April 2012 – dwkcommentaries

An 1842 Journey from New York to the Iowa Territory

In May 1842 Rev. Charles Edwin Brown and his wife, Frances Lyon Brown, both 29 years old, and their two young sons (Benjamin Perry Brown, almost three years old, and Charles Perry Brown, one and a half years old) left their home in the small village of Warren in the central part of the State of New York to go on a Baptist missionary trip of roughly 1,500 miles to another small village, Maquoketa, in the eastern part of the Iowa Territory.

At the time Rev. Brown was the Pastor of the Baptist Church in Warren. Previously he had submitted an application for appointment as a missionary “in the distant West” with a preference for the Iowa Territory, and his application had been endorsed by the New York State Missionary Convention. Later the American Baptist Home Missionary Society appointed him to be a missionary to the forks of the Maquoketa River in Iowa at an annual salary of $100 plus $75 for travel expenses.

The Browns could not economically ship all of their household goods to Iowa so they sold everything except clothing, bedding, a table, a stand, a rocking chair and a small cook stove. These remnants weighed approximately 1,600 pounds.

This would not be an easy journey. Of course, there were no airplanes or automobiles on Interstate highways to take them there. Nor were there any cross-country railroads. An account of the journey that is set forth in the memoirs of Rev. Brown, my maternal great-great grandfather (2nd great-grandfather in Henry Louis Gates, Jr.’s parlance), provides a window into what life and transportation were like in the U.S. of 1842 when approximately 17 million people lived in the 26 states of the Union. (Four years later, in 1846, Iowa became the 29th state in the Union.)

The First Stage: Warren to Utica, New York

The initial stage of their trip for six or seven days, from Warren to Little Falls and Utica, New York, of approximately 130 miles presumably was by horse-drawn wagon. Utica, then a town with a population of approximately 13,000, was a terminus on the 17-year old Erie Canal that had been built to connect New York City’s harbor with Lake Erie and the other Great Lakes and thereby improve transportation into, and from, the interior of the U.S. This stage cost the family $15.00.

The Second Stage: Utica to Buffalo, New York

Map showing Present and Proposed Canal System — Erie Canal

On Monday, May 2nd, at Utica the Browns boarded the Little Western, a passenger packet or Line boat on the Erie Canal for the second stage of their journey. They had a comfortable cabin in the bow. The kitchen and dining cabin were in the stern with freight and baggage amidships. “With good company, clean wholesome food, a sober and accommodating master and crew, the two hundred mile trip from Utica to Buffalo was comfortable and pleasant.” As the boat did not run on Sunday, it was tied up for the day in Tonawanda, New York. This gave the family the opportunity to attend a Methodist Church worship service in the morning and for Rev. Brown to preach in the afternoon. On Monday (May 9th), they arrived in Buffalo, then a town of 18,000 people. The family’s total fare at 2 cents per mile for each adult was $8.00.

Buflograinelevator — The Dart Grain Elevator, Buffalo, NY, 1842

With the Erie Canal, Buffalo became a key junction for the shipment of western grain to the east coast and beyond as the Great Lakes ships were too big to go on the Erie Canal. Until 1842 loose grain on the ships had to be manually scooped into baskets and transferred to the wharves by block and tackle while sacks, barrels and casks of grain and flour had be to manually hauled to the wharves and then loaded onto the canal boats, oftentimes with an in-between hauling into and out of warehouses. In late 1842, however, this changed with the invention by Joseph Dart and Robert Dunbar of a grain elevator with a steam-powered conveyor belt and buckets for the direct transfer of grain from the ships to grain elevators on the land.

The Third Stage: Buffalo, New York to Chicago, Illinois

GREATWESTERNsteamer — Great Western Steamer

On May 9th, the family boarded the Great Western, a Great Lakes steamer, for the third stage of their journey. The four-year old, 185-foot Great Western was one of the largest and finest of the day and was the first to have a spacious upper cabin for its nearly 400 passengers. The entire hull was occupied by the boilers with holds for freight and wood.

Prior to completion of the Erie Canal in 1825, shipping on the Great Lakes was primarily on sailing craft as traffic was not sufficient to make the more-expensive steamers profitable to operate. The Erie Canal, however, expanded Lakes traffic so that steamers increasingly became the preferred mode of transportation as they offered fast, efficient and predictable delivery of passengers and freight.

The Great Lakes voyage on the Great Western steamer took six days before arrival on Sunday, May 15th, in the village of Chicago, population of approximately 5,000. Other than a storm the first night out, the trip was pleasant with short stops in Cleveland (population of 6,000) and Detroit (population of 9,000). Mrs. Brown commented that on the way they had seen the “pleasant villages” of Milwaukee, Racine and Southport, Wisconsin. The total fare for the family was $48.00.

The Fourth Stage: Chicago to Savanna, Illinois

After an overnight stay at the New York House, a two-story hotel in Chicago, Rev. Brown hired a man with horses and lumber wagon to take the family and their possessions the additional 200 miles to Savanna, Illinois on the Mississippi River. Their rocking chair and a small chair were put on top of the boxes for Mrs. Brown and the older son to sit on during the ride.

On Monday, May 16th, the fourth stage of the journey began in the lumber wagon. After two over-night stops, they arrived in the town of Rockford, Illinois, the home of the wagon owner. Unfortunately the owner had to testify in a trial, and the family was forced to stay there until the following Monday. The delay, however, gave Rev. Brown the opportunity to preach that Sunday in Rockford’s Baptist Church, his “first sermon in the west.”

On the following Monday after a day’s ride, near Crane’s Grove, Illinois, they asked Mrs. Crane, “middle aged and stout” with a pail of milk, if they could stay there that night. She replied, “Oh, I reckon, though I am mighty tired. The old cow gives a right smart of milk, well on to half a bushel.”

The next morning, the owner of the lumber wagon discovered that he had overfed his horses and one had died. Mr. Crane was then enlisted to take the Browns, again by horse-drawn wagon, the next 18 miles to Cherry Grove, Illinois, where the next day (May 24th) another man, Mr. Gardner, took the family to Savanna, Illinois on the Mississippi River. This was the Brown family’s first view “of the mighty river, its volume then being much greater than in later years.”

The Fifth Stage: Savanna, Illinois to Charleston, Iowa

MississippiRivernrSavanna — Mississippi River, Savanna, Illinois

The fifth stage of the journey on the evening of the 24th was a ferry across the Mississippi River from Savanna to Charleston (later Sabula), Iowa where they stayed the night in the local tavern. Perhaps the ferry looked like the one pictured at the right.

The Sixth Stage: Charleston to Maquoketa, Iowa

The next morning, May 25th, Rev. Brown hired yet another man and team to take them the final 25 to 30 miles to Maquoketa, Iowa. Around midnight they arrived at their destination, Mr. C. W. Doolittle’s cabin. “With cordial frontier hospitality . . . Mr. and Mrs. Doolittle turned out and welcomed us, prepared supper and then gave us their bed, while they found lodging for themselves and family in the cabin loft. Tired and worn by the long and tedious last day’s drive we slept sweetly and soundly, four in the bed, myself, wife and two children.”

Conclusion

This six-stage journey took a month: 6 or 7 days from Warren to Utica plus 24 days from Utica to Maquoketa.

Rev. Brown served as a Baptist missionary in Iowa for most of the following 36 years, a subject that will be examined in a subsequent post.

Miniscule Suggested Reform of the Dysfunctional U.S. Senate Rules

The U.S. Senate Rules, in my opinion, are an embarrassing blot on our democracy.

Just this week two Senators, Democrat Carl Levin and Republican Lamar Alexander, agreed that the Senate was “dysfunctional, gridlocked and broken.” They pointed out that the current Senate Rules require, at most steps of the legislative process, agreement from all 100 senators; absent unanimous agreement, the Rules entail a time-consuming process that requires a supermajority of 60 senators to move forward.

Levin and Alexander then proposed a revised rule that would allow the majority leader to bring a bill to the floor for a vote without the 60-vote process on condition that the bill would be open to all relevant amendments, but not to non-relevant amendments.

Any change to the Senate Rules to reduce or eliminate the ability of one Senator to block consideration of important matters is better than none. But this proposed change is too miniscule as is true for other suggested reforms on this subject in recent years.

Instead I advocate more significant changes.

First, the Senate should operate by majority rule except where the Constitution requires a supermajority (two-thirds) vote for (a) overriding a presidential veto or (b) consenting to the ratification of treaties or (c) proposing constitutional amendments or (d) expelling a member.

Second, the Senate should have weighted voting so that a Senator from a more populous state would have more clout than a Senator from a sparsely populated state. For example, a Senator from Wyoming (the least populous state) would have one vote while a Senator from California (the most populous state) would have 66 votes.

Such significant changes would recognize that in a democracy the wishes of the majority of the people should be the fundamental governing principle (except when the Constitution otherwise provides) and that our primary allegiance is as U.S. citizens, not citizens of 50 states.

Reactions to Charles Taylor’s Conviction

SierreLeonelogo — Special Court for Sierra Leone Logo

As reported in a prior post, on April 26th the Special Court for Sierra Leone convicted Charles Taylor, the former President of neighboring Liberia of 11 counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes. The hearing on his sentencing has been scheduled for May 16th with the sentence to be pronounced on May 30th. The deadline for any appeal is 14 days after the sentencing judgment.

Before we look at the reactions to that conviction, we should be aware of the gruesome details of what happened in Sierra Leone according to witnesses at Taylor’s trial. Here are only two examples. One male witness, “Then I put this other hand. Then he [a Sierra Leone rebel] chopped it, but when he chopped it it was not severed initially. He chopped it twice, and it hit here and some bones were broken in it. Then the third time it was severed.” Another male witness, “Well, they [the rebels] used to treat them [civilians] badly. They used to rape them. They used to kill them. Sometimes they even ate them.” A video with photos of some of the Sierra Leone victims should be watched as well as current photos from the country.

Another aspect of the trial needs highlighting. One of the challenges facing the prosecution was how to link Mr. Taylor in Liberia to the crimes committed in Sierra Leone. There was no paper trail showing orders from Taylor. Nor was there any evidence of his ever going to Sierra Leone. He was not at the scene of the crimes in that country, and the Liberian army was not involved. Instead the link was proven by radio and telephone communications from Taylor to the rebels in Sierra Leone, by shipments of arms and ammunition to the rebels from Taylor’s forces and by bank records showing transfers of funds to Taylor’s accounts from Sierra Leone.

The Special Court’s chief prosecutor, Brenda J. Hollis, who is a U.S. lawyer, said the conviction was a triumph for the idea that political leaders should be held accountable for their deeds in “the new reality of an international justice system.”

The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights stated that the conviction “marked a major milestone in the development of international justice. . . . A former President, who once wielded immense influence in a neighbouring [sic] country where tens of thousands of people were killed, mutilated, raped, robbed and repeatedly displaced for years on end, has been arrested, tried in a fair and thorough international procedure, and has now been convicted of very serious crimes.” Such a result, she said, was “a stark warning to other Heads of State who are committing similar crimes, or contemplating doing so.”

The U.S. Department of State issued an official statement welcoming the conviction as “an important step toward delivering justice and accountability for victims, restoring peace and stability in the country and the region, and completing the Special Court for Sierra Leone’s mandate to prosecute those persons who bear the greatest responsibility for the atrocities committed in Sierra Leone. The Taylor prosecution at the Special Court delivers a strong message to all perpetrators of atrocities, including those in the highest positions of power, that they will be held accountable.” The U.S. statement also noted that the U.S. “has been a strong supporter and the leading donor of the Special Court . . . since its inception. The successful completion of the Special Court’s work remains a top U.S. Government priority.”

Amnesty International (AI) asserted that the conviction sends “a clear message to leaders the world over that no-one is immune from justice.” However, AI lamented that because of the limited jurisdiction and funding of the Special Court, “Thousands of persons suspected of criminal responsibility for incidences of unlawful killings, rape and sexual violence, mutilations and the use of children in Sierra Leone’s armed conflict have never been investigated, much less prosecuted.” In addition, AI emphasized that “only a limited number of Sierra Leone’s thousands of victims who bear the terrible scars of the conflict have received reparations, despite the [provisions for reparations in the Sierra Leone] Peace Accord and the clear recommendations [for reparations] by [Sierra Leone’s] Truth and Reconciliation Commission.” AI also reiterated its call for the repeal of the amnesty provision in the Peace Accord and [for Sierra Leone’s] enactment of legislation defining crimes against humanity and war crimes as crimes under Sierra Leone law.”

Human Rights Watch had a similar reaction. It said the conviction “sends a message to those in power that they can be held to account for grave crimes.”

A New York Times editorial said the conviction “is a historic victory for justice and accountability: the first time a former head of state has been convicted by an international court since the Nuremberg trials after World War II. Mr. Taylor . . . richly deserves this distinction.” The editorial also reminded us that “other leaders . . . deserve the same fate” from the International Criminal Court in its prosecutions of the Ivory Coast’s brutal former president, Laurent Gbagbo, and Sudan’s current president, Omar Hassan al-Bashir.

The Guardian newspaper from London commented that the conviction was “an important step in what can only be described as the faltering path of international justice.” It noted that even though there were dysfunctional justice systems in Russia and China, it is “a safe bet that no Russian [or Chinese] leader will ever appear before an international court of justice for war crimes . . . . The same is true of . . . US or British generals for war crimes committed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Might, or a seat on the UN security council, still appears to be right. If the arm of international law is long, it is also selective. . . . If impunity is to end, jurisdiction has to be universal.”

Taylor’s conviction was for crimes against humanity and war crimes in Sierra Leone. But the conviction reminded Liberians of the horrible similar crimes committed in their country by Taylor and his forces.

Talor rebel — Charles Taylor (Rebel leader)

PresTaylor2 — Charles Taylor, President of Liberia

An expert on Liberia stated that in “Liberia, Mr. Taylor fought a brutal campaign against West African peacekeepers and other armed factions. As many as 250,000 Liberians out of a prewar population of just over [3,000,000] lost their lives, while more than [1,000,000] others became refugees — crimes for which no one has yet been held accountable. An internationally brokered peace deal in 1997 led to the travesty of a frightened population’s electing Mr. Taylor president for fear of what would happen if he did not get his way. He was driven from power only in 2003.” Moreover, “many of his closest former associates remain at large and active in public life . . . . Mr. Taylor’s ex-wife, Jewel Howard Taylor, who filed for divorce after his fall from power in part to protect her assets from international sanctions, is a member of the Liberian Senate. So is Prince Y. Johnson, a onetime Taylor ally who literally butchered President Samuel K. Doe at the start of the civil war and was so certain of his impunity that he had the entire episode videotaped for posterity. Far from becoming a pariah, Mr. Johnson played kingmaker in Liberia’s presidential election last year, delivering the bloc of votes that assured President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf a second term.”

The previously mentioned New York Times editorial said that Taylor now “must also be held accountable for his role in Liberia’s 14-year civil war. Liberia needs to enact the legislation to bring him, and the other murderous warlords from that era, to trial either in Liberian or international courts.”

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch also remembered that Taylor and his forces had committed grave crimes in his native Liberia, but had not been subject to any criminal prosecutions for those crimes. Said AI, “during “the 14-year Liberian civil war that raged while Taylor was first the leader of one of the numerous armed opposition groups and later the President, all parties to the conflict committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, including murders along ethnic lines, as well as torture, rapes and other crimes of sexual violence, abductions, and recruitment and use child soldiers.” After the end of the civil war, AI said the Liberian Truth and Reconciliation commission had recommended “that a criminal tribunal be established to prosecute people identified as responsible for crimes under international law [but that it] is yet to be implemented, as are most TRC recommendations on legal and other institutional reforms, accountability, and reparations. The lack of justice for the victims of the Liberian conflict is shocking. The government of Liberia must end the reign of impunity by enacting the necessary legislation and acting on its duty to investigate and prosecute alleged perpetrators.”

Finally, two African observers commented that justice having “had to come from international courts does not reflect well on . . . Liberia in particular. The process exposes the failure by Liberians to provide themselves with a legal and judiciary system capable of effectively administering justice.” More generally “the verdict and the process should be a wakeup call to Africans. The successful conviction for such crimes is a glaring example of the failure of Africans to govern themselves effectively. . . . Africans must focus on building strong institutions to deal with human rights violations ourselves . . . .” On the other hand, the conviction “informs future Liberian, and indeed African, dictators and tyrants that they cannot escape justice by hedging their bets on a dysfunctional domestic legal system. Where national systems are incapable of adequately and effectively prosecuting leaders who engage in wanton violations of human rights, citizens can look to the international criminal court for justice.”

Former Liberian President Convicted of Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes

On April 26, 2012, the Special Court for Sierra Leone convicted Charles Taylor, the former President of neighboring Liberia, of 11 counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes as defined in the Court’s governing Statute.

The Court’s judgment was based upon detailed findings that the prosecution had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that:

Sierra Leone rebels had committed crimes against humanity in Sierra Leone by murder (Count 2), rape (Count 4), sexual slavery (Count 5), other inhumane acts (Count 8) and enslavement (Count 10).

Said rebels had committed violations of Common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions and of their Additional Protocol II in Sierra Leone by acts of terrorism (Count 1), violence to life, health and physical or mental well-being of persons, in particular murder (Count 3); outrages upon personal dignity (Count 6); violence to life, health and physical or mental well-being of persons, in particular cruel treatment (Count 7); and pillage (Count 11).

Said rebels had committed violations of international humanitarian law in Sierra Leone by conscripting or enlisting children under the age of 15 years into armed forces or groups, or using them to participate actively in hostilities (Count 9).

Mr. Taylor had provided practical assistance, encouragement and moral support that had a substantial effect on the commission of said crimes by the rebels, and he knew that such crimes were being committed and that his actions would provide said practical assistance, encouragement or moral support to the commission of such crimes. Therefore, Mr. Taylor was guilty of the crime of aiding and abetting the commission of such crimes.

The Court, however, determined that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Taylor had participated in a common plan, design or purpose to commit the rebels’ crimes.

Mr. Taylor will be sentenced in the coming weeks. There is no death penalty in international criminal law, and any prison term would be served in a British prison pursuant to a special agreement with the Court.

The Court was established in 2002 in a partnership between the United Nations and Sierra Leone to prosecute those responsible for atrocities in a conflict that led almost half the population to flee and left an estimated 50,000 dead. With its main seat in Sierra Leone’s capital of Freetown, the Court already has sentenced eight other leading members from different forces and rebel groups for crimes in Sierra Leone. Mr. Taylor is its last defendant whose trial was moved to The Hague in the Netherlands for fear of causing unrest in the region where he still has followers.

Not since Karl Doenitz, the German admiral who briefly succeeded Hitler upon his death, was tried and sentenced by the International Military Tribunal has a head of state been convicted by an international court.

U.S. Establishes Atrocities Prevention Board

On April 23, 2012, President Obama formally established the U.S. Atrocities Prevention Board (APB), a standing, inter-agency body responsible for coordinating policy on preventing mass atrocities and responding to genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The President announced that the APB will help the U.S. government identify and address atrocity threats, and it will oversee institutional changes that will make the U.S. more nimble and effective on these issues. The intelligence community will collect and analyze information that allows the U.S. to improve its anticipation, understanding, and counters to atrocity threats. U.S. diplomats will encourage more robust multilateral efforts to prevent and respond to atrocities. The U.S. military and civilian workforce will be better equipped to prevent and respond to atrocities.

The APB also will promote new kinds of targeted sanctions; denial of entry to the U.S. of perpetrators of serious violations of human rights or humanitarian law or other atrocities; “surging” of specialized expertise in civilian protection on a rapid response basis in crisis situations; and blocking the flow of money to abusive regimes. In addition, the APB will monitor agencies’ compilation of after-action “lessons-learned” reports to record key innovations, areas of success, and issues requiring future work in the area of atrocity prevention and response. The USAID will award grants for innovative technologies that strengthen the U.S. government’s capacity for early warning, prevention, and response with respect to mass atrocities.

This presidential statement further announced efforts to hold accountable perpetrators of mass atrocities and genocide by strengthening the U.S. ability to prosecute perpetrators of atrocities found in the U.S. and to use immigration laws and immigration-fraud penalties to hold accountable perpetrators of mass atrocities.

In addition, the U.S. will support national, hybrid, and international mechanisms (including, among other things, commissions of inquiry, fact-finding missions, and tribunals) that seek to hold accountable perpetrators of atrocities when doing so advances U.S. interests and values, consistent with the requirements of U.S. law. This will include witness protection measures and technical assistance in connection with foreign and international prosecutions. The Administration will seek additional statutory authority to make reward payments for information that leads to the arrest of foreign nationals indicted for war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide by international, hybrid, or mixed criminal tribunals.

As the ad hoc international criminal tribunals and hybrid courts are nearing the end of their lives and as the permanent International Criminal Court (ICC) has jurisdiction over the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, the APB has let it be known that it will be continuing the Obama Administration’s policy of positive engagement with the ICC by assisting the ICC in accordance with this presidential statement.

The Chair of the APB is Samantha Power, the U.S. National Security Council Senior Director for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights and the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of A Problem from Hell, a study of the U.S. foreign-policy response to genocide. Other APB members are senior officials from the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security, and government entities such as the U.S. Agency for International Development, the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Office of the Vice President. U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for Global Criminal Justice Stephen Rapp will also work closely with the APB.

The APB met for the first time on April 23rs at the White House. This was followed by panel presentations by experts and government officials, as well as interactions with civil society. Earlier in the day at the U.S. Holocaust Museum, President Obama said that the work of the APB, the first of its kind, is “not an afterthought,” and that preventing atrocity crimes “is not a sideline in our foreign policy.”

The APB owes its genesis to an August 2011 Presidential Study Directive declaring that “[p]reventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility” of the U.S. Therefore, the Directive called for the establishment of the APB “to coordinate a whole of government approach to preventing mass atrocities and genocide.” The objectives of such a board were to “ensure: (1) that our national security apparatus recognizes and is responsive to early indicators of potential atrocities; (2) that departments and agencies develop and implement comprehensive atrocity prevention and response strategies in a manner that allows ‘red flags’ and dissent to be raised to decision makers; (3) that we increase the capacity and develop doctrine for our foreign service, armed services, development professionals, and other actors to engage in the full spectrum of smart prevention activities; and (4) that we are optimally positioned to work with our allies in order to ensure that the burdens of atrocity prevention and response are appropriately shared.”

“Christians of the Holy Land” on CBS-TV’s 60 Minutes

PalestinianChristiansProcession1_620x350 — Roman Catholic Procession in Palestine

As noted in a prior post, on April 22nd CBS-TV’s 60 Minutes aired the report “Christians of the Holy Land.” It reported that Christians have been leaving Palestine in large numbers for years and that its Christian population is now less than two percent. The program explored differing explanations for this decline.

Rev. Dr. Mitri Raheb, the Pastor of Evangelical Lutheran Christmas Church, said that Palestinian Christians, once a powerful minority, are becoming the invisible people, squeezed between a growing Muslim majority and burgeoning Israeli settlements. “If you see what’s happening in the West Bank, you will find that the West Bank is becoming more and more like a piece of Swiss cheese where Israel gets the cheese that is the land, the water resources, the archaeological sites. And the Palestinians are pushed in the holes behind the walls.”

The Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren, however, vigorously disagreed. He asserted that the Christians in Palestine were being persecuted by Islamic extremism and that the Israeli government did not bother to respond to a 2009 Christian document, Kairos, because it allegedly made inflammatory accusations that Israel had crimes historically associated with anti-Semitism.

Rev. Raheb and others rejected the Ambassador’s assertion that Islamic extremism was the basic cause of the Christian exodus. Raheb said he was a member of the Christian group that wrote and published Kairos: A Moment of truth: A word of faith, hope and love from the heart of Palestinian suffering. This document, he said, criticized Islamic extremism and advocated non-violent resistance to the Israeli occupation which they called a sin against God. This document was endorsed by the leaders of 13 Christian denominations, including Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Lutheran and Anglican.

On May 6th Rev. Raheb will be preaching at the 10:30 a.m. (CDT) worship service at Minneapolis’ Westminster Presbyterian Church. This will be the concluding event in its Palestinian Arts Festival.

The Kairos Document

The 60 Minutes reference to the Kairos document calls for a more complete account of its contents. It is available on the web and opens with descriptions of what it calls “The reality on the ground: ” “Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories, deprivation of our freedom.” Here are the specifics of that accusation:

“1.1.1 The separation wall erected on Palestinian territory, a large part of which has been confiscated for this purpose, has turned our towns and villages into prisons, separating them from one another, making them dispersed and divided cantons. Gaza, especially after the cruel war Israel launched against it during December 2008 and January 2009, continues to live in inhuman conditions, under permanent blockade and cut off from the other Palestinian territories.”
“1.1.2 Israeli settlements ravage our land in the name of God and in the name of force, controlling our natural resources, including water and agricultural land, thus depriving hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, and constituting an obstacle to any political solution.”
“1.1.3 Reality is the daily humiliation to which we are subjected at the military checkpoints, as we make our way to jobs, schools or hospitals.”
“1.1.4 Reality is the separation between members of the same family, making family life impossible for thousands of Palestinians, especially where one of the spouses does not have an Israeli identity card.”
“1.1.5 Religious liberty is severely restricted; the freedom of access to the holy places is denied under the pretext of security. Jerusalem and its holy places are out of bounds for many Christians and Muslims from the West Bank and the Gaza strip. Even Jerusalemites face restrictions during the religious feasts. Some of our Arab clergy are regularly barred from entering Jerusalem.”
“1.1.6 Refugees are also part of our reality. Most of them are still living in camps under difficult circumstances. They have been waiting for their right of return, generation after generation. What will be their fate?”
“1.1.7 And the prisoners? The thousands of prisoners languishing in Israeli prisons are part of our reality. The Israelis move heaven and earth to gain the release of one prisoner, and those thousands of Palestinian prisoners, when will they have their freedom?”
“1.1.8 Jerusalem is the heart of our reality. It is, at the same time, symbol of peace and sign of conflict. While the separation wall divides Palestinian neighbourhoods, Jerusalem continues to be emptied of its Palestinian citizens, Christians and Muslims. Their identity cards are confiscated, which means the loss of their right to reside in Jerusalem. Their homes are demolished or expropriated. Jerusalem, city of reconciliation, has become a city of discrimination and exclusion, a source of struggle rather than peace.”
“1.2 Also part of this reality is the Israeli disregard of international law and international resolutions, as well as the paralysis of the Arab world and the international community in the face of this contempt. Human rights are violated and despite the various reports of local and international human rights’ organizations, the injustice continues.”

The Kairos document concludes with these appeals to the peoples of Palestine and beyond:

“8. Finally, we address an appeal to the religious and spiritual leaders, Jewish and Muslim, with whom we share the same vision that every human being is created by God and has been given equal dignity. Hence the obligation for each of us to defend the oppressed and the dignity God has bestowed on them. Let us together try to rise up above the political positions that have failed so far and continue to lead us on the path of failure and suffering.”

“9.1 This is a call to see the face of God in each one of God’s creatures and overcome the barriers of fear or race in order to establish a constructive dialogue and not remain within the cycle of never-ending manoeuvres [sic] that aim to keep the situation as it is. Our appeal is to reach a common vision, built on equality and sharing, not on superiority, negation of the other or aggression, using the pretext of fear and security. We say that love is possible and mutual trust is possible. Thus, peace is possible and definitive reconciliation also. Thus, justice and security will be attained for all.”

“9.3 Trying to make the state a religious state, Jewish or Islamic, suffocates the state, confines it within narrow limits, and transforms it into a state that practices discrimination and exclusion, preferring one citizen over another. We appeal to both religious Jews and Muslims: let the state be a state for all its citizens, with a vision constructed on respect for religion but also equality, justice, liberty and respect for pluralism and not on domination by a religion or a numerical majority.”

“9.4 To the leaders of Palestine we say that current divisions weaken all of us and cause more sufferings. Nothing can justify these divisions. For the good of the people, which must outweigh that of the political parties, an end must be put to division. We appeal to the international community to lend its support towards this union and to respect the will of the Palestinian people as expressed freely.”

“10. In the absence of all hope, we cry out our cry of hope. We believe in God, good and just. We believe that God’s goodness will finally triumph over the evil of hate and of death that still persist in our land. We will see here ‘a new land’ and ‘a new human being,’ capable of rising up in the spirit to love each one of his or her brothers and sisters.”

International Criminal Court Launches 10th Anniversary Website

On April 20, 2012, the International Criminal Court (ICC) launched a separate website to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the entry into force of the Rome Statute.

After 60 States had ratified the Rome Statute, the ICC started its activities on July 1, 2002.

Ten years later the Court is a fully functional institution supported by 121 States Parties. It has undertaken seven investigations, 15 cases and issued 20 arrest warrants. Earlier this year it had its first conviction.

The new website provides free tools, including publications and audio-visual materials, for those hosting events to celebrate this anniversary. The website features a calendar of such events, a photo gallery, press releases, and further background information about the Court.

Palestinian Christian Leader To Appear on CBS-TV’s “60 Minutes” TODAY

WPCSanctuary_2 — Westminster Presbyterian Church

Today (April 22nd), Rev. Dr. Mitri Raheb, the Pastor of Evangelical Lutheran Christmas Church in Bethlehem, Palestine, will appear on CBS-TV’s “60 Minutes” program.

Two weeks later (May 6th) Rev. Raheb will be preaching at the 10:30 a.m. (CDT) worship service at Minneapolis’ Westminster Presbyterian Church. This will be the concluding event in Westminster’s Palestinian Arts Festival.

“Healing the Heart of Democracy”

On April 19th Parker Palmer spoke on “Healing the Heart of Democracy” at Minneapolis’ Westminster Town Hall Forum. This Forum was co-sponsored by United Theological Seminary of the Twin Cities. A video of the Forum is available on the web.

The talk was drawn from his 2001 book, Healing the Heart of Democracy: The Courage to Create a Politics Worthy of the Human Spirit. “Heart” for this purpose means the core of the human self and includes all human faculties, not just emotions. Palmer then identified five “habits of the heart” (a phrase coined by Alexis de Tocqueville in the early 19th century) that help make democracy possible.

The first such habit was an understanding that we are all in this together. All of us need to embrace the fact that we are dependent upon, and accountable to, one another, including the stranger.

The second habit was an appreciation of the value of “otherness.” Although we are interdependent with everyone, we spend most of our lives in “tribes” or lifestyle enclaves. Thus, when we encounter people who are not part of our “tribe,” we need to practice the ancient tradition of hospitality to the stranger and see strangers as opportunities to learn about other aspects of human life, as ambassadors from different circumstances.

An ability to hold tension in life-giving ways was the third habit of the heart Palmer described. Our lives are filled with contradictions that we can use to expand our hearts and open our lives to new understandings of ourselves and our world.

The fourth habit was developing and using a sense of our own personal voice and agency. We need to be participants, not spectators in the issues of our day. Speak out and act out your own version of the truth while checking and correcting it against the truths of others.

Palmer’s final habit of the heart was developing a capacity to create community. Communities do not come ready-made. We must create community in the places where we live and work.

In the U.S. today, however, Palmer asserted, we are engaged in the politics of the broken-hearted. Sometimes this erupts in rage and violence. Violence happens when people do not know what else to do with their suffering. Other times the broken heart can cause new capacity for change.

Palmer concluded his remarks by saying he will always put his money on hope. Hope always gives him something to do.

Parker Palmer is a writer, activist and founder of the Center for Courage and Renewal. He is the author of nine books. He holds a B.A. degree from Minnesota’s Carleton College and a Ph.D. from the University of California at Berkeley.

Legal Entities Not Liable under the Torture Victims Protection Act

U.S.SupremeCt — U.S. Supreme Court Building

On April 18, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided that legal entities, including corporations, are not liable under the Torture Victims Protection Act (TVPA).

The TVPA provides a civil cause of action for money damages by an “individual” who is a victim of torture or by his or her representative for extrajudicial killing against an “individual” who committed the wrong under authority or color of law of any foreign nation. The opinion for the Supreme Court by Justice Sotomayor held that the word “individual” in the statute encompasses only natural persons and thus does not impose liability against organizations. This conclusion was supported, the opinion stated, by the ordinary meaning of the word “individual” and the absence of any indication in the statute itself that Congress intended the word to have a different meaning. In addition, the counterarguments, including the legislative history of the TVPA, were not persuasive.

Justice Scalia joined the Sotomayor opinion, except for the portion that found support for its conclusion in the legislative history of the TVPA. Justice Breyer also joined the Sotomayor opinion, but filed a concurring opinion that said he did not believe the ordinary meaning of the word “individual” alone was sufficient to justify the Court’s conclusion, but that the legislative history supported the Court’s conclusion.

The unanimity of the Court and the issuance of the opinion only 49 days after the argument confirm my earlier opinion that this was an easy case for non-liability of organizations.

Congress, of course, at any time could amend the TVPA to expand or restrict the applicability of the statute.