Background:

The Buddha of the Dead Sea is about a fictitious holy man who lives alone in a Lotus flower-shaped houseboat in the middle of the Dead Sea. He is on a widely-known, non-stop praying mission to convert the Dead Sea to a Living Sea of fresh water, and thereby convert the whole of the Middle East to a Buddha land.

Thesis: The only way to achieve peace in the Middle East is to debunk the Abrahamic faiths by showing the power of the Buddha Way.

Invitation to you:

I would love to see a play or a movie based on this concept, for which I claim original visionary credit. However, the writing of plays or of movies is beyond the scope of my abilities. Therefore, I invite you to do the writing, and to feel free to use any of the following ideas I've listed.

Naturally, any and all rights would belong to you. As for my own reward: Just knowing I'd inspired you would be more than enough.

A Sketch of the Lead Actors

The Dead Sea itself:

There are aspects of the Dead Sea which would serve well to describe the Middle East. These can also serve to compare Abrahamic to Buddhistic notions of life and death:

• Its shores are the lowest areas of land on earth, at over 1,300 feet below sea level. So, like the Middle East, the Dead Sea is in a "low" way, its waters (a symbol of life) dead-ended with nowhere to go.

• The small size of the Dead Sea makes it an ideal and intimate stage upon which this story is played out. Were it too large, the Buddha of the Dead Sea wouldn't loom that large himself.

• Water, by virtue of entering the Dead Sea, "dies" (that is, loses its potential) by having to remain in that body. Such water could be reincarnated (or come back to life, as it were) only after it leaves the Sea by evaporating and then falling elsewhere as life-giving rain.

• The Dead Sea is one of the world's saltiest (deadest) bodies of waters. It is becoming even "deader" by having its fresh, incoming waters diverted for human and agricultural use. There is a real danger that this icon could disappear entirely and, even though "dead," end up wreaking environmental havoc (causing more death, quite literally) due to its absence. [It's interesting how the dead support the living.]

• There are plans, in the exploratory phase only, to dig a canal connecting the Red Sea to the Dead Sea, in hopes of raising its level. This project would also provide hydroelectric power as the Red Sea waters power turbines by means of the power of their downward flow toward the Dead Sea. This same downward pressure could be used in a Reverse Osmosis process to provide fresh drinking water, though the downside to that is the salts that are filtered out would be flushed into the Dead Sea.

• The Bible speaks prophetically of the Dead Sea healing and becoming a body of fresh water, with fish living in it some day (Ezekiel 47). However, the way in which it becomes a Living Sea is by means of an ironic Buddhist fulfillment of this prophecy, which serves as the climax of my story.

The Dead Sea Buddha himself:

This is the main character in my story - a true mystery man unknown by anybody, with no traceable history. Referring to himself simply as the Buddha of the Dead Sea, he lacks even a name, birth certificate, or any documentation that he even exists. Furthermore, he denies that he is a citizen of any country. Complicating matters for any who would try to discern his origins, he speaks several languages fluently.

He encounters no objections from Israeli or Jordanian authorities when he asks permission to live in solitude in the middle of the Dead Sea on a floating houseboat (described below). His wealth, in the form of gold of uncertain origin, suffices to build this houseboat and to arrange for supplies to be flown in occasionally via seaplane.

The Lotus

The Lotus is the name of the houseboat, which is the Buddha's dwelling. The flowering plant known as the lotus is a significant symbol among Nichiren Buddhists, with whom I am personally connected.

This plant, lovely to behold as it floats serenely on the surface of a pond, actually draws its nourishment via a root feeding off the muck on the bottom. Comparing it to a human being, the flower represents the potential all of us have to manifest the "bloom" of Buddhahood - even though we are connected to and nourished by muck (that is, by our earthly desires).

Also, the Lotus is a symbol of an important concept in Mahayana Buddhism - the simultaneity of cause and effect. The fact that the Lotus is the only plant that flowers and seeds at the same time, is interpreted symbolically as meaning:

When a person takes appropriate action (creating a cause) leading toward enlightenment, there is an immediate (though subtle, internal) effect which is a manifestation of this enlightenment. That's what's meant by "the simultaneity of cause and effect," which refutes the notion that any possible manifestation of effect takes place much later.

Two dedicated disciples of this Buddha

These two provide logistical support for Dead Sea Buddha, arranging for occasional deliveries of supplies he needs. These two are also unknown, untraceable mystery men but they are unique and provocative in their appearance. They'd dyed their skin and hair saffron (a traditional Buddhist color), and wear saffron-colored clothes. However, one wears his hair and clothes in the style of a Hasidic Jew; the other of an (Islamic) Whirling Dervish.

All appearances are just that - only appearances - as the "dervish" states, "Before becoming a Buddhist, I was a Jew," and the Hasidim states, "Before becoming a Buddhist, I was a Muslim." Both men, however, are inseparably close friends, explaining to people, "In a past life, we were brothers."

The authorities

Toward the end of this story, there is a scene on the Lotus, featuring a confrontation between this Buddha and men (it's always men, isn't it?) who represent the interests of the locals. Four are from the Israeli side, and four are from the Islamic side - each group having one member from the clerical side.

The Buddha makes an offer to these men, after performing a miracle in their presence. This offer is the dramatic high point of this piece.

The Setting:

In the near future, at the time when the Red Sea to Dead Sea Canal is nearing completion, the Buddha of the Dead Sea invites the eight men (referred to, above) to receive a gift from him. He had already sent them a plan, of his own creation, detailing a revolutionary new technology for desalination of the waters about to flow in from the Red Sea. He is able to lure them to the Lotus by promising something even more profound, but only to be bestowed on board the Lotus.

The climax

It is late in the evening when the eight men of authority board the Lotus to meet the Buddha and receive his gift. After pleasantries are exchanged, the Buddha gives each of his guests a large cup and instructs them to dip it into the Dead Sea and drink the water.

The eight look at each other, and one finally says, "You know we can't drink that water - unless ... unless these cups are designed to make fresh water out of salty."

The Buddha says that these are just cups to hold water, not to change it. But he also says, "Go ahead and drink anyway. If you are not sure, then take only a small sip."

The guests do as instructed and are amazed to be drinking fresh water. Then the Buddha's two disciples, witnessing this from nearby, look at each other, nod in agreement, and then take a running leap into the (now) Living Sea, letting out a hearty "Yee-ha!" before disappearing below the waves.

When they surface, one yells out, "Look! I can swallow this in good health!" Another one fumbles with his hands and yanks something to the surface, "Look! A fish! For the first time in 2,000 years, a fish lives in the Dead Sea!"

Later, when pressed for an explanation, the Buddha tells these authorities that he just now made the entire Dead Sea into a body of fresh water - "no more salt!" And he adds: "If you have any doubt about the power of a Buddha to perform this kind of miracle, then you have much to learn about Buddhism."

But there's a catch:

The Buddha informs his guests that this now-living sea won't stay that way, unless each of the eight agrees - before dawn - that it should. Even one dissenter would be enough to cause the Dead Sea to return to its past, hostile state. Then he says, "I'm leaving you now to talk this over. In your wisdom or perhaps in your foolishness, you might decide the sea was better off dead. You might decide the prospect of a Living Sea to be detrimental somehow, even though it would allow the entire surrounding areas to come to life."

Before he leaves the room, the Buddha looks at one of the eight (Muslim or Jew, I will not say) and beckons him, "Come outside with me, I need a word with you in private."

When alone, the Buddha says, "I know you're a suicide bomber. Tell me, are you surprised the bomb didn't go off when tried to detonate it shortly after you arrived here? Don't be surprised - I rendered it harmless."

[It turns out the bomb is in this guest's artificial leg.]

The Buddha concludes: "I especially wanted you to be here, because of the special challenge you represent. You think I'm some kind of demon, since you can't think outside the limits of your own faith. But what I said still goes. If you are the only one to decide that this sea must not live, then it shall not. Of course, if it does live, that will stand as proof of the power of Buddhism, since the whole world knows I've been praying to convert the Dead Sea for years, from my home here on the Lotus."

One additional detail:

In the closing scene, the Buddha gives the suicide bomber a special gift - the artificial limb is transformed into his own original flesh and blood. The wannabe bomber is overwhelmed by joy at his sudden conversion, but he's still torn by his deep-seated doubts about the Buddha.

The benefactor looks at this man and says, "If you or any of the others decide the Dead Sea shall not live, then your leg will become as it was before - artificial and containing a bomb. But I promise you this, that bomb will not explode.

"You have a lot to think about - before the sun rises."

An Unconventional Buddha
I

QUOTE [with paraphrase underlined]:

If the form of a Buddha will bring salvation, he immediately manifests a Buddha form and preaches the Law. If the form of an asshole will bring salvation, he immediately becomes an asshole and preaches the Law. Thus he manifests himself in various different forms, depending upon what is appropriate for salvation.

:UNQUOTE [Lotus Sutra, Burton Watson translation, page 296]

Steven Searle (was) candidate for U.S. President in 2008

"We need a fresh approach to quenching the fires of hatred in the Middle East. Maybe what is needed is a nice cool drink of water from an unexpected source" - Steve.

The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.

Thesis: Make no mistake about this: Israeli forces shelled UN headquarters in Gaza today - intentionally. And not just in response to having been fired on by militants hiding there among refugees; this was done as a deliberate act of terrorism, planned well in advance.

QUOTE*:

Israel shelled the United Nations headquarters in the Gaza Strip on Thursday [Jan. 15, 2009], engulfing the compound and a warehouse in fire and destroying thousands of pounds of food and humanitarian supplies intended for Palestinian refugees.

:UNQUOTE*

A grave mistake or...?

On the one hand, we have the Israeli defense minister saying this shelling had been a "grave mistake." On the other hand, we have Prime Minister Ehud Olmert claiming [QUOTE*:] the military fired artillery shells at the U.N. compound after Hamas militants opened fire from [that] location [:UNQUOTE*].

So which is it: A "grave mistake" or a typical response to being fired upon?

An even better question is: Why were Israeli forces anywhere near the UN compound in the first place? Surely(?) their military planners would have wanted to avoid placing troops anywhere near such a place, just in case militants decided to open fire from that location.

My view is that Israel wanted to send a message to the general population of Gaza, which goes something like this:

"We believe that you, the average citizens of Gaza, are the key to stopping the rocket attacks against Israel. We do not really believe that our military incursion will serve to stop this activity. We believe, though, that many among you know who is doing this and that you know details such as locations of potential launching sites and how weapons are smuggled into Gaza.

"Our attack on the UN today was meant to coerce you into informing on the militants, because they can only succeed when you keep silent. You've got to tell the authorities what you know. And if you don't, you and your children will have no place to hide. You will not even be safe in a UN facility.

"And we are also sending a message to the UN, telling them that they have no special immunity from our forces. Especially since we find it useful to discourage the UN from intervening by perhaps someday sending UN peacekeeping forces into that area.

"We have no problem attacking the UN to convince them that they will never be allowed to be in a position to dictate to us. Also, we are telling any country thinking of sending in peacekeepers that they'd better think twice. Now that's a pre-emptive strike if ever there was one."

When [QUOTE*] UN officials say they have provided Israel with GPS coordinates of all U.N. installations in Gaza to prevent such attacks [UNQUOTE*], the Israeli high command thought:

"Thanks, now we know where to aim the guns."

And, yes, Blacque Obammer** bears partial responsibility

During the presidential election campaign, Obammer** was in Sderot, Israel, which has been a favored target of Gaza-based rockets since 2001. While there, he made this comment:

"I can assure you, if someone was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I'm going to do everything in my power [my emphasis] to stop that, and I would expect Israelis to do the same thing."

Uh, huh. Way to go! Maybe, just maybe, Obammer** would have done better to say something like this:

"If someone was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I would think: They must have very profound and long-standing grievances to bring them to take such action. I will do everything in my power to help resolve those grievances."

But...Obammer** didn't say that. Instead, he shamelessly pandered for American Jewish votes by talking tough and, in fact, encouraging the Israelis to respond with everything in their power. In that part of the world (if not everywhere in the world), those four words are short-form for these five words: everything in their military power.

No one could possibly be fooled into thinking otherwise, because they know us too well. Pentagon planners have based a venerable, long-standing religious cult on concepts such as overkill and Mutual Assured Destruction. Come on, Blacque** - you know you'd meant "military power." And everyone knows what you'd meant.

So can our president-elect even pretend to be surprised at Israeli overkill in Gaza? Not only is he not surprised, I'm sure he fully expected something like this to happen. I'm sure our entire administration and diplomatic corps expected something like this to happen.

And I'm also sure the Israeli high command appreciates just how much Obammer** understands why they have to engage in overkill. After all, for all intents and purposes he's "their guy" in the White House, with whom they very much see eye to eye.

And, no, we will not see peace in the Middle East over the next four years. Far from it.

Steven Searle (was) a candidate for U.S. President in 2008:

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

"There are too many people who think it's okay to kill 100 Arabs if that will save one Jew or, to generalize, that it's okay to kill 100 of their tribe if that will save one from my tribe" - Steve.

 * All quoted material is from today's Associated Press article written by Barzak and Teibel

 ** The following essay explains why I refer to him as "Blacque Obammer":

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2008/12/why_blacque_obammer

My contention: Chief Justice Roberts violated the Constitution when he administered the oath of office to president-elect Blacque Obammer*.

View this clip and tell me I'm wrong in my analysis, which follows: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJ8QW5gy5zg

The blow by blow: A look at the scene of the crime

Senator Diane Feinstein addresses the multitude: "It is my distinct honor to present the Chief Justice of the United States, the Honorable John G. Roberts Jr, who will administer the presidential oath of office."

[Side bar: I think we can safely assume what follows is an administration of the presidential oath of office - and (as should be the case) nothing more.]

The Chief Justice asks, "Are you prepared to take the oath, Senator?"

[Side bar: Notice that Roberts didn't ask, "Are you prepared to take the oath, Senator, and, in addition, be immediately subjected to a constitutionally-prohibited religious test?"]

Then Roberts starts his recitation of the oath, in words which Obammer* is supposed to repeat, by saying, "I Barack Hussein Obama..."

Roberts, with a misstep or two, states the oath as it literally appears in the Constitution, using the words "I" (twice) and "my" (once).] Then he proceeds to violate our Constitution by asking, "So help you God???????" [My emphasis on you and I added lots of question marks to underscore: A question was asked.]

[Side bar: Notice that Roberts shifted pronouns from the first person constitutional (as it were) to the second person unconstitutional (as it is).]

I'm calling Roberts on his shit (someone's got to)

When Senator Feinstein introduced Roberts, she said he was to administer the oath of office. Question: What right did Roberts have to follow up the oath by asking, "So help you God?"

Answer: Roberts had no right to do so, according to Article VI of the Constitution: "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States..." Sounds to me like Roberts was trying to squeeze in a religious test, even though that wasn't the purpose for which he was introduced that day. [If Obammer* had answered "no" to that question, then it could be argued he hadn't taken the "oath." Well, at least argued by pinheads within the GOP.]

Suppose Obammer* had looked Roberts square in the eye, in front of the huddled masses yearning to breathe free, and said, "Sir, you have no right to include such a question, making it appear to be part of the presidential oath of office. I ask you to retract that question." [And then, but only if he wished to do so, Obammer* could have added, "So help me God."]

Could you imagine our new chief executive publicly humiliating the Chief Justice in front of millions of people? [Hmm...might make an interesting scene in a movie.]

However, something occurred to me, especially since it was obvious that Roberts and Obammer* had not privately rehearsed the oath in advance so as to avoid any miscues. Did Roberts intend to embarrass Obammer* by adding this question (unbeknownst to the president-elect) after reciting the oath?

Think about this: Obammer* might have paused for a moment thinking, "Wait a minute...that's not part of the oath, why is he asking me this question?" After that moment, he would have collected himself by thinking, "I've got to respond - and quickly - or the public will think I have a problem with saying, ‘So help me God.'"

Don't tell me "words don't matter"

Blacque Obammer* gave a stirring defense of the importance of words during the campaign when he said, "Don't tell me ‘words don't matter.'" He made it quite obvious, he believes that words matter a great deal. So how could he tolerate being subjected to Roberts' religious test as the very first act of his presidency?

And, yes, it was his very first act as president because, once he had uttered the official oath, he was no longer "just" the president-elect. He was the president who could "enter on the Execution of his Office," as stated in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution:

QUOTE:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

:UNQUOTE.

"Words don't matter after all" - the lawyers

"We believe that the oath of office was administered effectively and that the President was sworn in appropriately yesterday," White House Counsel Greg Craig said in a written statement. "But the oath appears in the Constitution itself. And out of an abundance of caution, because there was one word out of sequence, Chief Justice Roberts administered the oath a second time."

The White House Counsel should have just come out and said, "The Constitution isn't very specific on many issues, but on this it is: The requirement to take the oath by using the wording specified in that document. So it's obvious that the president-elect was not properly sworn in yesterday. That's why he will be taking the oath today."

This is no small matter. Blacque Obammer* is like any other president who is surrounded by legal minds who are deft at circumventing the law. He's got to get rid of these people or else they're going to convince him (for instance) that it's okay to sign Executive Orders legalizing torture (though they won't call it that).

And, believe me, the lawyerly abuse of language won't stop there.

There's something funny about those Chief Justices

Consider Chief Justice William Howard Taft's bold assertion:

QUOTE:

In 1929, Chief Justice William Howard Taft garbled the oath when he swore in President Herbert Hoover using the words "preserve, maintain, and defend the Constitution", instead of "preserve, protect, and defend". The error was picked up by schoolgirl Helen Terwilliger on the radio. Taft eventually acknowledged his error, but did not think it was important, and Hoover did not retake the oath. In Taft's view, his departure from the text did not invalidate the oath.

:UNQUOTE [source: wikipedia**]

So Hoover did not retake the oath, eh? Any rationale person should rightfully conclude: Constitutionally-speaking, Hoover had no right to exercise any of his presidential powers.

However, we're not taking about rationality here, we're talking about the divine rights of kings - oops, I meant to say, the divine rights of Chief Justices. If Taft thought "his departure from the text did not invalidate the oath," then he was within his rights.

Then it follows, of course, that if Chief Justice Roberts saw fit to subject Blacque Obammer* to a religious test, that was within his rights, too. And the Constitution be damned!

Steven Searle (was) a candidate for U.S. President in 2008:

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

"I can't be the only person on the planet who noticed Roberts' illegal religious test. Can I?" - Steve.

"Words matter very much to me, which is why I had run against McCain and Obammer* on the basis of a contract, putting my campaign promises in writing***. But I wasn't elected, was I?" - Steve.

 * The following essay explains why I refer to him as "Blacque Obammer": http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2008/12/why_blacque_obammer

 ** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States#Oath_flubs

 *** My contract is at: http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2008/9/the_electoral_contract_of_steven_searle_for_us_president

QUESTION: Did you ever wonder why the president-elect must utter a very specific sentence (literally, an "incantation"), before he is allowed to exercise presidential powers?

ANSWER: The sole intention is to keep the Chief Executive as far removed as possible from any movements to change the Constitution. If he takes an oath to "preserve and protect," he would then be violating his oath if he was involved, in any discernible way, in working to change the Constitution. And this violation could be considered an impeachable offense.

Take a careful look at the wording, as stated in Article I, Section 1 of the US Constitution:

QUOTE:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

:UNQUOTE.

The first part doesn't make any sense as a requirement. Why force a man to swear that he'll "faithfully execute?" Surely he would do the job "faithfully" - that is, faithful to the expectations of We-the-People who voted for him. If he couldn't have convinced voters before the election, then he would never have been elected in the first place.

So that can't be it. We-the-People don't have to hear the president-elect promise to do his job - we voted for him because we had already acquired faith that he would do so. I believe the first part of the oath was intended to simply be there as extra words, so it wouldn't be so obvious that this oath actually serves to force the president to maintain the Constitutional status quo.

The Founding Fathers foresaw the possibility of a President who could become so strong, his support of a radically different constitution could provide adequate momentum to not merely amend our current document but to completely replace it. [Note: Some of George Washington's contemporaries wanted to call him "Your Excellency."]

Our Founding Fathers wanted a Constitution which could (only) technically be amended, but never replaced. Our current document replaced the original constitution (known as the Articles of Confederation) by means of a constitutional convention. Under the terms of the AOC, the Articles could not be altered (that is, amended or changed) without the permission of all of the states. However, our current constitution allowed itself to be established if ratified by only 9 out of the 13 states.

In other words, our current constitution is, well, unconstitutional.

The Founding Fathers didn't want our current constitution to end up also being unconstitutionally replaced. The most important goal was to permanently establish the institution of the Senate, with all states having equal representation. If the Senate could be abolished or altered, our entire union would surely fall apart. The goal was to prevent a Chief Executive from being able to undermine the Senate by even hinting he'd use his considerable power to alter the status quo.

If I had been elected president...

Yes, I would have uttered the same words as did Blacque Obammer* - without adding "So help me God." [Instead, I would have added, "So help me...Nam Myoho Renge Kyo."]

However, right after that oath, I would have made another oath, saying, "I do solemnly affirm that I will to the best of my ability serve the American people, especially by seeking to replace (not amend, but completely replace) our current Constitution by means of establishing a Constitutional Convention. I hope this Convention will consider replacing our current system with Cross-Sectional Representation**."

Can you imagine how thunderstruck everyone would have been? What an inauguration ceremony that would have been!

What to think? I know "thinking" is difficult whenever Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh et al raise their voices in a collective wail of anguish. And they surely would have, upon hearing my second oath.

But, indeed, what to think? The newly-inaugurated president has just sworn two contradictory back-to-back oaths. In the first oath, he vows to preserve the Constitution and in the next he vows to totally replace it. Maybe I should be impeached for taking the oath of office and then immediately repudiating it with another oath.

The generals might have decided, then and there, to arrest me immediately, since they had all taken an oath to "support and defend the Constitution...against all enemies, foreign and domestic." [Now there's a pre-emptive strike for you!]

How would I talk my way out of such a contradiction? Quite easily, actually, by saying something like this:

QUOTE:

My first duty is to the American people. It is not my duty to swear allegiance to a document which has outlived its usefulness and is in fact harmful to the well-being of the American people.

I made the first oath because I had to - in other words, under duress. However, all the Constitution says is that I must say these particular words. It doesn't say I can't change my mind, especially since the American people themselves gave me permission to attempt a Constitutional change.

When I was elected, it was on the basis of a written contract**, and point 16 of that contract announced my intention to "completely replace our Constitution by means of establishing a Constitutional Convention." The American people, by electing me (based on such a contract), gave me their permission to proceed with a Constitutional Convention. That being the case, I cannot defy the will of the people simply because of an oath made under duress.

:UNQUOTE.

Afterthought

But I wasn't elected President, though I'd given it my best shot. What I hope for now, is that people might ponder carefully what I'm writing - in this and my other posts on Gaia - and conclude that maybe (just maybe) I would have made a much better president than Blacque Obammer**. Of that, I personally never had any doubt.

Steven Searle (was) a candidate for U.S. President in 2008:

"Oath-taking is serious business to me, since all Buddhists adhere to a variety of vows, including our promise to work compassionately on behalf of all people" - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

* The following essay explains why I refer to him as "Blacque Obammer": http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2008/12/why_blacque_obammer

** My contract is at: http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2008/9/the_electoral_contract_of_steven_searle_for_us_president

Conclusion: Blacque Obammer* has no problem (in so many, many words) with continuing the practice of torturing suspected terrorists for at least six more months while we study this issue. How Barack-ratic of him!

Part I: Obammer's* Executive Order:

"Ensuring Lawful Interrogations"**

The Special Task Force, mentioned below, shall have six months to report to Obammer* on the following matter, unless its chair determines an extension is necessary. Oh, I get it: This means we can continue, for at least six more months, to export suspects to be tortured.

QUOTE:

The mission of the Special Task Force shall be:

(ii) to study and evaluate the practices of transferring individuals to other nations in order to ensure that such practices comply with the domestic laws, international obligations, and polices of the United States and do not result in the transfer of individuals to other nations to face torture...

:UNQUOTE [from this Executive Order**].

My response to the above quote:

TO:      Blacque Obammer* and co-conspirators

Listen up, budding war criminals: Why do you believe it's necessary to transfer individuals to other nations in the first place? If we have suspects in custody, aren't they safest in our custody? Unless you don't care much about their safety. Unless you fully expect them to be tortured, since that's the only reason you'd relinquish a prisoner in the first place.

Why did you appoint a Special Task Force to ensure that prisoners we've seized, once transferred to a foreign country, will be treated in compliance with our laws, our international obligations and our policies? You know full well that such treatment (in compliance with our standards) can only be assured while these prisoners remain under our control.

Is your contempt for We-the-People so profound that you think you can insult us with these kinds of Executive Orders? Have you really thought this through - at all?

Part II: Commentary on Tribune article

The following four Points are quotes from a Chicago Tribune article (1/31/09), entitled "Obama lets CIA keep controversial renditions tool." My Counterpoint follows each Point.

Point:

Under executive orders issued by Obama last week, the CIA still has authority to carry out what are known as renditions, or the secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that cooperate with the U.S.

Counterpoint:

Is this "change you can believe in?"

During my two year campaign for the presidency, I frequently charged that Blacque Obammer* and John McCain would substantially continue George Bush's policies in the never-ending War on Terror. Well, gee whiz golly, it didn't take long for Obammer* to wrap his ever-loving arms around the CIA's unlawful practices, did it?

First of all, we're talking about kidnapping people in other countries (for instance, like Italy or France or anywhere else in the world we can get away with it) with or without the permission of local governments. That's a violation of those other nations' sovereignty. How would we like it if China decided to snatch some of our citizens off the streets of Chicago's Chinatown for supporting the Dalai Lama?

And what about the personal rights of the snatched? These non-lawfully accused ones will never get their day in court in their native countries. Instead, they'll be flown off to some black hole in some allied country to get the crap kicked out of them, since we can't do that ourselves on US soil.

Oh, and you can forget about any federal investigation into past abuses by the CIA, since Obammer* believes in letting bygones be bygones. Hey, how else is he going to forge that Almighty Bipartisan Consensus everyone (except me) thinks will assure future peace and prosperity?

Point:

The little-noticed provision states that the instructions to close the CIA's secret prison sites "do not refer to facilities used only to hold people on a short-term, transitory basis."

Counterpoint:

Exactly! The CIA's secret prisons will be closed but that doesn't mean the [we think] bad guys can't be put on a plane and flown to a prison operated by one of our allies. When Obammer* talks about "facilities used only to hold people on a short-term, transitory basis," he's referring to the planes (the facilities) that will hold the kidnapped on a "transitory basis" - that is, long enough to transport them to an allied prison.

Point:

Obama's decision to preserve the program did not draw major protests, even among human-rights groups.

Counterpoint:

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke.

Point:

"Under limited circumstances, there is a legitimate place" for renditions, said Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. "What I heard loud and clear from the president's order was that they want to design a system that doesn't result in people being sent to foreign dungeons to be tortured."

Counterpoint:

I guess a man hears what he wants to hear. Tom, do you realize what you're saying? First of all, once someone has been sent to a foreign dungeon, we have no control over, or knowledge of, what happens to him. But isn't that the general idea? Then nobody can accuse us of knowingly sending someone to be tortured.

Ignorance is bliss, right Tom? [Then you must be a very happy man indeed!] Or maybe ignorance can keep us from being hauled before an international court to be tried for war crimes.

Second of all, you (Mr. Malinowski) seem to have no problem with people being kidnapped. Suspects don't get sent to foreign dungeons unless we either grab them in battle or off the streets of Paris as they walk to work. I have a feeling you aren't too picky about where they're grabbed, as long as the CIA knows in their hearts they've grabbed one of the bad guys.

But you know what? The CIA has been wrong before. Let's just hope they don't decide to grab you. If they do, believe me, you won't be able to bleat about your innocence or demand due process. Won't do you a lick of good.

Long live the War on Terror

Well, let's face it: Obammer* is hooked. The presidential mindset leaves no room for a Middle East peace, unless it's on our terms (approved in advance by Israel). He can talk all he wants about the need for us to do a lot of listening as the locals hash out their own fate. But he'll continue to give $3 billion in aid to Israel and Egypt, year after year, as we've done since Jimmy Carter started that dole.

And he'll, no doubt, continue to speak (as he did recently on an Arabic TV station) about Israel being an important ally of the United States, whose security is "paramount" to this country. And, no doubt, every Muslim listening to such language will have no doubt as to how Blacque Obammer* really feels about justice in the Middle East.

Steven Searle (was) a candidate for U.S. President in 2008:

"I didn't have much faith in Obammer* from the beginning. And I'm seeing, day by day, less reason to keep even that much" - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

* The following essay explains why I refer to him as "Blacque Obammer": http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2008/12/why_blacque_obammer