Pickin' 'n' Grinnin'

On May 14, Jakob was in a recital at the Nervous Dog. I was able to take a video clip. Too bad I don't have a real Hi-Def camera.

Poking a Hornet's Nest

The news yesterday morning carried the story that John Demjanjuk, the man known to many as the guard "Ivan the Terrible" at the Sobibor death camp for 6 months in the summer of 1943, was found guilty of the murder of over 28,000 people there.

If you recall, Demjanjuk moved to Cleveland after WW2 and became a U.S. citizen. When he was finally tracked down, he was stripped of his citizenship and deported to Israel to stand trial. The FBI stated that the evidence of his crimes came from the Soviet KGB and could not be trusted. He had lied about his past on the citizenship application, however, and the decision of the INS was just.

In Israel, at his trial, there were no witnesses who could say that Demjanjuk had actively participated in any murders. A cruel guard, yes. A murderer, no. He was convicted and sentenced to death, but the conviction was overturned on appeal when evidence pointed to a different guard.

Charges were then quickly filed in a German court. The German court has now found Demjanjuk guilty of murder -- not because he had actually killed anyone, but because he was present as a guard in the camp at the time murders were committed. His was guilt by association.

Perhaps the lesson is that people should always act according to their conscience and not follow the crowd. The Nuremberg tribunals should have had a bigger impact on our society than they did; the principle that a person is responsible for his own actions regardless of the authority issuing orders became a basic tenet of American law. That was why the courtmartial of LTC Terry Lakin, for refusing to go to Afghanistan until he was shown valid proof that President Obama was indeed Constitutionally eligible to occupy the office and act as Commander-in-Chief, was so critically important.

That same President acted on information as to the whereabouts of a man who was wanted in the United States for the murders at the World Trade Center. He ordered the SEAL team to enter Osama bin Laden's compound, and, if bin Laden resisted capture, to kill him. The SEALs were simply following their orders. An accused (and self-confessed) murderer was put to death, and it seemed that all America rejoiced.

The Constitution of the United States was a unique document, designed to protect the individual from the overly exuberant exercise of democracy. It protected the individual from searches without a warrant (4th Amendment). It protected the individual from trial for a capital crime without indictment by a grand jury, and from being forced to testify against himself (5th Amendment). It provided that an accused criminal had the right to be tried before a jury and to confront the witnesses against him (Article 3 Section 2, and 6th Amendment).

America has rejoiced over the elimination of Osama bin Laden. In other parts of the world, however, questions are being asked as to whether or not his execution was carried out legally. Congress did not declare war on bin Laden, nor on Afghanistan, nor Pakistan. No grand jury indicted him for murder. The Prime Minister of Germany stated that she was glad bin Laden was dead; a German judge has filed criminal charges against her for violating a German law forbidding the encouragement of illegal acts. Could it be that the German judge has a better grasp of American law than our own President? Could it be that in following their Commander-in-Chief's orders -- and the democratic will of the majority of Americans -- the SEAL team violated their oaths to support and defend the Constitution?

Additionally, while the Constitution made the President Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, Congress alone was given the power to declare war, raise an army, and call up the militia. It was also left to Congress alone to appropriate money and designate what it would be spent on.

A second headline in yesterday's news had to do with the NATO bombing of Muammar Gaddafi's compound in Tripoli, killing two journalists and their guide. Secretary of Defense Gates has said that the bombing of Libya serves no important United States interest, but that it has cost us $750,000,000. Congress has still not approved the bombing and the expenditure of the money. The American pilots flying for NATO are just following the orders of their Commander-in-Chief.

While the bombing was instigated by our NATO allies and some of the Arab League, much of the rest of the world, including the Russians and the Chinese, have been expressing their disapproval. Congress has not declared war on Libya, and no American grand jury has indicted Gaddafi of a capital crime. Could it be that the Russians have a better grasp of American law than our own President? Could it be that in following their Commander-in-Chief's orders, the American pilots have violated their oaths to support and defend the Constitution?

In the summer of 1943, John Demjanjuk never thought that his service as a guard, just following orders, would someday earn him a murder conviction. He didn't actually kill anyone. His big crime was that he was there and didn't object. Can America learn a lesson from that example? Will we someday, as a nation, stand before the Judge of the Whole Earth and answer for the fact that we were given a Constitution which we trampled under foot for the sake of revenge and self-righteousness?

Legends

As a kid, I always thought Uncle Mike and Uncle Emil were somehow bigger than life. Uncle Mike was occasionally available to interact with, but Uncle Emil was mostly out to sea.

I think Dad looked up to his oldest brother with a sense of some pride -- Emil was the kid who left home for the sea, became a war hero of sorts, and ended up losing his Navy commission (as Dad told it, for refusing his orders). Somewhere around here is the photo of the ship that the Japanese torpedo bomber took out from under him in an Australian harbor; the story goes that he escaped through a porthole in his underwear, saving only his sextant.

Sunday night, while visiting Mom (Mother's day, of course) I got a call from Mixie saying that Bruce Banyai had called and would be calling back. Last night he called back. On one of his visits here we had talked about the passing of the Old Guard, the tape I had made of Mom telling of her childhood in pre-WWII Europe, and the fact that while I had finally located my grandfather's gravesite at Greenlawn, I had no idea where my Grandmother was buried. Dad had never said where, and Bruce said that Uncle Joe never talked about his childhood.

Well, the phone call was to let me know that Uncle Joe had finally talked. Bruce had set him down and recorded about 2 hours worth of video of Uncle Joe's reminiscences. That will be edited and turned into a DVD for the next reunion, whenever, wherever. But then Bruce dropped a bombshell.

It seems that after Aunt Maxine died in 2003, Uncle Joe was contacted about whether he wanted her collection of Uncle Emil's old letters, dating back to the beginning of their marriage. He accepted a large box of documents, but busy man that he always is, never took the time to look at them. Apparently several museums turned down the collection of a seaman's letters, and they were destined for the dumpster.

However, during the videoing, Bruce was asked whether he wanted to see the collection. Being the history buff that he is, it was too good an opportunity to pass up. He was surprised by what he saw; the letters were not only the letters home to a landbound wife, but also a very detailed accounting of wartime life as a Merchant Marine captain. From what I understand, it also contains a copy of his resignation letter as he refused to captain a ship he deemed unseaworthy, and a copy of the inquest into that ship's sinking several days out of port.

Bruce has asked me to archive that material. When it gets here, if it is what I think it is, a whole new blog should be devoted just to that archive. Stay tuned, don't touch that dial!

Reflections

On September 11, 2001, I, with most other Americans, watched the destruction of the World Trade Center towers with the murder of 3,000 fellow citizens. The initial reaction was an altogether natural one; there was a desire to bring to justice the criminals who had financed and planned the deed. When it was determined that the Taliban in Afghanistan had been harboring Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the attack, I, too, felt the invasion of that country, to attempt his capture, was justifiable.

Ten years have passed. Not only did the United States invade Afghanistan and remove the Taliban from power temporarily (they are currently being relegitimatized within that country's government), we invaded Iraq and executed Saddam Hussein on the basis that he also had given aid and comfort to our enemies. Billions of dollars were spent in those quests, and continue to be spent in the aftermath, since there appears to be no clean way of extricating our troops from those regions without causing even greater disorder.

Thousands of American troops have been killed, and tens of thousands wounded or disabled; the human cost to America alone has dwarfed the number of deaths from the original WTC attacks. A President was vilified for not having successfully dealt with bin Laden, and his successor, who capitalized on the vilification of that President and, whose criticisms were in reality de facto accusations that the troops under his command were somehow derelict in their duty for their failure, is now being praised for the conclusion of the manhunt by those same troops.

The American public, by and large, is jubilant that the mastermind of the attacks has been brought to justice. What, however, have we wrought?

The current President has stated that America is not a Christian nation. The President's intent was to convey the Constitutional principle (1st Amendment) that the Federal government may not either support nor oppress any belief system. That statement was met with outrage by many who believed that it was an attack upon the historically based concept that the roots of our liberty, and the Constitution itself, are grounded in the Christian Reformation theology of the Founding fathers. While the President was in error if he denied the historical heritage of our government, he was absolutely correct if he referred to the everyday conduct of our national affairs.

Christianity is not a club that one joins, nor a social class into which one is born. It is a label used to describe those who would worship and follow the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. Those followers believe that Jesus is God, who took upon Himself a human body in order to offer Himself as the payment for their violations of His Law and to restore to them the ability to enjoy His presence without experiencing guilt.

In order to forgive them, He Himself paid the penalty -- death -- for their sin. In turn, He gave them a set of orders. He said that the greatest love one could have would be expressed by a willingness to die for a friend. He said that His friends would do whatever He ordered them to do. He ordered His friends to love their enemies, to bless those who cursed them, to do good to those who hated them, and to pray for forgiveness for those who abused them. He said that people would recognize His followers by the fact that they cared for one another the very same way He cared for them, and He was executed to pay for the misdeeds of friends and enemies alike. History records that His followers were first labeled "Christians" -- a term of contempt -- in Antioch, because they were living the way He had commanded them to love.

There is great rejoicing today in America because a criminal has been brought to justice. There are expressions of satisfaction that revenge for the attacks on the Trade Center towers has been exacted. I wonder, however, how long the euphoria will last. Certainly bin Laden's friends and co-religionists will attempt retribution. Certainly, those who financed his activities have not been dealt with. Certainly, also, it is questionable whether the expense in resources and lives have been worth the quest to kill one man.

In the Spring of 2000 I knew very little of G. W. Bush. After the primaries, however, when the campaign for the Presidency was in full swing, he made a statement that his hero was Jesus Christ. After the debauchery and perjury of the Clinton years, such a statement was a welcome hint that perhaps there were still Americans with high moral standards, and the courage of conviction in the face of what was certainly hostility to such sentiments by the supporters of his opponent. In the aftermath of the Trade Center attack, Mr. Bush called for a day of prayer, and in so doing, missed what was perhaps the greatest opportunity in modern times for a world leader to make a bold statement as to the way a nation founded on Christian ideals would conduct itself.

We will never know what might have been had the President called instead for a day of fasting and repentance, as well as prayer. The blatantly immoral character of the previous administration had been a blot on the nation's history, and the looming economic recession in the late summer of 2001 was a portent of what would follow half a decade later as the result of fraudulent financial practices. The makeup of the United States government -- of the people -- has always been an accurate reflection of the people themselves.

Who knows what good things might have resulted from introspection into the nation's moral conduct, and a turning to the Christian principles from which it originally drew it's inspiration? Would the billions of dollars spent on overseas wars have found their way into improvement of America's infrastructure, and a higher quality of life for all of our people? Would the thousands of dead soldiers have contributed instead to greater domestic energy independence, or the dream of space exploration, or medical advancements? Would the innate selfishness of the Nation's budgetary process have given way to a prudent fiscal policy?

Another day set aside as the National Day of Prayer has come and gone. There are those who have ignored it out of ignorance or spite. There are those who perhaps have prayed that spiritual revival might overtake the Nation, or that some heroic figure would arise to preach, like Jonah, sermons that would bring the land to repentance. It might be good to reflect on the fact that those who were first called "Christians" were a small group of individuals that simply lived in obedience to the instructions of Jesus. They were a despised minority. They had no power, but the power of love, and through the exercise of that love, they shook the Earth.

Do not pray for the revival of the Nation unless you are willing to pray first for your own life to be changed through repentance and obedience to the teaching of Jesus; to love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and forgive even those who have not the slightest remorse over the wrong they have done to you. Only through that can this great Nation be revived.