be the start of a spiritual journey whereby people turn their lives to faith in Jesus Christ," Pate said.
"It really does raise more questions than it answers, but they will know the death that Jesus went through was really brutal. It's up to the church to tell them the beatings and the death on the cross were for them," Pate said.
"The film shows what Jesus suffered, but there's no transference that this was for me. There's nothing in the film like that. The church has to do that."
Denton Association has contracted with the United Artists theater at Vista Ridge Mall in Lewisville for two early showings of the movie.
While the movie will not be shown there during its release on Feb. 25, the movie will be shown one time on both Feb. 23 and 24 in a 300-seat theater. Pate is certain that churches within the association will buy those 600 seats well before those dates arrive.
"As soon as the e-mail goes out to the churches, those seats are gone," he said.
This is simply an opportunity that can't be missed, Pate said. Outreach Inc. has called the film "perhaps the best outreach opportunity in 2,000 years."
In addition to changing sermon topics, Pate also has suggested churches in his association prepare special seeker Sunday school classes so visitors can ask questions rather than just sit through a standard lesson.
In short, he believes churches should depart from their regular routine in order to accommodate people who are drawn by the film.
"I'm a huge planning person, but to quote (Henry) Blackaby, 'Our job is to see what God is doing in the world and to get on board.' It's obvious looking at newspapers, the Internet and television that this is something God is active in," Pate said.
"If churches deal with the questions these people who come are asking, there could be a huge harvest. If they don't, there will not be any."
Pate, who has seen the film, warns Christians not to see the film alone. Instead, he urges Christians to take non-Christian friends or family members with them.
"This movie is so hard to sit through that if someone says, 'I'll go and check it out, and then I'll take someone,' they won't go back," he said.
Pate said he would see the movie again, but he would do it only with a non-Christian and only because "evangelism is what makes my heart beat fast."
Pate also is cautioning youth ministers who take their youth groups to make sure all have signed permission slips in hand, because the film is rated R for the violence of the crucifixion. He also advised youth ministers to provide time for discussion after young people view the film.
"They are going to need to talk about what they have seen," he said.
The film has affected him greatly, he acknowledged.
"To see this film is a life-changing event. I will never approach the cross the same way. See this film, and you will never approach the Lord's Supper the same way. You can't. It's impossible," he said.
"But if you want it to be a life-transforming event, take a lost person to see it with you. Don't go without taking a lost person with you."
While he believes the movie is a great opportunity for the church to show itself relevant to society, Pate is concerned about what will happen if churches fail to take advantage of the opportunity.
"If we don't have answers to society's questions, there is a real danger that the culture will reinvent itself and leave the church right out of it.
"We can't blow this. This is the greatest chance for the churches to show their relevance since 9/11. My worry is that 9/11 was easy, and we blew it. This is hard."
News of religion, faith, missions, Bible study and Christian ministry among Texas Baptist churches, in the BGCT, the Southern Baptist Convention ( SBC ) and around the world.
More Power to Mel!
From www.frontpagemag.com
More Power to Mel
By Don Feder
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 10, 2004
Is Mel Gibson the intellectual heir of The Black Hundred (the notorious progromists of Czarist Russia) or is he merely indifferent to the fact that his cinematic project will “fuel and legitimize anti-Semitism?”
Gibson’s “The Passion of Christ” is scheduled to open in 2,000 theaters nationwide on Ash Wednesday, February 25.
From the outset, controversy has dogged the popular actor’s $25-million project based on the Gospels’ account of the final 12 hours in the life of Jesus. In one scene, deleted from the final cut of the film, the High Priest Caiaphas says of the condemned Jesus, “His blood be on us and our children.”
This incensed Abraham Foxman -- national director of The Anti-Defamation League and the film’s most scathing critic. A movie Christian leaders are hailing as the greatest religious work of art since the ceiling of the Sistene Chapel “can fuel, trigger, stimulate, induce, rationalize, legitimize anti-Semitism,” warned the kosher Chicken Little.
Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a man I respect far more than Foxman, has been nearly as censorious.
Writing in The Boston Globe, James Carroll (one of those “Catholic scholars” whose stock in trade is denying the essence of Catholicism) claims, “Even a faithful repetition of the Gospel stories of the death of Jesus can do damage exactly because those sacred texts themselves carry the virus of Jew-hatred.” Which raises an intriguing question: How can a text both be sacred and carry the seeds of anti-Semitism?
Besides the deleted “his blood be on us” scene, Foxman charges the movie, in Aramaic and Latin with English subtitles, “unambiguously portrays Jewish authorities and the Jewish mob as the ones responsible for the decision to crucify Jesus.” But it also unambiguously portrays Jesus, his mother (played by the daughter of Holocaust survivors), his disciples and his followers as Jewish.
Prominent Christians have come to the film’s defense. Evangelist Billy Graham says he was “moved to tears” at a private screening. The Crystal Cathedral’s Robert Schuller calls it a “powerful masterpiece.”
The film has been shown at the Vatican to rave reviews. James Dobson, whose Focus on the Family radio show reaches an estimated 9 million listeners each week, says “The Passion” is “easily the most heart-wrenching, powerful portrayal of Christ’s suffering that I have ever seen.”
Farther Augustine Di Noia, an under-secretary of the Church’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, declares, “Speaking as a Catholic theologian, I would be bound to condemn anti-Semitism or anti-Judaism in any recounting of the passion and death of Christ – and not just because of the terrible harm that has been done to Jewish people on these grounds, but also because…this represents a profound misreading of the passion narratives.”
Di Noia goes on to express what I believe to be the true Christian perspective -- that humanity itself is responsible for Christ’s suffering and death, and not just those involved in his trial and execution.
“It is always a serious misreading of the passion stories in the Gospel either to try to assign blame to one character or group in the story, or, more fatefully, to try to exempt oneself from blame,” says Di Noia. “The trouble with the last move is that, if I am not one of the blameworthy, then how can I be among those who share in the benefits of the cross?”
Critics have a serious problem. The script of Gibson’s movie comes directly – almost word for word -- from New Testament sources. If “The Passion” fuels, legitimizes and rationalizes Jew-hatred, then so does the Christian Bible.
At least Foxman has the intellectual honesty to follow his argument to its logical conclusion. “You know, the Gospels, if taken literally, can be very damaging, in the same way if you take the Old Testament literally,” the ADL leader observes. By the way, Abe, your Bible isn’t called the Old Testament but the Torah, and – yes – there still are some Jews who take it quite literally, including the parts that make you uncomfortable.
So, if not literally, how are Christians to interpret their Scriptures – metaphorically, symbolically, allegorically? Why can’t a Christian (one of the few in Hollywood) make a movie about his faith, which is true to his faith, without provoking charges of bigotry or insensitivity?
There’s a major flaw in the reasoning of Foxman and Friends. If the movie and the Gospels on which it’s based are anti-Semitic, then why are those Christians most faithful to the New Testament among the strongest supporters of Israel?
Most evangelical Christians are fervent defenders of the Jewish state. A decade ago, the term Christian Zionist was an oxymoron. Today, Christian Zionists outnumber their Jewish counterparts. Their organizations include Christians Israel Public Action Campaign, Christians for Israel, Religious Roundtable, Battalion of Deborah, Friends of Israel, Bridges for Peace, International Christian Zionist Center, International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem and National Christian Leadership Conference for Israel.
In October, 2002, the Christian Coalition – an organization whose founder was once reviled by Foxman – held a massive rally in support of Israel, which drew more than 10,000 to Washington, DC. I know, because I helped to organize it.
Christian fervor for Israel is based on the type of biblical literalism that Foxman considers a conduit to anti-Semitism. The evangelical perspective on Zion is also unambiguous: God gave the land to the Jews. God’s promises are eternal. End of story.
Christian philo-Semitism goes beyond support for Israel. The most forceful opponents of the new anti-Semitism, which festers throughout the Islamic world and has spread to Europe, include Pat Robertson, Gary Bauer, Alan Keyes, Dr. Dobson, Joe Farah, Elwood McQuaid, Jan Willem Van der Hoeven, Janet Parshall, Earl Cox, Christian Coalition President Roberta Combs and D. James Kennedy.
They believe the same Bible which teaches that Jesus is their savior also tells them to honor and defend the Jewish people. This is a far cry from the Christianity of the Middle Ages.
The idea that “The Passion” is going to excite an American Kristallnacht is truly twisted.
Today, organized Anti-Semitism is almost exclusively a Moslem phenomenon. Hatred of Jews thrives in mosques and madrashes. It’s propagated by Islamic religious authorities, from mullahs to ayatollahs.
At last year’s Organization of the Islamic Conference summit, Mahathir Mohamad, then-prime minister of Malaysia, delivered an anti-Semitic rant that would have done Goebbels proud. Egyptian television produced a 41-part dramatization of the Czarist fraud “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.” When John Paul II visited Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, the latter lectured the pope on the wickedness of the Jews, how they “corrupt all religions.” Only in the Middle East is the Medieval Blood Libel (the obscene belief that Jews use the blood of non-Jews in their rituals) still taken seriously.
A Jew can’t live in Saudi Arabia or own land in Jordan. The Saudis are particularly energetic in financing the anti-Jewish internationale. The schools they build from Indonesia to America teach Jewish conspiracy theories and the other intellectual baggage of anti-Semitism.
The Palestinian Authority has spent the past decade inculcating a virulent Jew hatred in the young. Suicide bombers don’t just happen; they are shaped and formed in a controlled environment.
Across Europe, mobs of Moslem youth burn synagogues, attack Jewish day schools and beat Jews in the streets. None of this is the result of reading the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 27.
In this world war, Christians are the natural allies of the Jewish people. Why insult them by condemning a tribute to their faith?
As a Jew, I take anti-Semitism very seriously. I was born the year after World War II ended. I’ve chocked with emotion while walking through Yad Vashem, the Holocaust museum in Jerusalem. I look at the faces in the faded photographs and think: That could have been my aged mother. The children being herded into the gas chambers could have been mine. In a sense, they were.
As a columnist, I spent nearly 20 years exposing Nation of Islam fascism, Moslem fundamentalism and the anti-Semitism (in the guise of anti-Zionism) spreading on our college campuses.
Jesus isn’t part of my religion. With all due respect to my Christian friends – who are legion – I do not believe that Jesus was God incarnate. (In the words of The Shema, I believe God is One.) I respect those who believe otherwise, as I hope they respect beliefs of mine with which they disagree.
Still, while disagreeing about His nature, Christians and Jews worship the same God. We share a moral code going back to Sinai, as well as the moral teachings of patriarchs and prophets.
I have been humbled by the acts of loving kindness I’ve seen Christians perform.
If all of this weren’t enough, the same forces which would pull down the Cross also seek to smash the Star of David and trample the Torah under their bloody boots. If Christians and Jews do not unite in the face of this international jihad – and make common cause with Hindus and Buddhists as well – we are all lost.
With the raw sewage being pumped out of the open cesspool that calls itself a creative community – songs the celebrate rape and the degradation of women, films that glorify violence and legitimize perversion and sexual anarchy – it’s ironic that some have chosen to attack a film that dramatizes sacrifice and redemption.
More power to Mel, say I. It’s rare to see a man with such power and influence willing to stand up for his faith in the face of a hostile culture. Instead of opposing him, Jews should be looking for someone like him willing to propagate the wisdom, beauty and truth of Judaism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Feder is a former Boston Herald writer who is now a political/communications consultant.
More Power to Mel
By Don Feder
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 10, 2004
Is Mel Gibson the intellectual heir of The Black Hundred (the notorious progromists of Czarist Russia) or is he merely indifferent to the fact that his cinematic project will “fuel and legitimize anti-Semitism?”
Gibson’s “The Passion of Christ” is scheduled to open in 2,000 theaters nationwide on Ash Wednesday, February 25.
From the outset, controversy has dogged the popular actor’s $25-million project based on the Gospels’ account of the final 12 hours in the life of Jesus. In one scene, deleted from the final cut of the film, the High Priest Caiaphas says of the condemned Jesus, “His blood be on us and our children.”
This incensed Abraham Foxman -- national director of The Anti-Defamation League and the film’s most scathing critic. A movie Christian leaders are hailing as the greatest religious work of art since the ceiling of the Sistene Chapel “can fuel, trigger, stimulate, induce, rationalize, legitimize anti-Semitism,” warned the kosher Chicken Little.
Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a man I respect far more than Foxman, has been nearly as censorious.
Writing in The Boston Globe, James Carroll (one of those “Catholic scholars” whose stock in trade is denying the essence of Catholicism) claims, “Even a faithful repetition of the Gospel stories of the death of Jesus can do damage exactly because those sacred texts themselves carry the virus of Jew-hatred.” Which raises an intriguing question: How can a text both be sacred and carry the seeds of anti-Semitism?
Besides the deleted “his blood be on us” scene, Foxman charges the movie, in Aramaic and Latin with English subtitles, “unambiguously portrays Jewish authorities and the Jewish mob as the ones responsible for the decision to crucify Jesus.” But it also unambiguously portrays Jesus, his mother (played by the daughter of Holocaust survivors), his disciples and his followers as Jewish.
Prominent Christians have come to the film’s defense. Evangelist Billy Graham says he was “moved to tears” at a private screening. The Crystal Cathedral’s Robert Schuller calls it a “powerful masterpiece.”
The film has been shown at the Vatican to rave reviews. James Dobson, whose Focus on the Family radio show reaches an estimated 9 million listeners each week, says “The Passion” is “easily the most heart-wrenching, powerful portrayal of Christ’s suffering that I have ever seen.”
Farther Augustine Di Noia, an under-secretary of the Church’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, declares, “Speaking as a Catholic theologian, I would be bound to condemn anti-Semitism or anti-Judaism in any recounting of the passion and death of Christ – and not just because of the terrible harm that has been done to Jewish people on these grounds, but also because…this represents a profound misreading of the passion narratives.”
Di Noia goes on to express what I believe to be the true Christian perspective -- that humanity itself is responsible for Christ’s suffering and death, and not just those involved in his trial and execution.
“It is always a serious misreading of the passion stories in the Gospel either to try to assign blame to one character or group in the story, or, more fatefully, to try to exempt oneself from blame,” says Di Noia. “The trouble with the last move is that, if I am not one of the blameworthy, then how can I be among those who share in the benefits of the cross?”
Critics have a serious problem. The script of Gibson’s movie comes directly – almost word for word -- from New Testament sources. If “The Passion” fuels, legitimizes and rationalizes Jew-hatred, then so does the Christian Bible.
At least Foxman has the intellectual honesty to follow his argument to its logical conclusion. “You know, the Gospels, if taken literally, can be very damaging, in the same way if you take the Old Testament literally,” the ADL leader observes. By the way, Abe, your Bible isn’t called the Old Testament but the Torah, and – yes – there still are some Jews who take it quite literally, including the parts that make you uncomfortable.
So, if not literally, how are Christians to interpret their Scriptures – metaphorically, symbolically, allegorically? Why can’t a Christian (one of the few in Hollywood) make a movie about his faith, which is true to his faith, without provoking charges of bigotry or insensitivity?
There’s a major flaw in the reasoning of Foxman and Friends. If the movie and the Gospels on which it’s based are anti-Semitic, then why are those Christians most faithful to the New Testament among the strongest supporters of Israel?
Most evangelical Christians are fervent defenders of the Jewish state. A decade ago, the term Christian Zionist was an oxymoron. Today, Christian Zionists outnumber their Jewish counterparts. Their organizations include Christians Israel Public Action Campaign, Christians for Israel, Religious Roundtable, Battalion of Deborah, Friends of Israel, Bridges for Peace, International Christian Zionist Center, International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem and National Christian Leadership Conference for Israel.
In October, 2002, the Christian Coalition – an organization whose founder was once reviled by Foxman – held a massive rally in support of Israel, which drew more than 10,000 to Washington, DC. I know, because I helped to organize it.
Christian fervor for Israel is based on the type of biblical literalism that Foxman considers a conduit to anti-Semitism. The evangelical perspective on Zion is also unambiguous: God gave the land to the Jews. God’s promises are eternal. End of story.
Christian philo-Semitism goes beyond support for Israel. The most forceful opponents of the new anti-Semitism, which festers throughout the Islamic world and has spread to Europe, include Pat Robertson, Gary Bauer, Alan Keyes, Dr. Dobson, Joe Farah, Elwood McQuaid, Jan Willem Van der Hoeven, Janet Parshall, Earl Cox, Christian Coalition President Roberta Combs and D. James Kennedy.
They believe the same Bible which teaches that Jesus is their savior also tells them to honor and defend the Jewish people. This is a far cry from the Christianity of the Middle Ages.
The idea that “The Passion” is going to excite an American Kristallnacht is truly twisted.
Today, organized Anti-Semitism is almost exclusively a Moslem phenomenon. Hatred of Jews thrives in mosques and madrashes. It’s propagated by Islamic religious authorities, from mullahs to ayatollahs.
At last year’s Organization of the Islamic Conference summit, Mahathir Mohamad, then-prime minister of Malaysia, delivered an anti-Semitic rant that would have done Goebbels proud. Egyptian television produced a 41-part dramatization of the Czarist fraud “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.” When John Paul II visited Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, the latter lectured the pope on the wickedness of the Jews, how they “corrupt all religions.” Only in the Middle East is the Medieval Blood Libel (the obscene belief that Jews use the blood of non-Jews in their rituals) still taken seriously.
A Jew can’t live in Saudi Arabia or own land in Jordan. The Saudis are particularly energetic in financing the anti-Jewish internationale. The schools they build from Indonesia to America teach Jewish conspiracy theories and the other intellectual baggage of anti-Semitism.
The Palestinian Authority has spent the past decade inculcating a virulent Jew hatred in the young. Suicide bombers don’t just happen; they are shaped and formed in a controlled environment.
Across Europe, mobs of Moslem youth burn synagogues, attack Jewish day schools and beat Jews in the streets. None of this is the result of reading the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 27.
In this world war, Christians are the natural allies of the Jewish people. Why insult them by condemning a tribute to their faith?
As a Jew, I take anti-Semitism very seriously. I was born the year after World War II ended. I’ve chocked with emotion while walking through Yad Vashem, the Holocaust museum in Jerusalem. I look at the faces in the faded photographs and think: That could have been my aged mother. The children being herded into the gas chambers could have been mine. In a sense, they were.
As a columnist, I spent nearly 20 years exposing Nation of Islam fascism, Moslem fundamentalism and the anti-Semitism (in the guise of anti-Zionism) spreading on our college campuses.
Jesus isn’t part of my religion. With all due respect to my Christian friends – who are legion – I do not believe that Jesus was God incarnate. (In the words of The Shema, I believe God is One.) I respect those who believe otherwise, as I hope they respect beliefs of mine with which they disagree.
Still, while disagreeing about His nature, Christians and Jews worship the same God. We share a moral code going back to Sinai, as well as the moral teachings of patriarchs and prophets.
I have been humbled by the acts of loving kindness I’ve seen Christians perform.
If all of this weren’t enough, the same forces which would pull down the Cross also seek to smash the Star of David and trample the Torah under their bloody boots. If Christians and Jews do not unite in the face of this international jihad – and make common cause with Hindus and Buddhists as well – we are all lost.
With the raw sewage being pumped out of the open cesspool that calls itself a creative community – songs the celebrate rape and the degradation of women, films that glorify violence and legitimize perversion and sexual anarchy – it’s ironic that some have chosen to attack a film that dramatizes sacrifice and redemption.
More power to Mel, say I. It’s rare to see a man with such power and influence willing to stand up for his faith in the face of a hostile culture. Instead of opposing him, Jews should be looking for someone like him willing to propagate the wisdom, beauty and truth of Judaism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Feder is a former Boston Herald writer who is now a political/communications consultant.
09 February 2004
9-11 & The Port of Seattle
In the almost two and half years since September 11, 2001 many aspects of life in our community have remained unchanged. We still come together as neighbors in the myriad ways which make Magnolia an oasis – and our home. Our lifestyles though, if not standards of living, have been impacted - most directly (some might say) by the multi-trillion dollar hit to the economy caused by the attacks. Meanwhile, those who choose to can completely ignore that America has gone to war. Try doing that in 1942. The largest overall deployment of fighting forces, equipment and munitions since the 1940’s is out there for the foreseeable. Whether you feel the war is a peripatetic obscenity, well, let’s leave that for another time, okay? In what has been the least-jingoistic mobilization of nation-building preemption since Kosovo, we have found ourselves in World War III. Against an enemy which, in this toxically overwrought age of political correctness, is only reluctantly discussed.
Meanwhile, in a most pleasant neighborhood along the north edge of Elliott Bay, the events of 9-11 instantly created an abiding awareness of its industrial uber-neighbor, the Port of Seattle. For me it started just after they cleared the airspace, when a Stealth Fighter patrolled up and down Puget Sound, shattering the rare quiet overhead with indignant asperity - and a thought as pertinacious as the stinging anger left by a slap in the face: this is serious, and this is war. What the hell is coming in to this country by ship, I fretted, if they could do that with planes? In the many time since 9-11 when I have volunteered in any of several capacities: block watch coordinator, SDART (community disaster teams), and (most recently) even doorbelling for the school levy – folks have time and again expressed concern about the port terminals “next door” to our neighborhood. “What are they doing about terrorism at the port?” This refrain comes up again and again.
As the years go by, I have heard about proactive plans, such as through a local emergency planning committee, to work closely (with our community in particular), to develop “Shelter-in-Place” guidelines. Getting indoors (remember duct tape and plastic sheeting?) is far and away the best means to limit your exposure to harm from a terrorist incident at the Port of Seattle. Chances are great that harm from a radiological “dirty bomb” or chemical/biological agent, hidden in a shipboard container set to explode, could be significantly minimized if all of us had those sealed rooms that Tom Ridge made the mistake of mentioning off-the-cuff at that infamous press conference. The trick is in the knowing when to shelter, and how well you are prepared to do so.
We in Magnolia are the “down winders” who would be potentially most at risk, from many of the most virulent forms of terrorist attack on our port, given the typical southerly wind patterns in this part of our region. This is the second part of the crux comment I have heard time and again from average citizens. It is the root cause of their heightened anxiety. Yet where have our leaders been in providing us with implementation of cutting-edge technology such as the LINC program to trigger civil defense response and shelter-in-place orders within seconds of a chemical, biological or nuclear plume emanating from a port terminal? Where are the public education programs which must accompany a civil defense plan of this type? Where is even the discussion of these issues by our leaders? This is not a once-and-done, we are doing our best, and it is all the Administration’s fault kind of political football. It has been two and half years since 9-11, we are fighting a war with billionaire terrorists who despise our values, our political system, our civilization and the freedom it offers. Nobody thinks, even for a moment, that they won’t be back. We need LINC sniffers and civil defense alert mechanisms on Magnolia Bluff.
Our local community club has members assigned to the Port’s Neighbor’s Advisory Committee (NAC). They have been looking out for us with regard to the threatening onslaught of school buses parking in the North Bay Uplands (having invoked the never-used dispute resolution mechanism with regard to that issue), but where are they on port security - addressing our concerns about terrorism? The NAC makes an annual report to the Port Commissioners, why not include the people they represent, and put us “in the loop” – finally getting around to the security issue? Not that I’m down on our neighbor volunteers, mind you, because to look at the City of Seattle’s Emergency Preparedness plan, there is a whole lot they can do – only after the fact of a terrorist incident. Maybe NAC members have read the report like I have, and are cynically resigned to the after the fact nature of our emergency planning in Seattle. Actually, I doubt they are, because they are good people – and we need to empower them to do what NAC does best. Namely: sink in the teeth and don’t let go. It is well past time to hector on this subject.
Maybe our NAC needs to know what the issues are with regard to port security. Might I suggest a briefing from our state’s junior Senator, particularly with regard to the year she has now spent as a member of the Commerce Committee? No doubt Maria Cantwell can give them a run-down on the issues, given that her new committee has made port security a top priority. No doubt she has a bill ready to go in the hopper to provide us (along with West Seattle and North Tacoma), as the closest residential neighborhoods to major port terminals in the nation – with what they need (LINC technology and civil defense alert systems) to realistically respond to an attack.
Or perhaps they can turn to our senior Senator for help. Patty Murray has made Bush-bashing over port security a prominent feature of her public persona. Murray proudly points to her heavy-handed smack-down of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge over funding of a whole laundry list of what are, unfortunately, largely responsive, rather than preventative measures. It is tragic that we do not begin to gain a sense of her vision of homeland security; particularly with regard to how it might be brought to bear in prevention of terrorist attacks at Port of Seattle marine cargo terminals. From her own website she asserts her preeminence in these matters:
“Senator Murray serves on the Senate Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee. She helps write the budget for - and has oversight of - the Coast Guard, the Transportation Security Administration, the Customs Service, and other entities responsible for port security. She is the highest ranking Democrat on the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee where she wrote the $60 billion bill that funds the Department of Transportation. Murray has become the leading voice in Congress to improve port security.”
That sounds like someone who should be working with the White House, not bashing it. That sounds like someone who has the ability to enunciate a vision, and make it happen. That sounds like someone who could, if she wanted to, arrange a tour of our port with W himself. Why would anyone do that, you ask? Maybe because part of politics is doing what you have to do, even in a political year, to do what’s right for your citizens. Senator Murray, ask yourself, what would Scoop and Maggie do?
Unfortunately, we have not even arrived at the major point at issue with this problem. That is, we have had plenty of emergency response planning around here. We need implementation of responsive programs. But more than that, we need to do what any risk manager will tell you are the most cost-effective ways to limit the expenses associated with disaster. We need to come to grips with the unfortunate fact that billions need to be spent, right here on Elliott Bay, in order to limit the exposure of a trillion dollar disaster. We need to come to grips with the enormity of emergency prevention planning measures. The most effective way to mitigate a disaster is to prevent it. So let’s talk about that with regard to the Port of Seattle on Elliott Bay, next to a neighborhood called Magnolia.
Next time you get a chance, take one hour, and become a tourist in your own town. Go to the observation level of the Columbia Tower – and look down at the Port of Seattle - straight down. You need to look down because the marine container terminals of our port are in such close proximity to the densely-packed glass towers of downtown Seattle. That is an enticing target, and any terrorist can see it. All of the other big-time major ports in the United States, particularly the ones like us here is Seattle (and thus with a higher probability of terrorist targeting potential) like Long Beach, California and Elizabeth, New Jersey – are at an enormous remove from densely packed office towers and residential neighborhoods. They are in sprawling industrial mega-zones. Even the Port of Tacoma presents a less-enticing terrorist target. Our port, with a beautiful downtown district and lovely neighborhoods ringing it, presents the mother-of-all profiles to an enemy planning the most bang for the buck. Seattle is in the cross-hairs, and we must wake up our leaders to that fact.
So, what could be done in terms of prevention of a terrorist attack on our doorstep? It would cost billions to bring about the curtailment of marine container port operations on Elliott Bay. Those costs would be offset in some significant part by shifting uses of marine port terminal land and pier aprons – it would allow equally productive urban growth potential, in other words. But it would still be expensive. From a risk management perspective, however, it is an easy decision because of the trillion dollar vulnerability to our economy based on business disruption in our downtown. Disruption that any of the “triple threat” hazards of chemical-biological-nuclear would cause. Our regional economy would be potentially benefited, however, by a consolidation of marine container operations to the Port of Tacoma. Particularly if such a move were accompanied by infrastructure improvement to our road and rail links to such a “mega-port” to boost efficiencies - and in the end it could be highly beneficial. The greatest downside to such a proposal is the entropy of our State Legislature – as an entire revamp of our public port laws gearing it toward regionalism would be required. In effect, a “Port of Puget Sound” with regionally-elected public oversight would be required. Let’s see, would the thoroughly entrenched “system” we now have work for this in the name of risk prevention, or will they tell you “don’t worry, be happy”?
Oh, and just out of curiosity, where does Jim McDermott fit in with regard to any influence whatsoever on this debate? Is he willing to spend one penny of “political capital” on legislation to provide better protection for us Port of Seattle “down winders”? I realize that this is not offered with the usual unguent sweetness he is used to being addressed with, but (without any antagonistic opprobrium) I have to ask him a favor: Before the next time you “go off” in loyal attack-dog mode against the “Administration in Occupation of the White House” - may we hope you ponder that there is much work to be done, and that you can actually have a positive, even irenic, role for once? Start by getting the president out here to understand the nature of the proximity of our marine port terminals to our downtown and neighborhoods. Before action there must be understanding. With understanding there can be agreement. With agreement we can do anything. Let’s roll.
Meanwhile, in a most pleasant neighborhood along the north edge of Elliott Bay, the events of 9-11 instantly created an abiding awareness of its industrial uber-neighbor, the Port of Seattle. For me it started just after they cleared the airspace, when a Stealth Fighter patrolled up and down Puget Sound, shattering the rare quiet overhead with indignant asperity - and a thought as pertinacious as the stinging anger left by a slap in the face: this is serious, and this is war. What the hell is coming in to this country by ship, I fretted, if they could do that with planes? In the many time since 9-11 when I have volunteered in any of several capacities: block watch coordinator, SDART (community disaster teams), and (most recently) even doorbelling for the school levy – folks have time and again expressed concern about the port terminals “next door” to our neighborhood. “What are they doing about terrorism at the port?” This refrain comes up again and again.
As the years go by, I have heard about proactive plans, such as through a local emergency planning committee, to work closely (with our community in particular), to develop “Shelter-in-Place” guidelines. Getting indoors (remember duct tape and plastic sheeting?) is far and away the best means to limit your exposure to harm from a terrorist incident at the Port of Seattle. Chances are great that harm from a radiological “dirty bomb” or chemical/biological agent, hidden in a shipboard container set to explode, could be significantly minimized if all of us had those sealed rooms that Tom Ridge made the mistake of mentioning off-the-cuff at that infamous press conference. The trick is in the knowing when to shelter, and how well you are prepared to do so.
We in Magnolia are the “down winders” who would be potentially most at risk, from many of the most virulent forms of terrorist attack on our port, given the typical southerly wind patterns in this part of our region. This is the second part of the crux comment I have heard time and again from average citizens. It is the root cause of their heightened anxiety. Yet where have our leaders been in providing us with implementation of cutting-edge technology such as the LINC program to trigger civil defense response and shelter-in-place orders within seconds of a chemical, biological or nuclear plume emanating from a port terminal? Where are the public education programs which must accompany a civil defense plan of this type? Where is even the discussion of these issues by our leaders? This is not a once-and-done, we are doing our best, and it is all the Administration’s fault kind of political football. It has been two and half years since 9-11, we are fighting a war with billionaire terrorists who despise our values, our political system, our civilization and the freedom it offers. Nobody thinks, even for a moment, that they won’t be back. We need LINC sniffers and civil defense alert mechanisms on Magnolia Bluff.
Our local community club has members assigned to the Port’s Neighbor’s Advisory Committee (NAC). They have been looking out for us with regard to the threatening onslaught of school buses parking in the North Bay Uplands (having invoked the never-used dispute resolution mechanism with regard to that issue), but where are they on port security - addressing our concerns about terrorism? The NAC makes an annual report to the Port Commissioners, why not include the people they represent, and put us “in the loop” – finally getting around to the security issue? Not that I’m down on our neighbor volunteers, mind you, because to look at the City of Seattle’s Emergency Preparedness plan, there is a whole lot they can do – only after the fact of a terrorist incident. Maybe NAC members have read the report like I have, and are cynically resigned to the after the fact nature of our emergency planning in Seattle. Actually, I doubt they are, because they are good people – and we need to empower them to do what NAC does best. Namely: sink in the teeth and don’t let go. It is well past time to hector on this subject.
Maybe our NAC needs to know what the issues are with regard to port security. Might I suggest a briefing from our state’s junior Senator, particularly with regard to the year she has now spent as a member of the Commerce Committee? No doubt Maria Cantwell can give them a run-down on the issues, given that her new committee has made port security a top priority. No doubt she has a bill ready to go in the hopper to provide us (along with West Seattle and North Tacoma), as the closest residential neighborhoods to major port terminals in the nation – with what they need (LINC technology and civil defense alert systems) to realistically respond to an attack.
Or perhaps they can turn to our senior Senator for help. Patty Murray has made Bush-bashing over port security a prominent feature of her public persona. Murray proudly points to her heavy-handed smack-down of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge over funding of a whole laundry list of what are, unfortunately, largely responsive, rather than preventative measures. It is tragic that we do not begin to gain a sense of her vision of homeland security; particularly with regard to how it might be brought to bear in prevention of terrorist attacks at Port of Seattle marine cargo terminals. From her own website she asserts her preeminence in these matters:
“Senator Murray serves on the Senate Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee. She helps write the budget for - and has oversight of - the Coast Guard, the Transportation Security Administration, the Customs Service, and other entities responsible for port security. She is the highest ranking Democrat on the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee where she wrote the $60 billion bill that funds the Department of Transportation. Murray has become the leading voice in Congress to improve port security.”
That sounds like someone who should be working with the White House, not bashing it. That sounds like someone who has the ability to enunciate a vision, and make it happen. That sounds like someone who could, if she wanted to, arrange a tour of our port with W himself. Why would anyone do that, you ask? Maybe because part of politics is doing what you have to do, even in a political year, to do what’s right for your citizens. Senator Murray, ask yourself, what would Scoop and Maggie do?
Unfortunately, we have not even arrived at the major point at issue with this problem. That is, we have had plenty of emergency response planning around here. We need implementation of responsive programs. But more than that, we need to do what any risk manager will tell you are the most cost-effective ways to limit the expenses associated with disaster. We need to come to grips with the unfortunate fact that billions need to be spent, right here on Elliott Bay, in order to limit the exposure of a trillion dollar disaster. We need to come to grips with the enormity of emergency prevention planning measures. The most effective way to mitigate a disaster is to prevent it. So let’s talk about that with regard to the Port of Seattle on Elliott Bay, next to a neighborhood called Magnolia.
Next time you get a chance, take one hour, and become a tourist in your own town. Go to the observation level of the Columbia Tower – and look down at the Port of Seattle - straight down. You need to look down because the marine container terminals of our port are in such close proximity to the densely-packed glass towers of downtown Seattle. That is an enticing target, and any terrorist can see it. All of the other big-time major ports in the United States, particularly the ones like us here is Seattle (and thus with a higher probability of terrorist targeting potential) like Long Beach, California and Elizabeth, New Jersey – are at an enormous remove from densely packed office towers and residential neighborhoods. They are in sprawling industrial mega-zones. Even the Port of Tacoma presents a less-enticing terrorist target. Our port, with a beautiful downtown district and lovely neighborhoods ringing it, presents the mother-of-all profiles to an enemy planning the most bang for the buck. Seattle is in the cross-hairs, and we must wake up our leaders to that fact.
So, what could be done in terms of prevention of a terrorist attack on our doorstep? It would cost billions to bring about the curtailment of marine container port operations on Elliott Bay. Those costs would be offset in some significant part by shifting uses of marine port terminal land and pier aprons – it would allow equally productive urban growth potential, in other words. But it would still be expensive. From a risk management perspective, however, it is an easy decision because of the trillion dollar vulnerability to our economy based on business disruption in our downtown. Disruption that any of the “triple threat” hazards of chemical-biological-nuclear would cause. Our regional economy would be potentially benefited, however, by a consolidation of marine container operations to the Port of Tacoma. Particularly if such a move were accompanied by infrastructure improvement to our road and rail links to such a “mega-port” to boost efficiencies - and in the end it could be highly beneficial. The greatest downside to such a proposal is the entropy of our State Legislature – as an entire revamp of our public port laws gearing it toward regionalism would be required. In effect, a “Port of Puget Sound” with regionally-elected public oversight would be required. Let’s see, would the thoroughly entrenched “system” we now have work for this in the name of risk prevention, or will they tell you “don’t worry, be happy”?
Oh, and just out of curiosity, where does Jim McDermott fit in with regard to any influence whatsoever on this debate? Is he willing to spend one penny of “political capital” on legislation to provide better protection for us Port of Seattle “down winders”? I realize that this is not offered with the usual unguent sweetness he is used to being addressed with, but (without any antagonistic opprobrium) I have to ask him a favor: Before the next time you “go off” in loyal attack-dog mode against the “Administration in Occupation of the White House” - may we hope you ponder that there is much work to be done, and that you can actually have a positive, even irenic, role for once? Start by getting the president out here to understand the nature of the proximity of our marine port terminals to our downtown and neighborhoods. Before action there must be understanding. With understanding there can be agreement. With agreement we can do anything. Let’s roll.
04 February 2004
"Good Government" As Mandated By Voters
This from today’s Seattle Post-Intelligencer: “District officials say approval of the levies will increase the total school tax bill from $803 last year on an average Seattle home worth $336,000 to a projected $865 in 2005, the first year the new levies would be reflected on tax bills. However, there's a chance taxpayers could also see a decrease, since the amount the district can collect annually on the operations levy is based on state and federal funding received, and some funding levels are dropping.”
That is a replacement property tax levy, by definition. And the voters rightly viewed it as such, despite the last minute effort of a local troglodyte blogger to sew confusion – and the irresponsibility of KIRO tabloid television in running the story on Super Bowl night – when the campaign had no fair means to counter the assertion. Responsible news outlets, like our local daily print media, go into a self-imposed “black out” the day before an election. For reasons of the appearance of partiality – just like that created by last minute hype in the KIRO tabloid story.
I worked on this levy campaign diligently, and hope to observe a rise in the turnout-to-support ratio here in the 98199. I made as many “get out the vote” phone calls as anyone I know, and have heard consistent commentary from informed citizens. They voted for these levy measures to support students and teachers, not bureaucrats and politicians. They want School Board Directors and financial managers to get back to task of empowering teachers and motivating students. They voted in spite of the lingering bad feeling and breach of public trust caused by former schools CFO Geri Lim and Superintendent Joseph Olchefske.
Yet more cause for concern has been the lack of accountability for academic integrity shown in the wake of the “Grade-gate” scandal at Franklin High School. And many members of the public, including those who are lukewarm at best about charter school impact on public education, are outraged at the arrogant lack of public process that preceded the School Board’s “slap down” of the charter schools concept – apparently ruling out even any further study of even a potential role here in Seattle.
Our public education leadership has their work cut out for them. School Board Directors should not assume that they have anything but “job one” to focus on: confusion about that can be cleared-up by any teacher in the Seattle School District.
That is a replacement property tax levy, by definition. And the voters rightly viewed it as such, despite the last minute effort of a local troglodyte blogger to sew confusion – and the irresponsibility of KIRO tabloid television in running the story on Super Bowl night – when the campaign had no fair means to counter the assertion. Responsible news outlets, like our local daily print media, go into a self-imposed “black out” the day before an election. For reasons of the appearance of partiality – just like that created by last minute hype in the KIRO tabloid story.
I worked on this levy campaign diligently, and hope to observe a rise in the turnout-to-support ratio here in the 98199. I made as many “get out the vote” phone calls as anyone I know, and have heard consistent commentary from informed citizens. They voted for these levy measures to support students and teachers, not bureaucrats and politicians. They want School Board Directors and financial managers to get back to task of empowering teachers and motivating students. They voted in spite of the lingering bad feeling and breach of public trust caused by former schools CFO Geri Lim and Superintendent Joseph Olchefske.
Yet more cause for concern has been the lack of accountability for academic integrity shown in the wake of the “Grade-gate” scandal at Franklin High School. And many members of the public, including those who are lukewarm at best about charter school impact on public education, are outraged at the arrogant lack of public process that preceded the School Board’s “slap down” of the charter schools concept – apparently ruling out even any further study of even a potential role here in Seattle.
Our public education leadership has their work cut out for them. School Board Directors should not assume that they have anything but “job one” to focus on: confusion about that can be cleared-up by any teacher in the Seattle School District.
Kerry's Vietnam "Baggage" Under the Carpet?
Froms Newsmax:
Vietnam Veteran Exposes Kerry's 'Phony' Anti-war Testimony
More and more facts are surfacing about the untrue claims John Kerry made as an anti-war activist after returning as a hero from Vietnam.
"Unfortunately, Mr. Kerry came home to Massachusetts, the one state George McGovern carried in 1972. He joined the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and emceed the Winter Soldier Investigation (both financed by Jane Fonda)," Stephen Sherman, who was a first lieutenant with the U.S. Army Fifth Special Forces Group (Airborne) in Vietnam in 1967-68, writes in today's Wall Street Journal.
"Many veterans believe these protests led to more American deaths, and to the enslavement of the people on whose behalf the protests were ostensibly being undertaken. But being a take-charge kind of guy, Mr. Kerry became a leader in the VVAW and even testified before Congress on the findings of the Investigation, which he accepted at face value.
"In his book 'Stolen Valor,' B.G. Burkett points out that Mr. Kerry liberally used phony veterans to testify to atrocities they could not possibly have committed. ...
"Mr. Kerry hasn't given me any reason to trust his judgment. As co-chairman of the Senate investigating committee, he quashed a revealing inquiry into the POW/MIA issue, and he supports trade initiatives with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam while blocking any legislation requiring Hanoi to adhere to basic human rights. ...
"Just as Mr. Kerry threw away medals only to claim them back again, Sen. Kerry voted to take action against Iraq, but claims to take that vote back by voting against funding the result. So I can understand my former comrade-in-arms hugging the man who saved his life, but not the act of choosing him for president out of gratitude. And I would hate to see anyone giving Mr. Kerry a sympathy vote for president just because being a Vietnam veteran is 'back in style,'" Sherman concludes.
Speech of John F. Kerry - Page S2479 Congressional Record
February 27, 1992
Mr. President, I also rise today--and I want to say that I rise reluctantly, but I rise feeling driven by personal reasons of necessity--to express my very deep disappointment over yesterday's turn of events in the Democratic primary in Georgia.
I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign, and that it has been inserted in what I feel to be the worst possible way. By that I mean that yesterday, during this Presidential campaign, and even throughout recent times, Vietnam has been discussed and written about without an adequate statement of its full meaning.
What is ignored is the way in which our experience during that period reflected in part a positive affirmation of American values and history, not simply the more obvious negatives of loss and confusion.
What is missing is a recognition that there exists today a generation that has come into its own with powerful lessons learned, with a voice that has been grounded in experiences both of those who went to Vietnam and those who did not.
What is missing and what cries out to be said is that neither one group nor the other from that difficult period of time has cornered the market on virtue or rectitude or love of country.
What saddens me most is that Democrats, above all those who shared the agonies of that generation, should now be refighting the many conflicts of Vietnam in order to win the current political conflict of a Presidential primary.
The race for the White House should be about leadership, and leadership requires that one help heal the wounds of Vietnam, not reopen them; that one help identify the positive things that we learned about ourselves and about our Nation, not play to the divisions and differences of that crucible of our generation.
We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it. Are we now, 20 years or 30 years later, to forget the difficulties of that time, of families that were literally torn apart, of brothers who ceased to talk to brothers, of fathers who disowned their sons, of people who felt compelled to leave the country and forget their own future and turn against the will of their own aspirations?
Are we now to descend, like latter-day Spiro Agnews, and play, as he did, to the worst instincts of divisiveness and reaction that still haunt America? Are we now going to create a new scarlet letter in the context of Vietnam? Certainly, those who went to Vietnam suffered greatly. I have argued for years, since I returned myself in 1969, that they do deserve special affection and gratitude for service. And, indeed, I think everything I have tried to do since then has been to fight for their rights and recognition.
But while those who served are owed special recognition, that recognition should not come at the expense of others; nor does it require that others be victimized or criticized or said to have settled for a lesser standard. To divide our party or our country over this issue today, in 1992, simply does not do justice to what all of us went through during that tragic and turbulent time.
I would like to make a simple and straightforward appeal, an appeal from my heart, as well as from my head. To all those currently pursuing the Presidency in both parties, I would plead that they simply look at America. We are a nation crying out for leadership, for someone who will bring us together and raise our sights. We are a nation looking for someone who will lift our spirits and give us confidence that together we can grow out of this recession and conquer the myriad of social ills we have at home.
We do not need more division. We certainly do not need something as complex and emotional as Vietnam reduced to simple campaign rhetoric. What has been said has been said, Mr. President, but I hope and pray we will put it behind us and go forward in a constructive spirit for the good of our party and the good of our country.
I thank our distinguished manager of the bill and the Senator from Delaware.
Portion of John Kerry remarks on NBC's "Meet the Press" May 6, 2001:
MR. RUSSERT: You mentioned you're a military guy. There's been a lot of
discussion about Bob Kerrey, your former Democratic colleague in the
Senate, about his talking about his anguish about what happened in Vietnam.
You were on this program 30 years ago as a leader of the Vietnam Veterans
Against the War. And we went back and have an audiotape of that and some
still photos. And your comments are particularly timely in this
overall discussion of Bob Kerrey. And I'd like for you to listen to
those with our audience and then try to put that war into some
context:
(Audiotape, April 18, 1971):
MR. CROSBY NOYES (Washington Evening Star): Mr. Kerry, you said at one time or
another that you think our policies in Vietnam are tantamount to genocide
and that the responsibility lies at all chains of command over there. Do
you consider that you personally as a Naval officer committed atrocities in
Vietnam or crimes punishable by law in this country?
KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that,
yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other
soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire
zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre
machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only
weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the
burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of
this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a
matter of written established policy by the government of the United States
from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men
who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed
off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law,
the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.
(End audiotape)
Vietnam Veteran Exposes Kerry's 'Phony' Anti-war Testimony
More and more facts are surfacing about the untrue claims John Kerry made as an anti-war activist after returning as a hero from Vietnam.
"Unfortunately, Mr. Kerry came home to Massachusetts, the one state George McGovern carried in 1972. He joined the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and emceed the Winter Soldier Investigation (both financed by Jane Fonda)," Stephen Sherman, who was a first lieutenant with the U.S. Army Fifth Special Forces Group (Airborne) in Vietnam in 1967-68, writes in today's Wall Street Journal.
"Many veterans believe these protests led to more American deaths, and to the enslavement of the people on whose behalf the protests were ostensibly being undertaken. But being a take-charge kind of guy, Mr. Kerry became a leader in the VVAW and even testified before Congress on the findings of the Investigation, which he accepted at face value.
"In his book 'Stolen Valor,' B.G. Burkett points out that Mr. Kerry liberally used phony veterans to testify to atrocities they could not possibly have committed. ...
"Mr. Kerry hasn't given me any reason to trust his judgment. As co-chairman of the Senate investigating committee, he quashed a revealing inquiry into the POW/MIA issue, and he supports trade initiatives with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam while blocking any legislation requiring Hanoi to adhere to basic human rights. ...
"Just as Mr. Kerry threw away medals only to claim them back again, Sen. Kerry voted to take action against Iraq, but claims to take that vote back by voting against funding the result. So I can understand my former comrade-in-arms hugging the man who saved his life, but not the act of choosing him for president out of gratitude. And I would hate to see anyone giving Mr. Kerry a sympathy vote for president just because being a Vietnam veteran is 'back in style,'" Sherman concludes.
Speech of John F. Kerry - Page S2479 Congressional Record
February 27, 1992
Mr. President, I also rise today--and I want to say that I rise reluctantly, but I rise feeling driven by personal reasons of necessity--to express my very deep disappointment over yesterday's turn of events in the Democratic primary in Georgia.
I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign, and that it has been inserted in what I feel to be the worst possible way. By that I mean that yesterday, during this Presidential campaign, and even throughout recent times, Vietnam has been discussed and written about without an adequate statement of its full meaning.
What is ignored is the way in which our experience during that period reflected in part a positive affirmation of American values and history, not simply the more obvious negatives of loss and confusion.
What is missing is a recognition that there exists today a generation that has come into its own with powerful lessons learned, with a voice that has been grounded in experiences both of those who went to Vietnam and those who did not.
What is missing and what cries out to be said is that neither one group nor the other from that difficult period of time has cornered the market on virtue or rectitude or love of country.
What saddens me most is that Democrats, above all those who shared the agonies of that generation, should now be refighting the many conflicts of Vietnam in order to win the current political conflict of a Presidential primary.
The race for the White House should be about leadership, and leadership requires that one help heal the wounds of Vietnam, not reopen them; that one help identify the positive things that we learned about ourselves and about our Nation, not play to the divisions and differences of that crucible of our generation.
We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it. Are we now, 20 years or 30 years later, to forget the difficulties of that time, of families that were literally torn apart, of brothers who ceased to talk to brothers, of fathers who disowned their sons, of people who felt compelled to leave the country and forget their own future and turn against the will of their own aspirations?
Are we now to descend, like latter-day Spiro Agnews, and play, as he did, to the worst instincts of divisiveness and reaction that still haunt America? Are we now going to create a new scarlet letter in the context of Vietnam? Certainly, those who went to Vietnam suffered greatly. I have argued for years, since I returned myself in 1969, that they do deserve special affection and gratitude for service. And, indeed, I think everything I have tried to do since then has been to fight for their rights and recognition.
But while those who served are owed special recognition, that recognition should not come at the expense of others; nor does it require that others be victimized or criticized or said to have settled for a lesser standard. To divide our party or our country over this issue today, in 1992, simply does not do justice to what all of us went through during that tragic and turbulent time.
I would like to make a simple and straightforward appeal, an appeal from my heart, as well as from my head. To all those currently pursuing the Presidency in both parties, I would plead that they simply look at America. We are a nation crying out for leadership, for someone who will bring us together and raise our sights. We are a nation looking for someone who will lift our spirits and give us confidence that together we can grow out of this recession and conquer the myriad of social ills we have at home.
We do not need more division. We certainly do not need something as complex and emotional as Vietnam reduced to simple campaign rhetoric. What has been said has been said, Mr. President, but I hope and pray we will put it behind us and go forward in a constructive spirit for the good of our party and the good of our country.
I thank our distinguished manager of the bill and the Senator from Delaware.
Portion of John Kerry remarks on NBC's "Meet the Press" May 6, 2001:
MR. RUSSERT: You mentioned you're a military guy. There's been a lot of
discussion about Bob Kerrey, your former Democratic colleague in the
Senate, about his talking about his anguish about what happened in Vietnam.
You were on this program 30 years ago as a leader of the Vietnam Veterans
Against the War. And we went back and have an audiotape of that and some
still photos. And your comments are particularly timely in this
overall discussion of Bob Kerrey. And I'd like for you to listen to
those with our audience and then try to put that war into some
context:
(Audiotape, April 18, 1971):
MR. CROSBY NOYES (Washington Evening Star): Mr. Kerry, you said at one time or
another that you think our policies in Vietnam are tantamount to genocide
and that the responsibility lies at all chains of command over there. Do
you consider that you personally as a Naval officer committed atrocities in
Vietnam or crimes punishable by law in this country?
KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that,
yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other
soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire
zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre
machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only
weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the
burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of
this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a
matter of written established policy by the government of the United States
from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men
who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed
off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law,
the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.
(End audiotape)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)