Saturday Follows Friday

It is a Friday . . .

It begins at 6 o’clock in the morning
for even frolicking Roman procurators
rise early when there is killing work to be done.

“Have you no answer?”
Silence

Pilate consults the crowd.
It is a joke between them, this consulting.
“What would you have me do with this man?”
“Crucify him!”
The man utters not a word.

Roman soldiers process him
with his thorned crown and purple cloak
hailing him king in cruel sarcasm,
and still he does not speak

they hit him on the head – more playful –
in the way of monsters –
than really hurtful
and they spit
and kneel to their prisoner king
And still he makes no sound.

They walk him to his own death
making him carry the burden of
his own electric chair –
a wooden cross
When it gets too heavy for his beaten back
a man is plucked from the
crowd to bear it for him
and we can imagine Simon trying
to strike up conversation
that he might tell his friends
and loved ones about it later

And still he says nothing

It is 9 o’clock in the morning
the day is turning to its brightness
and away from the dawning mists –
like the Galilee days of youth
and the Nazareth days of childhood
but not like them
for this is the day that will not pass him over
this is the day when the blood on his own
doorpost will not save him.

and within the vast silence that inhabits
his own soul,
he says . . . he thinks . . . nothing

***

It is 9 o’clock in the morning
when they arrive at the Skull place

we can imagine the bird-picked bone-white bones
scattered like shining jewels all round,
some sticking up from the ground –
sign posts pointing to the sure destination
for those unfortunate enough to take their
rest there

And the cruel words of pseudo-hospitality
“Here.  Have some of this.”  The cup of
wine mixed with myrrh
a sedative to ease the passing begs the question:
can there ever be kindness
from the executioner’s hand?

Whate’re the motive,
he refuses
mouth shut
no sound

If there be kindness in
your heart, executioner,
you’ll get no credit for it here
There is no sop for your conscience
in the sop you seek to give a dying man
who would live but for your hand –
that pain, friend, you will have to bear alone
in the silent places of your own heart.

As he hangs dying
the representatives of the state sit unnoticing below
gambling for the privilege of his few clothes
while kind he makes no noise to disturb
them at their gaming

Passers by taunt and jeer
“temple-destroyer-rebuilder boy,
save yourself!  Jump down”
and even the ones who should know better
cannot contain their contagious cruelty
as the bitter herbs of their own mouths
pour forth venom for the one cheeky enough
to die in front of them . . .
“How about a saving miracle now?”
“How about a healing now?”
The schoolyard bullies have been loosed
and even those dying beside him taunt and jeer
as if their crosses were somehow higher, better,
than his, as if his dying made theirs less bad.

He?
He received their words
into his own great silence
and still and yet, he said nothing,
thought . . . nothing.

***
It is noon
and this day
it is darkening time
as the shroud pall
of dying death
is pulled over the land
maybe this is his word?
No – silent he remains
as darkness claims
the frightened and the frightening
and still and yet he says nothing.

***

It is 3 o’clock in the afternoon
and the darkness ebbs away
like smoke from the chimneys
curling its way heavenward
leaving behind a light less bright
less sure of itself, its place, in the midday world

It is 3 o’clock when he breaks his fast of silence
Eloi . . . Eloi . . . my God . . . my God . . . 
Lema?
Why?
Lema sabachthani?  
Lema sabachthani?
Lema sabachthani?
Why have you forsaken me?

He calls for his God
Daddy, where are you?
Come get me, Dad.
I’m in trouble Pop.
Father, I need you.
Help me!

He calls to his father, his God –
they hear Elijah
even now they cannot understand him
even now his words are mysterious to their ears
even now they confuse life for death, death for life

putting the proverbial mirror
under his nose to see if he still lives
they rush to place a sponge of drink before him –
if he lives, surely he will drink
they poke sponge sticks at his mouth
as he cries his death rattling cry
and breathes no more

and something,
something
about the way he dies
the way he cries
the way he looks
the way he sighs
moves the battle-hardened
centurion to see not a dead
carcass but a son . . .
The Son?

But he did not know him
not really
did not love him
for no one who loved him
could have so quickly relegated
him to the past
speak of what he was
instead of who he is
no, for those who love,
that takes days, weeks, months, years –
this moving of a dear one from present to past
from prologue
to postscript

no, the ones who loved him
merely stood – silent – witness
offering the solace of presence
knowing it was not enough –
it never is, is it?  This death bed
vigiling we do – it is never enough,
but it is all we have – and they gave it to him
their silence joined to his
providing for him in his dying as they had in his living
and the irony of killing the kind
lies with silence in the place with no need of words
continues as only those not allowed to speak are given witness
it is the women who stand with him at the end
those of no standing in any court, public or private,
are left to watch the unfolding
never to be allowed to tell
to anyone but each other

but One Lover was not silent
sending a single sound into the cosmos
the sound of a curtain torn, rent,
from top to bottom
the sound of God’s own broken heart
flooding the world with its grief
and moving on to further reaches
no earth-small planet could contain
and the sound – that sound – the sound of tearing
echoes down the universe’s halls even now
stopping in the time of butterflies and babies and revolutions
to caress with the clawing tearing brokenness of a mother’s heart
that will not be comforted for a child who is no more

If God will hear our broken cries
of pain and loss beyond bearing,
who will hear God’s?
Who will take on God’s pain
and in the taking, lessen it?

***

It is 6 o’clock in the evening
it’s nighttime, really, for those who
work with their hands and live by
the sweat of their brow
sundowning time – the beginning of sacred rest

more words now . . . the words of the business of burial
every death has them – from friends and lovers or strangers
for something must be done with the body
and so it was with him, Our Silent One

we can imagine the women going to one who can help
one with standing with the powers-that-be
a fixer

and so the fixer goes to the Procurator
and utters the placating words of asking . . .
“Not too much trouble, surely?
Gesture of kindness appreciated . . .
perhaps a gift to grease the skids?”

And he, holder of power of life and death
the keys of empire securely in his hands,
his delicate palms no nails will ever pierce
marvels not at his own deed
not at the vagaries and cruelties and whims
that make him thus and the other so
nay – he wonders that the one he sent
died so fast – “dead already?”

That then, is the epitaph for The One
The One who lived among us for a time
and showed us another Way . . .

Dead already
dead already
dead already

and he . .
And all . . .
Is silence

***

It is Saturday
and nothing happens
nothing we can see
or hear
for the bowels of hell
are silent to our ears
their groanings beyond
our imaginings
if there be such place
that he be there is
beyond reckoning
and it cannot
it will not
be endured

will this day
never end?

and the silence
of a rent
bent
universe
goes on

Pilate's Hands

In Deuteronomy 21, the Lord sets forth the way in which an unsolved murder shall be handled: the elders of the nearest town to the body are to wash their hands over an animal sacrifice, and then shall declare, “Our hands did not shed this blood, nor were we witnesses to it.  Absolve, O Lord, your people Israel, whom you redeemed; do not let the guilt of innocent blood remain in the midst of your people Israel.”

Only then, only after they had spoken truthfully of their innocence and prayed, would they be absolved of the ‘guilt of innocent blood’.

The reason for God’s concern: the people must do what is right in the sight of the Lord.

Like the people of Israel with an unsolved murder on their hands, Pilate seeks to absolve himself of all guilt in the murder of Jesus by washing his hands.

What Pilate fails to grasp, or perhaps hopes that we will overlook, is that the washing means nothing if there is actual guilt.

What is even more extraordinary in the story, however, is the reaction of the crowd, people familiar with Deuteronomy: let his blood be on us and on our children!  

It is no wonder that after Jesus cried out from the cross and died, the earth shook and the temple veil was torn in two – from the time of Cain’s murder of his brother Abel, God’s wrath and God’s sorrow are the divine responses to the slaying of the innocent.

Perhaps Pilate and the crowd challenge us to examine our own lives, our own times, to see where the blood of the innocent stains our own hands.

Drone Strikes & Mother Jones: When is a Radical Not a Radical?

Mother Jones was a socialist and a union organizer and odd to our ears, an opponent of women’s suffrage.  Love her or hate her, the woman was, when it came to matters of workers’ rights, a flaming anti-government liberal.  She was tried in West Virginia for ignoring an injunction from the courts banning meetings by striking miners.  She was convicted of conspiring to commit murder by a military tribunal for her activities during the Mine Wars in southern West Virginia in the early 1900's.  Released, similar charges were brought for her activities in Colorado, where she was escorted from the state.  Later she was tried for libel, slander and sedition (action leading others into insurrection or rebellion) in a civil action brought by the Chicago Tribune.*

The magazine bearing her name was founded in 1970 as an underground (subversive) publication.  Wikipedia: Mother Jones

David Corn works as a reporter for Mother Jones.  The thesis I propose is that Mr. Corn has forgotten his legacy; that he no longer speaks for the values and traditions of Mother Jones and should withdraw his association therefrom.

In a word, a radical he is not.  At least not when it comes to drones.

The exchange yesterday on Hardball, MSNBC’s purported liberal talk show hosted by Chris Matthews, was troubling, to say the least.  I have long understood that most of these shows, right and left, are little more than the personal opinions of the participants, writ large over the pages of history.  As such, they can be entertaining, but they are seldom, if ever, illuminating or beneficial.

That said, to represent one’s self as a spokesperson of a certain bent or ilk, shouldn’t one actually be of that bent or ilk?  And that is why I focus particularly on Mr. Corn, who claims to speak on behalf of a magazine, the credentials for which include its very name: Mother Jones.

To invoke Mother Jones is to invoke a radical resistance to power and dominance, and to do so vehemently.  This, after all, is the woman who organized a children’s march from Philadelphia to President Theodore Roosevelt’s home to protest child labor.

Wearing this mantel, read what Mr. Corn had to say about drone strikes, the death of civilians in the strikes, and the implications to American ‘democracy’.** While reading, bear in mind that Mother Jones’ web page today contains linked stories, such as “Obama Targeted Killing Document: If We Do It, It's Not Illegal” and “Barack Obama, Our Drone President:  How a community organizer and constitutional law professor became a robot president.”, implying, at the least, a criticism of the practice. Mother Jones Too bad Mr. Corn didn’t read his own magazine before going on Hardball.  Hard Ball: Drone Strikes

Chris Matthews as host framed the conversation thus: Today we talk about the overseas drone program and the White House justification of drone strikes on American citizens abroad. [Matthews showed a clip of White House spokesperson Jay Carney, saying that the drone program is designed to avoid civilian casualties - fewer die than in an invasion.]

Eugene Robinson said that we have to do counter-terrorism & capabilities of drones are such that this is our best weapon, but shouldn’t there be some sort of judicial oversight like a FISA court?  Especially when we’re talking about a US citizen.

Chris Matthews posited that we are limited what we can do - can either (1) use drones (2) SEAL team attack (Corn - yeah) (3) invade country (Corn - right) or (4) do nothing.

David Corn agreed with Robinson that there needs to be some oversight, such as the FISA court oversight for covert wiretapping.  Matthews then asked  do we have the right to kill?  To which Corn responded that as to an ‘active’ person, a person involved in some ‘operational way’, yes.

Matthews asked, do we have the right to kill Benedict Arnolds? to which Robinson responded, yes - the fact that he’s an American citizen doesn’t bother me.  But it does bother me there’s no structure, no process [of oversight].  Corn was not concerned over the issue of citizenship at all, calling that issue an outlyer, expressing more concern about what the next president might do.

When Matthews focused on the difference between SEAL team attacks and drone strikes, Corn opined that there is less possibility of collateral damage/civilian deaths with SEAL attacks than drone strikes and that the civilian casualties are counter-productive, saying that in Yemen, we have killed clerics friendly to the United States in the drone strikes, creating fear, hostility and blow back.

Matthews asked Corn what he would do if he were Commander-in-Chief: drone strikes or SEAL attack.  Corn’s response – it’s a damn difficult decision to make.

Matthews showed a clip of Republican Rep. Mike Rogers saying about the killing of an American citizen in Yemen by drone strike that he didn’t want his citizenship anymore.  If you join the enemy overseas, we’re going to fight the enemy overseas.  You’ve given that (protections of citizenship) up, to which Matthews commented, once you’re a turncoat, it’s easier for us.  Corn replied, It is.

Corn’s take on the whole thing: there should be “somewhat of a semblance of a rule of law”, apparently because you can trust some administrations (presumably this one) more than others.

This is not an exact transcript, but rather my notes on the video, as the transcript is not yet up on MSNBC’s site.  That said, note the repeat of the principal journalistic mistake when it comes to war and peace issues in our time: the taking of the government position as a given.

Rather than examining the government’s position to see if it has merit, journalists tend to take the government position as a given and then critique that position for its ‘workability’ (will the program accomplish the stated goal?) rather than examining the stated goal to determine whether it is even a worthy or appropriate goal in the first place.

And that, I think, is what happened here.  Mr. Corn, at least, should know better.  After all, he represents a publication that takes its name and identity from a woman who stood outside the machinations of government most of her adult life, speaking from the margins against stated governmental goals like orderliness, support for corporate profit goals, protecting property interests for the wealthy, etc.

So when is a radical no longer a radical?  When he speaks for and on behalf of a government program with no thought to those standing at the margins (always the ones most likely to be harmed by power) and has only suggestions of tweaking, to give the program the semblance of legal process.

More specifically, as a radical myself when it comes to issues of war and peace, violence and non-violence, my problems with Mr. Corn’s words (I’m just as troubled by Matthews and Robinson, but they never claimed to be radicals of the left.  Mr. Corn, at least implicitly, has) are:

1. He assumed that killing an alleged enemy of the state is the only option.  Mr. Matthews phrased our nation’s choices as limited to the manner in which we kill an enemy of the state, as opposed to even examining whether there are other alternatives.  There are.

a. Rather than killing an alleged enemy of the state, that person can be tried, either in person or in abstentia.  They can be provided due process of law.  And they can be found not guilty.  Or found guilty and sentenced to a term of imprisonment as opposed to execution.  The drone program substitutes the judgment of the Executive branch of the government for the judicial branch’s role.  The test of success for a nation such as ours is not how we behave on a good day, but rather how we behave on a bad one.  We have failed that test numerous times in our nation’s history.  Lincoln suspended habeas corpus for reasons of the nation’s security and the Supreme Court backed down.  Franklin Roosevelt created detention camps for Japanese Americans (citizens) without due process of law and for no other reason than their ethnic identity.  John Adams signed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts, used to prosecute those who spoke out freely against the actions of the government at a time when it was feared that the effects of the French Revolution would spread to the Americas.  The consequences of these choices were far reaching.  The Alien and Sedition Acts are said to have sown the seeds for the Civil War.  The problem with the war on terror is that it is not a war.  The powers that be, however, by so naming this series of conflicts ‘war’ while acknowledging that it is not a war, have gotten power’s ‘best of all possible worlds’– power unchecked – as a ‘war’, military actions around the globe that infringe on the sovereignty of other nations are justified and as a ‘not war’, behaviors even the military would not condone (drones are often the purview of the CIA rather than the Pentagon) are carried out.

b. Getting at the root causes of the conflicts.  Many of those recruited to terrorist activities are the disenfranchised, the poor, those with no hope.  It is no accident that Al-Queda provides food, health care and education wherever it sets up.  That our solution to the problem of Al-Queda is militaristic rather than humanitarian shows a short-sighted take on what is happening to real people in real time.

c. Using the United Nations Peacekeeping efforts.  It is popular in the US to nay-say the UN, but the fact is that UN peacekeeping forces are actually very successful around the globe.  And as a body, the UN actually does include humanitarian actions in its strategic plans everywhere it goes.

d. Negotiating with our enemies.  It has become popular to refuse to negotiate with ‘terrorists’.  But if we understand that (1) the nature of power is shifting away from nation states and towards other entities and groups; and (2) that negotiation only need happen when there is conflict, wouldn’t it be sensible to negotiate with those we oppose or who oppose us, regardless of whether their power structure is one we recognize or not?

e. I am sure there are other alternatives.  These are just a few.  None of them were explored in the conversation in which Mr. Corn participated, for the simple reason that the use of drones was taken as a given.  It is not.  The use of drones is neither a given nor an imperative.  It is a choice.  Another choice can be made.  Mother Jones would know that.

2. The dismissal of citizenship as important to the discussion.  Matthews actually framed the conversation in terms of citizenship and its implications in drone strike decisions.  After all, that’s what the leaked document was about, at least in part.  Yet all three participants quickly abandoned the importance of citizenship to the discussion.  Treason is an offense actually listed in the Constitution, which states in Article 3, Section 3, “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

a. The Obama Administration is at the very least, implicitly following the legal reasoning (or lack thereof) of the Bush Administration, in defying our own Constitution and the laws of our nation and the world.  By calling this a war that is not a war, legal rights are suspended routinely, even the limited rights one might have in military tribunals.  Guantanamo remains open.  And now we have drones, openly killing from the sky.  And the best Mr. Corn has to offer is a suggestion of a FISA-type rubber-stamp tribunal.  An important note to remember: bodies who have pre-determined the outcome are not courts; they are inquisitions.

b. Treason is, I believe, the only criminal offense defined and procedurally established by the Constitution.  In order to be treason, by constitutional definition, not only must the offense have been committed in the way defined, but it must also be established on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or on confession in open court.  The drone program, when used against citizens, is killing citizens for the offense of treason without any of the constitutional requirements being observed.  At least Mr. Corn will feel better if a secret tribunal inside the government rubber stamps the proposed killing of citizens for treason.  That, at least, will provide a semblance of law; and after all, it’s how things look that matters.  Shame, Mr. Corn.  A radical would know better.

3. Missing the difference between what soldiers do and what police do.  Soldiers kill people based on what they have done as well as what they’re doing or might do.  Police only kill people for what they actually are doing right now.  For what they have done already, police hand people over to courts to decide.  And for what they might do in the future, police act to prevent that, but they do not kill people for what they might do.

a. President Bush removed, almost without remark in the public sphere, the notion that we treat terror activities as police rather than military actions.  President Obama has continued, also unremarked, this dramatic policy shift.  And a shift it was.  Bush openly acknowledged that.  And 9/11 made everything we did justifiable.  But it isn’t.

b. a police action only kills those responsible, if at all.  A police action would never kill my neighbors for my deeds simply because they are my neighbors.  A military action, however, especially with the advent of technologies like drones, often kills my neighbors simply to get to me.  Refusing to acknowledge the difference, Mr. Corn, means that you take the claimed necessity of drone strikes as gospel.  Drone strikes are neither necessary nor gospel.  You, of all those speaking yesterday, should know better.

4. “Once you’re a turncoat, it’s easier for us.”  Matthews’ comment prompted Mr. Corn’s simple answer, “yes, it is.”

a. well, it shouldn’t be.  It shouldn’t ever be easier to kill anyone.  It shouldn’t ever be easier to kill one guilty man when we know for a fact that we will kill innocents to ‘get’ him.  It should be harder.  It should be harder because we should always be suspicious of our own motives, our own certainties, our own worldviews.

b. when Mother Jones walked the mountains of my home state of West Virginia, she walked the same ground of folk who would die in the struggles she was a part of.  For all I know, she attended the trials of union organizers who were tried for treason.  Mr. Corn speaks of the necessity of oversight against an overzealous government, but references only later administrations, as if this administration were somehow innately trustworthy.  But it is this administration who instituted the drone policies.  It is this administration who is killing civilians from afar and using secret justifications.  It is this administration who is led by a constitutional scholar who ignores that document when it suits him.  Power is and always has been a corrupting influence.  Pilate killed Jesus unwillingly.  Yet kill him he did.  That a leader agonizes over killing others isn’t particularly relevant or comforting to those killed or the ones they leave behind.  Because we may like or trust one leader more than another does not mean that leader is not corruptible.  We all are.  Courts aren’t perfect.  But they do bring the light of day to our collective actions.  If we cannot ‘afford’ that light of day, we prove ourselves and our grand experiment unworthy.  We don’t need enemies for that.

When is a radical not a radical?  When he succumbs, when he believes, that necessity is a virtue, for the simple reason that a radical knows that necessity seldom is (necessary).

When is a radical not a radical?  When he gives away someone else’s rights and believes it has nothing to do with him.

When is a radical not a radical?  When he wears the t-shirt of the radical while espousing the ideology of the established order of things.

When is a radical not a radical?  When he tells other radicals that drone strikes that kill innocent civilians and strip even the guilty of any semblance of due process that it’s really okay because, well, they’re just so darned dangerous.

When is a radical not a radical?  When he becomes afraid.

***

About the magazine Mother Jones from their own web site:

What's with the name?
Mary Harris "Mother" Jones was a very cool woman who fought for the underdog and made herself up to look way older than she was so that when she got beat down by Pinkerton agents, she'd gain public sympathy. . .  the radical reformer who'd been dubbed "the most dangerous woman in America."

So what's your value system then?
Principally we're about good journalism, following a story no matter where it takes us. We are interested in protecting the little guy and uncovering injustice. We also believe in good storytelling and coverage that surprises. We have no interest in preaching to a choir.

My brother says you're a lefty pinko rag. True?
Here's where we're coming from: We believe all people should have equal opportunity in life, that all children should be able to go to good schools, and that everyone should have health care. Call that what you will–we're not insulted by being called left, liberal, progressive, whatever. . .  Political inclinations notwithstanding, we will cheerfully investigate any people or entities of any political persuasion, right, left, or center, if their behavior warrants it.

From Wikipedia about Mother Jones magazine:
The magazine was named after Mary Harris Jones, called Mother Jones, an Irish-American trade union activist, opponent of child labor, and self-described "hellraiser". She was a part of the Knights of Labor, the Industrial Workers of the World, the Social Democratic Party, the Socialist Party of America, the United Mine Workers of America, and the Western Federation of Miners. The stated mission of Mother Jones is to produce revelatory journalism that in its power and reach informs and inspires a more just and democratic world.

*The difference between sedition and treason.  The primary difference seems to be the difference between involving outsiders in the conflict.  Sedition relates to stirring up the folks at home while treason involves betrayal and/or help from another (outsider) country.    Wikipedia: Sedition  

** I put ‘democracy’ in quotes because we are not a democracy.  We’re a representative republic.  But democracy is the word we most often use these days in referring in general to our rights and liberties as citizens of this Republic.