The Constitution corrupted, Part I

Hate crimes victims data
Graphic by Abram Samuelson, used under CC Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

Seven more deaths (including the gunman) and four more wounded in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. Why? Racism, hatred, anger, fear, frustration, propaganda, the easy availability of weapons, and the corruption of the United States Constitution.

Pseudo-conservative, pseudo-Christian, pseudo-moral right-wing extremists have been able to convince too many people that the United States Bill of Rights was written solely for them.

Their claims appeal in particular to the increasing number of people who see the American dream escaping them, who struggle to make a living in a society where wealth seems to abound, and who wonder why they can’t have it all.

The propaganda giants are only too happy to create scapegoats.

Imagine what it would be like if the Bill of Rights were re-written by the power-hungry right-wing minority that would like everyone to believe that our basic rights should be interpreted as follows:

Amendment I. Congress shall make no laws interfering with the right religion; Congress shall not interfere with the freedom to spread lies and hatred and to incite to violence; Congress shall not interfere with the right of people to assemble peacefully as long as they are the right people.

Amendment II. Nobody shall interfere with the right of disaffected vengeful people to bear arms in order to kill anyone who disagrees with them (or is the wrong color or the wrong religion or the wrong nationality).

Amendment IV.  People have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures unless they are the wrong people.

These are NOT the original Amendments to our Constitution—the Constitution that our public officials swear to uphold. (See the correct wording.)

In the next post, I will consider how some of the other Amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been corrupted by seekers after power who have no interest in human rights or democracy–only the pursuit of their own interests.

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

Using brains instead of brutality

[Note from Kathie Malley-Morrison: Our second post for Torture Awareness Month is a book review about alternatives to torture.]

By Rachel Tochiki

In his book, How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq, Matthew Alexander, with John R. Bruning, describes his experience as interrogator in a prison in Iraq.How to Break a Terrorist book cover

How do you “break” a terrorist, i.e., get a prisoner to open up and give information under interrogation?

Alexander’s answer is to appeal to human emotion and build rapport and trust– a strategy that contrasts sharply with old-school tactics of fear and control.

In describing his process of interrogation, he explains that he is an actor, taking on whatever personality or life experiences are necessary to appeal to the prisoner.

Despite the  skepticism and disagreement of other interrogators, his strategy produced successful results, leading to the intelligence necessary to find Abu Musab al Zarqawi, one of the top priority terrorist leaders in Iraq.

Avoiding dehumanization of the enemy did not come easily for Alexander, who was often exposed to Al Qaida’s anti-America propaganda videos showing suicide bombings and beheadings. Yet his determination not to hate the enemy enabled him to reach a new level of understanding with the prisoners.

He found that many people work for Al Qaida because they need money, or are afraid of Shia militias. They see Al Qaida as a form of protection for their families. Few of the prisoners he interrogated actually believed in the ideology of Al Qaida.

He emphasizes that techniques upholding the Geneva Conventions are successful, and dismisses the need for enhanced interrogation. To obtain useful and accurate information from prisoners, fear and control are not as successful as methods of rapport and trust.

The book shows that even in times of war, soldiers need to remain humane, and Alexander emphasizes that doing so pays off.

Global day of listening: An opportunity to listen and learn

March 20, 2011, is “GLOBAL DAY of LISTENING to ‘live without wars.’”  Inspired by Afghan Youth Peace Volunteers, Afghans For Peace, and the Iraqi & American Reconciliation Project, the organizers of the latest Global Day of Listening event are providing opportunities for everyone to talk with ordinary people  from Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Israel, Egypt, Yemen, and other countries around the world.

Follow the instructions and you will be able to hear the stories of people who have firsthand experience with war, occupation, terror, and the death of innocent civilians, and you will be able to ask questions of these people, who are choosing peace rather than revenge as a result of their experiences.

Most Americans get their “news” from the “popular media” that are controlled by the same rich and powerful interests that exercise enormous influence over governmental policy and that gain much of their wealth through the country’s involvement in wars. Don’t believe their propaganda; do not let them convince you that “the only good X (insert name of one of the current popular ‘enemies’) is a dead X” or that you have to “kill or be killed.” Throughout history millions of people have pursued and achieved peace.

Even if you do not take advantage of this opportunity to talk to someone in Baghdad, Kabul, and elsewhere over the weekend, do take some time to click on the links provided above to learn more about these organizations and their fight for peace and/or view some brief videos in which survivors of the invasions in their countries make their pleas for peace.

After you participate in the listening, please share your reactions by commenting here on Engaging Peace.

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology