Is not his life be what we are fighting for?

I say this because I once read Mother Theresa’s reply to the question,
Will you come and march in protest against the war? To which she
replied no. When you have a march for Peace, then I’ll march with
you, she is reported to have said.

As subtle as the difference might appear to be, Hasan deserves to
live. No Human Being deserves anything other than Life.

When we can choose to give Hasan life, regardless of his crimes, then
we can free ourselves to choose life. Until that day, we’ll choose
the endless cycle of punishment and death, to the exclusion of all
else.

Referring to Hasan Akbar, Brandy wrote:

That man freely joined they US Army, therefore it was his DUTY to DEFEND our country. He was the one who made that choice!

and

He was a soldier for the USA and therefore it was his DUTY to DEFEND our country. A DUTY which he did not do. I think that what he did do was grounds for treason and should be punished by death.

I will ask Brandy or others who agree with her to answer a simple question — one that I have asked before in similar contexts without getting a response:

Would you take the same position regarding a soldier in the Iraqi Army? Would such a soldier have a DUTY to DEFEND his country? Especially given that his country, not yours, was the one being attacked, and actually had something to be defended against?

I’m looking forward to an answer from Brandy or someone of similar mind. It should be interesting.

P.S. to Stan: You presumably have Brandy’s email address, so maybe you can let her know that there’s a question awaiting her response!

And yes, Aaron, it is people like me who are the problem. The signature of ultra-leftism is always to focus attacks on the left, and attack anyone who disagrees with a particular line as the enemy.

Your argument here is rather demagogic, Stan! I wrote that ‘the failure of people of your stature to give Akbar “the least bit of support” is part of the problem.’ This is very different from saying that “it is people like [you] who are the problem”, both in that I referred only to a specific behavior of “people of your stature”, and I said that that behavior was “part of the problem”, not “the problem”.

I don’t know where you get the idea that I “always [...] focus attacks on the left”, since all you seem to be going on is what I’ve written here about one narrow issue. Moreover, I haven’t written anything implying that you are “the enemy”. Does your (quite proper) attack on support by leftists for the Kerry campaign mean that you “always [...] focus attacks on the left”, and that you attack people like Chomsky, Michael Parenti and Tariq Ali as “the enemy”?

BTW, your use of the term “immature” to describe my “thought process” seems designed to rule out rational discussion, unless you’re planning to invoke developmental cognitive science to differentiate between “mature” and “immature” thought processes!

I’m happy, in any case, that you are taking up the case of Hasan Akbar. If you can get others involved in defending him on your less provocative basis, that’s great! Go for it!

There’s a lot more I’d like to say about issues that have been raised in this discussion, including aspects of Brandy’s comments that you haven’t dealt with (yet?). But I’m a slow writer, so I’ll leave off here to get back to my life and hopefully fcome back to this discussion later.

And yes, Aaron, it is people like me who are the problem. The signature of ultra-leftism is always to focus attacks on the left, and attack anyone who disagrees with a particular line as the enemy.

I have no idea how old you are chronologically. It’s the thought process that I find immature. You are not looking at the net effect of this act, which is not to mobilize support for the struggle against empire, but to fuel its racism and xenophobia.

This is the error of adventurism. With Akbar, it is also idealization. We have heard nothing from Akbar or his lawyers that is remotely political; they mounted a pretty standard defense… that he was afraid. I think that is a valid defense, given what he reportedly wrote in his diary.

The question I raised was what is the military covering up about the events that preceded the attack, particularly in his unit? You will find next to zero support for Akbar’s actions among Americans, even those who strongly oppose the war. That’s not a statement equating popularity with virtue. It’s a statement about instrumental politics.

Open racism in the military, however, not only constitutes matters in extenuation and mitigation for Akbar’s appeal (which could save his life), it is a bloody nose for the miltiary. If Akbar appeals and receives his public support as a “hero” of the resistance, he will die. And to the applause (or very qualified regret) of the vast majority of the American population.

If you can explain to me how the idealization of Hasan Akbar as a hero will overcome that, I’m all ears.

With Brandy on my right and you on my left, I feel pretty comfortable.

While there is no effective mass movement against the war, and there probably won’t be until a lot more U.S.-Americans are dying, the failure of people of your stature to give Akbar “the least bit of support” is part of the problem, because it demoralizes others who might take armed action against the Empire. Also, saying that Akbar “will now be put to death, most likely” is defeatism. People did not, thankfully, take that attitude towards the death sentences of Sacco and Vanzetti, the Rosenbergs (who were also heroes if they were “guilty”) or Mumia. We should be fighting against his death sentence, as long as he is alive and raise money for both his legal defense — so he doesn’t have to depend only on military lawyers from now on — and for his personal needs. Personally, although I’m just a bit above poverty level myself, I pledge to give him $100 as soon as I can figure out how to get it to him.

If Hasan Akbar is eventually executed in spite of our efforts, we should remember him as both a victim and a hero!

As for my “ultra-leftism”, I would argue that, on the contrary, the ultra-leftists are those who refuse to support armed actions against the U.S. unless they are carried out by people with a clear leftist ideology. Incidentally, I’m “young” enough to have demonstrated against the Suez invasion in 1956, so I’m probably older than you are, Stan! And I’m not concerned with proving that I’m ‘”truly down” with the revolution’. In fact, while I’m all for ‘the revolution’, I don’t think we have any right to make people around the world being screwed over by the U.S. wait till we can make a revolution in the U.S. before we do anything to take the pressure off them!

The majority of the military is NOT African American. Please bother to at least get your basic facts straight before you jump in over your head here. And I know the miltiary justice system very well. I spent over two decades in the active duty army. It is not the foolproof instrument of justice you describe. I suspect it was not even that for you, but I won’t ask you to share the details of your court martial unless you want to.

I suggest you go back and read the article more carefully. Gender is a system of unequal power playing itself out hard in the military, as I’m sure you know. There is something in this piece for you, and nothing in here was written against you. Your reference to “I’m a minority and I should get away with things” is dangerously close to race-baiting, and if you want to be posted here you will put a lid on that.

Stop and think for a minute before you say such things. We can defend him from injustice without idealizing him out of reality.