A Life Without Armor

(From the novel Breakfast With Buddha)

Gwool

Gwool
Birthday
February 25
Bio
This serves as a recreational hobby about all sorts of stuff. For my real job I own a boutique Market Intelligence firm working with high technology companies on go-to-market strategies, due diligence, organizational analysis and various benchmarking studies. Enjoy distribtuion channel analysis immensely. Former political operative. Advance man for then candidate HW Bush. Congressional field operative and fund raiser. 17 years of small town municipal experience. A rare elected Republican town official in the People's Republic of Massachusetts. Four kids 21, 19, and 17 year old boys and an 11 year old girl. Topics will be all over the map. Kids, humor, rants, politics, economics, you name it. The liberal arts degree makes me a jack of all trades, master of none. Or just really full of myself. Take your pick. You like it, feel free to receive Tweets from http://twitter.com/gwoollacott.

Gwool's Links

Salon.com
OCTOBER 21, 2009 12:01PM

Two Gitmo Detainees Invited To Mass Community: Good or Bad?

Rate: 14 Flag

Local talk radio in Massachusetts prattles on in the background about the decision by the Board of Selectman in Amherst, Massachusetts put a resolution onto their Special Town Meeting to invite two Guantanamo Bay detainees into their community.

It is not cast in stone, as the Town Meeting has to vote on it.  It may not happen, but the cat is out of the bag, and the political furor has already started from an article being put on the warrant that only requires 100 signatures to happen. 

For those unfamiliar with the area Amherst Massachusetts sits at the center of five academic institutions, Smith College, Mount Holyoke College, Amherst College, the University of Massachusetts, and Hampshire  College.  Amherst, then, follows the stereotype of academic settings of being rather left of center.

And so talk radio rails on about this community inviting Guantanamo detainees into its midst.  Little has come forth as yet as to the background of the two individuals.

It's a "Not in My Back Yard" or NIMBY question that reaches far beyond the confines of the bucolic little New England Village setting idealized by artists for years.  

Specificially:

 

  • These five colleges have 2,200 faculty teaching 28,000 students.  Those 28,000 students have parents scattered around the world.  NIMBY fears, then, spread through the understandable tentacles of parental concern.  
  • The Quabbin Reservoir, made years ago by flooding five communities, serves as the drinking supply for the Greater Boston Area, and is not guarded well at all.  NIMBY fears, then, spread east to the concentrated populations centers of Massachusetts.
  • Cable news pandering to target segments of the population will undoubtedly pick up on this and use it as a weapon in the divisive partisan rhetoric wars.  NIMBY fears, then, will spread to the galvanized camps that have become our political parties as we continue on with a politics of demonization rather than one of conciliation and compromise.

 

But what if these two individuals truly are innocents or simple foot soldiers in the ill-defined army of the terror threat?  What if they were simple conscripts who just agreed to do something simple like courier data about which they knew nothing in exchange for the safety of their family?  The notoriety makes it virtually impossible for them to assimilate into a community without intense scrutiny.

It's a tough, tough issue, this.  We know such things as sleeper cells exist.  We know those who did the damage on 9/11 had moved freely throughout our country for quite some time before turning on us and acting.  We have an understandable bias based on this.

The perfect scenario is that these two individuals thrive in an academic setting, availing themselves of the opportunity and being able to become productive in their lives and to serve as role models to those with heightened fear of Arabic people.  

I do not see how that is possible, though.  I do not see how they will be able to live peacefully assuming that sufficient vetting was made in advance of the offer and that is what they would want to do.  Either that, or they may simply not come.

 That happens, and, while no lives will be lost, the demonization will start about racism and bias and all the rest. 

I drove through the area to and from prep school with my mother often.  It was a longer route than necessary, but she attended Smith College, and liked it.  There's a turnout overlooking the Quabbin Reservoir I know well.  Every time we passed it, I heard the same story of her and my father driving back to Smith from a function at my father's college in the early morning hours when they pulled over to listen on the radio to the news of the attack on Pearl Harbor.

This story was never told without rancorous utterances about the Japanese being thrown in.  It was a deep seated animosity that never left her being.  Her reaction to my first new car purchase being a Toyota is down right unprintable.

So will this gesture ameliorate that understandable fear in people still traumatized by 9/11 by showing them through example the fact not all Arab people are enemies?  Will it result in ugly interactions from these people with two individuals who will have no privacy whatsoever based on the splash this news event makes?  Will another tragic event occur on these soils at the hands of terrorist enemies who just happen to be Arabic, with this compassionate gesture being blamed regardless of whether these two people ever interact with the perpetrators or not? 

Sadly, I have little faith this event will end well.  I am not necessarily concerned with the threat of these two individuals as I am with the damage to our public dialog around the threat to our national security that terrorism does pose and will likely forever continue to pose.

I have lost my enjoyment in discussing politics precisely because of the way in which it has devolved into blame games with little effort made by EITHER side to view the other side with compassionate understanding.  

On a local level, I have returned to a community where I was deeply involved for a decade, with some people asking if I am interested in getting involved again.  I simply do not have the stomach for the arguing and attacking anymore.  I do not want that in my life anymore.  I do not want to put my time and effort into trying to live by my principals to help others in this capacity only to be mocked and ridiculed as being "just another politician" when politicians are viewed with such contempt by society.

To hell with it.  I give up.  I quit.  If society does not want to believe in the good intentions of those who enjoy public service, then society will not create an environment where that happens.  Good people can only take so much denigration.

And yet culturally we seem to thrive on denigration  these days.  It is tough to escape.  Flick on news programs you enjoy, and invariably, if you leave it on too long, another show comes on with a screaming, demonizing talking head representing -- or pandering to -- one of the armed camps that were once our political parties. 

So my first reaction when I heard left-leaning Amherst Massachusetts had invited two Guantanamo Bay detainees into their community was simply to utter aloud, "oh shit."

May no lives be ruined by this decision, yet, sadly, I do not see how that is going to be possible.   

Author tags:

risk, bias, trust, guantanamo

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
Oh shit is right. Good luck Amherst!
I dug up an article on this. It's two people who want to make another grandiose statement concerning a national issue.
That's fine with me.
However, there is a somewhere between zero and nil chance that they will get their token detainees. The idea is to illuminate the issue, which is also an acceptable thing to do.
But to debate their presence in Amherst as if it was a real possibility is a gargantuan waste of breath, which is also a fine thing for those seeking a platform to have an abstract discussion.
The only thing I see as inappropriate is taking it seriously beyond the larger national issue of what to do with those people.
Locally, this will generate a discussion of people who like listening to themselves. And perhaps a rally with a guitar guy playing Michael Row the Boat Ashore, some lady dancing and slapping on a tambourine, and 15 people linking arms and singing.
To each their own, I guess.
I worked with a young Jewish-Canadian who told me of similar ire from the community when she and her husband bought a Volkswagen years ago.
Your reaction is typical : and makes a mockery of any assertion of "Innocent Until Proven Guilty."
In the case of Gitmo, it means more like facing the evidence of torturing innocents. There can't be much more awkward a social problem than that.
Don't think I'm slamming you personally. Human nature is often a particularly nasty bill of goods.
It is a serious predicament that other communities will be drawn into. The guilt and innocence of many of these detainees is hard to determine and I'm afraid that fair trials (fair for both sides) might be difficult to achieve. Also, many of these men might be innocent, but are now much more anti-American than they were when detained. But, we can't keep innocent people in jail for something that they might do in the future, right?

The NIMBY attitude is what keeps prisons and nuclear reactors from being built.

In the end, who knows what to do, but something has to be done. Maybe we should transfer them to a federal prison, give them trials with rules of evidence, etc. Send the innocent ones back to their homelands and keep the rest of them in jail??
First, let me thank you for your ten years of public service. While I didn't live in your community, I know where it is and the headache must have ended when you stopped banging your head against the wall.

If these alleged terrorists (aka detainees) were American citizens, they'd at least be accorded the psuedo presumption of innocence unitl proven guilty in a court of law. These guys haven even had a trial, yet. Should we presume them innocent until proven otherwise.

I believe that you lay out both the risks and rewards of settling these two in Western Massachusetts. With exception of the rsik to the water supply, there's not much difference with the NIMBYs when they deal with a convicted sex offended who is released and has "paid his debt to society."

How many sex offenders live unknown to the communities in which they reside? With the internet, probably not many. Are they in danger? To some degree yes.

As long as a media structure exists that goes for ratings over rational thought, it will be difficult to engage in the dialogue that you mention in your post.

I think it's likely these people are not a threat to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, but I am not a resident of that state any longer. It's up to citizens of said community to make that decision.

It will be enlightening to see who shows up? People who stand by the courage of their convictions, or a paranoid group of NIMBYs who want to shoot first, ask questions later, and are busy boiling tar and plucking waterfoul.

Rated. One of your best, my friend.
I wonder.

I wonder how many would see this episode as a metaphor for the larger question? Is it possible in this world of woe that all men will finally come to realize they are brothers?

I wonder.

History's answer is no. But while history may inform the future, it is not prophecy. What we do now determines the future, and what we do now too often is a result of blindness.

Too often we fail to see that division leads to more division, hatred leads to more hatred, war leads to more war -- or as the Buddhists would have it, the fate of the samurai is to be eternally reborn as a samurai. Or as a prophet once warned, he who lives by the sword will perish by the sword.

Sometimes, it's hard to know if we are on the right road or the wrong one. Could this attempt to find common purpose with two unfortunates be two steps down the right road?

I wonder.
Fantastic post. I welcome anyone resettling in my backyard when they have been cleared of charges or served their time. If I didn't, I would have to change the laws. And resettling detainees might be a smart move, to prove that our sense of justice also has that element of just consideration for people who are rehabilitated, or have been held unjustly.
It also IS my backyard, since I live here in the bucolic and academic and sometimes absurd Happy Valley. 28,000 is the population of UMASS alone. There are many ideological gestures made in towns such as Amherst, although Amherst definitely seems to rule the news. Northmpton is never far behind.
Gestures made in that olde New England way - town meetings. There's always much huffing and puffing and...you know what? I love it.
This is MY democracy in action.
I so agree with OESheepdog about the comparison to sex offenders, and I agree with Tom Cordles eloquence.
I'm going to Amherst in a few hours, for work related meetings. I'll blow kisses from my car in your honor.
(p.s. someone needs to write a post about the Quabbin and the drowned towns> Just a hint!)
Paul: I should acknowledge that the information regarding it being a resolution to put before town meeting was made aware to me via the radio in the background as I was writing it. Still, Amherst is a community that regularly votes 80% democrat or more and is very, very left. (I do not say that to denigrate, just as an observation.) As such, with special town meetings very sparsely attended, I am not as certain of it NOT seeing the light of day. Likewise, the discourse around the possibility will bring out the usual suspects and bomb tossers.

John: I was not intending to get into at all the notion of whether or not Gitmo has been a good or bad thing. I was looking at the reaction of two people I would ASSUME would be vetted in terms of the facts around their incarceration, and how the reaction likely will NOT take that into account. I sought to offer the way in which this community's decision reaches others, thereby enhancing the logical, if unpleasant, NIMBY reaction.

Roger: I have huge reservations around entering these guys into the civil court system. We have military courts, and we try enemies who are not US citizens that way. We did not, for example, try prisoners of war in our civil system. It's a national security measure. Simpler to simply not allow visas to them and release them back to where they want to go. Likewise, this "war" or threat is going to go on in perpetuity, sadly. Life in military prison is a harsh thing, as well, but would military soldiers being released be in our national security interests? Soldiers did get traded in diplomatic negotiations, but that was when the national security threat had a system of government around it. We aren't doing a whole hell of a lot of diplomatic communication with Bin Ladin or whomever. Tough issue.

OE: you raise a very good point about sex offenders which I pondered including. There are registries in MA and you can go into the police station and get a print out. There are also stories of those folks then being harassed. I am certain with this notoriety, these two folks would get harassed.

So that is the discomfort. If the resolution does not pass, then demonization of those with fear for blowing a chance to show compassion. If it does pass and they are harassed, then same thing. If it passes and there's some flare up around here, then it will be pointed to as unnecessary risk. As I said, I do not see a positive outcome here to our political discourse. Too touchy an issue at this point. We had internment camps for Japanese people during WWII. In this case, I try to look at the bright side and say we did not round up Arab Americans and do that. We were more selective in the aggregating. So we make progress on these fears, but they still arise.

Tom: I appreciate the idea and support the idea if we feel the military can state their research suggests that. But there are two problems in the way.

1) The hammering they have taken over Gitmo makes them understandably reluctant to admit this.
2) The understandable fear in SOME of the citizenry makes such a welcoming unlikely to come without some harassment.

Would news was less instantaneous and that this could be done more along the lines of a witness protection program kind of deal. Only way I could see two folks we will presume to be innocent for the purpose of this argument be able to actually be viewed and received into the community that way by ALL folks without harassment.

That's why I said "oh shit" in response. I do not see how it will end well. Even the vote down will engender more animosity between the two "camps," as it were.

The difficulty for us as a country happens to be we have never really had wars fought on our shores after our formation, save for the War of 1812. Our Civil War was within sovereign factions. Though horrific, it was not a matter of international law, per se.
I agree with OE. This was just excellent Geoff. The standard answer given about politicians is "Corrupt, evil, power monger." There seems to be little or not thought given. So, like OE, thank you for your years of public service. Your community is most fortunate. I hope you keep us updated on how this all turns out and I hope that your fears are not realized.
We have never had a war fought on our shores. Exactly. Maybe what Amherst is doing is an exercise in discourse. I'd rather have dialogue in a setting like a REAL town meeting than endless speculation from pundits. As I said, good old New England politics and my democracy in action. I'm a Masshole. My ancestors were the first terrorists.
First gwool, a great posting. You did a good job of presenting the facts.
Second, under any circumstances these dudes will pose about as much of a risk as Amherst taking a direct hit from a big meteor. Ever hear of Total Information Awareness? Hell, ever hear of the local police department? With all the paranoia going on around Gitmo, I predict that any settler from the Cuban joint in Massachusetts will have a pretty good collection of imaginary friends tailing them 24/7.

The big kerfuffle is the big drum being pounded relentlessly by the fearmongers, which is too damn bad. And as to the whole terrorism thing that our country has been fixated on, William Pfaff's recent piece in the International Herald Tribune tells it all. It's based on a CIA terrorism expert's testimony before a US Senate committee. Here it is in a nutshell:

60 Al Queda operations
59 cases solved (they know who did it)
36 cases interdicted by law enforcement, intel
10 cases failed due to incompetency
9 cases caused by Algerians in Paris in the 90s
3 successful Al Queda operations ( 9/11, London, Madrid)

That pretty much sums up the whole maggilla. Do the math.
Old New: Let's take your statements as 100% valid. Even in that, I fear it ending badly by those with an anti-Arab bias. I do not condone it. But, I try to be compassionate in understanding it. I would argue I came to that early on hearing my mother prattle on about the Japanese. Hell, Obama discussed this eloquently when talking about Reverend Wright. Wright did see separate water coolers, etc, so he has a right to be jaded, as it were.

SO these two come and there are those bird dogging and hounding these guys akin to fears around child molesters on communities. Will they really be out of prison? If they do get harassed, will their compassionate understanding of the fear motivating that?

You and I both know the answer to that last one. It will be the old game of demonization about Nazis, racism and all the rest. It is fear. Fear of understanding, say, that not all Arabs are really sleeper cell terrorists ready to blow themselves up to harm you. Fear of the religion because it is different, etc, etc.

So I can readily buy your argument, yet still not see how it will end well based on knowing not all will be able to do that. Hence why the compassionate way to acclimate those deemed innocent should they want to come would be better suited through something more along the lines of witness protection. This would have to be a quietly run federal/military program and, as we know, there simply is not a lot of trust in government. Somewhere, someone will find a way to mistrust it and demonize it based on the way we view our pols, particularly those in the "enemy camp."

Blech!
And this just in . . . they've arrested a real terrorist in the Western suburbs of Boston. Lest we forget, the 9/11 hijackers spent the night in a motel on Route 9, and a recently-arrested Taliban leader spent time as a housepainter in the western suburbs.

Is Amherst willing to take these guys off our hands?
Maybe I'm going all Archie Bunker on this, but why do we have to keep them in America at all!? I mean, the ones who are from other countries and not this one, whether innocent or guilty...why not send them home?!? Why doesn't that make some sense? Buh bye!
"I have lost my enjoyment in discussing politics precisely because of the way in which it has devolved into blame games with little effort made by EITHER side to view the other side with compassionate understanding. "

Amen brother! Amen.

Rated.
I'd invite them to Oklahoma City, but it would be a step down after Gitmo.
Ok, first of all I'm glad they are going to MA and not here. Quite frankly it's a problem just waiting to be realized. Some of you fail to realize that these detainees were picked up mainly because they were fighting against the US in some fashion. If this was WWII we would have offed them on the battlefield within days of their capture. They are lucky to be alive today. Even if it is inside Gitmo.
The other thing you need to consider is the fact that if they ARE terrorists then there is a good chance that their brothers will most likely want to come get them at some point. How would Amherst deal with an armed team of jihadist's bent on either rescuing or silencing their counterparts. People need to realize that this war is not over. Regardless of what the media may be saying these days there are still plenty of bad guys out there that have a dream of attacking America.
Lastly, they DON'T HAVE RIGHTS!!! These detainees don't have rights under the US Constitution unless they are AMERICAN Citizens. WE have no obligation to give them a jury trial. NONE. Like I said earlier, they are lucky they were not executed on the battlefield. WE should take the hint that some of these idiots are not even welcome back in their OWN country.
that puts academia in the dumbest light possible.
Like, we are not part of this country.
Send them to college where they came from I say.
I can only imagine the can of worms this is likely to open. All the hot air spouted regarding NIMBYism on this and other issues may add to the problem of global warming. I'd like to be an optimist and hope that these guys can start over and find a decent life in western Mass., but I'm sure it won't be easy.

P.S. Do consider a post about Quabbin and the drowned towns.
"It's a tough, tough issue, this."

Good topic!