CIA Interrogations

It has been widely reported in global news media that the US Attorney General has hired a prosecutor to investigate alleged interrogation abuses by the CIA. I can accept that if a prisoner died, then there needs to be an investigation. I can also accept that the use of interrogation techniques such as water-boarding do lie in the grey area between right and wrong. Hence this grey area needs to be clarified. Unfortunately under the former Bush administration this was done in a way that appears suspect, and probably is suspect.

The system under which CIA techniques were formulated and enacted probably was suspect: with a person like Dick Cheney wielding influence behind the scene; with unclear communication channels between the Department of Justice and the Bush administration; and with a clear lack of communication between Congress and the White House. This lack of clarity in direction means that the CIA operatives that actually have to interrogate detainees have no clear framework to work under. They have been asked to operate in a foggy grey area, and that was what they did. By definition they are therefore in general not responsible. There may be, as previously mentioned, specific instances that are outside this foggy grey area. However this does not require a special prosecutor.

It has previously been reported that techniques used included loud heavy metal music, and slamming a persons back against a wall in a manner that sounds worse than it actually is. It is now reported that all sorts of fear tactics have been used: threatening to kill a persons children; threatening to sexually assault a person’s mother; and displaying a gun and a power drill in a session.

In most of the news reports it is implied that these threats a clearly reprehensible. However what is not made so clear is that these are only threats and there is absolutely no intention of carrying out such threats. I know that even reading or writing about these techniques can be itself a harsh experience. However the sort of individual that carries out a terrorist act has a mentality that would not only devise such techniques, but actually carry them out. Certainly if a suspected terrorist is a terrorist, then they would have a sufficiently thick skin that threats like above mentioned would not have the same effect that they would have on a normal person. Of course a detainee may be innocent. Hence the harshness of the interrogation technique needs to balances the seriousness of the possible crime against the possibility of innocence – and the imminence of a potential threat. The use of threats is to me not even in the grey area.

It was also reported that a mock execution was used, but was unsuccessful because it looked like it was staged. I suggest that the interrogators take up some acting lessons.

The opposition to harsh interrogation is strong because torture is so horrendous. Harsh interrogation therefore needs to be devised in such a way that it works subtly on a person’s body and emotions. This is what a lot of the techniques (that have been portrayed as obviously being in the grey area or even clearly torture) have been designed to do.

No-one likes the idea of harsh interrogation, but what is often left out is that innocent victims are also tortured at the hands of terrorists.

Islam and the West

This is in response to an article by the Iranian political scientist Nazanin Amirian published in the online at “Publico.es” on the 4th July 2009.

The author presents a viewpoint that is very similar to arguments presented by the Iranian foreign minister a couple of years ago in the Opinion section of (I think) the International Herald Tribune.

I do not recall the content of the foreign ministers letter. However what I do recall was that it was full of lies and omissions. It is for this reason that I feel obliged to the case recently put forward by Amirian.

The concept put forward is that the West (primarily the United States) is attempting to dominate the world (include Muslim countries) through military force.

I here only respond to the lies that are found in Amirian’s position.

Amirian argues that the concept of the Muslim or Islamic world is a Western concept that “we” do not recognize. Who is the “we” that Amirian is referring too. It is argued that unlike the geographically correct notion of the West, the concept of Islam is an erroneous concept used to further devious military domination. If the concept of ‘the West’ refers to the United States (and presumably also the United Kingdom), then what about South America and Africa?

Also, even though the Pakistani way of life may well more resemble the Hindu’s of India than the Muslims of Morocco, this in no way falsifies the fact that Pakistan and Morocco are both countries where Islam is the state religion. The concept of generalisation, or indeed its opposite, is used to foster understanding. A generalisation may become an over-simplification. However its use by rational human beings is to create understanding out of simplification.

Amirian argues that the so called war on terror does not refer to Islamic terror in Indonesia. In terms of casualties to ‘Westeners’ by ‘Islamic’ extremists, the two Indonesian Bali bombings rank very highly. I find it difficult to therefore accept Amirian’s argument here.

She talks about the millions of people forced to flee the fighting in the Swat valley. It is argued that this fighting is supposedly between the Pakistan army and the Pakistan Taliban; she states however that this is in fact a disguise: actually they are fleeing bombing by the Americans. Amirian needs a lesson in geography. Relatively speaking, the Swat valley is in the north, and the drone bombing attacks by the United States are on or near the Afghan border to the west.

Why is an Iranian political scientist, just like the Iranian foreign minister, using language that is full of errors, inconsistencies, and omissions? With Amirian I am of the view that she actually believes what she is talking about. With the foreign minister I am not no sure. In any case, the view presented is based on a deep running and blind assumption (a belief) that ‘the West’ is evil.

The hypocrisy is that Amirian argues that the essential intellectual problem is in the generalisation and therefore oversimplification of the concept of Islam. However the truth is that she has an erroneous view based on the generalisation and oversimplification of the concept of the West.

Just because a person can put words together to make a sentence does not make them sane. Amirian and the Iranian foreign minister both demonstrated seriously irrational mental thought processes. The more irrational a person becomes the more they approach being insane. Remember this that Hitler could string words together very nicely, and he was in fact either completely cuckoo or nefariously nuts.

High Stakes Poker

North Korea is an increasingly erratic pariah nation that is slowly but surely developing omni-potent weapons technologies. Also of serious concern is that technologies and materials may be fanned out across the globe to state or non-state actors that have ill intent. The difficult and tedious diplomatic efforts are testimony to the difficult road ahead. However it is almost surprising to note that North Korea’s path could easily have been considerable curbed or even terminated at any point over the last decades. Why then has this not happened? The answer is because the power to turn the taps off lies with the Chinese.

With supplies of aid, military trade, and other forms of trade, China has supported many dubious sovereign states. However North Korea’s recent advances in nuclear weapons technology give itself a little too much capability for China to feel comfortable with having such an erratic neighbourhood friend. Hence although it is unlikely that you will see any major policy shift from the Chinese, I would suggest that you will see the breaks being applied gradually over the next years. The same however cannot be said for China’s general policy of supporting brutal and reckless regimes.

Russia has followed suit behind China in propping up pariah states, but to a lesser degree. However I am of the opinion that the motivation is different to the Chinese. With the Chinese Communist Party, it is simply a criminal organisation that supports other criminal organisations. For Russia, I suggest that its poor conduct is more as an added counter-weight to its historical adversary – the United States of America. It is with this in mind that the high stakes poker game is being played out.

Barack Obama, the United States president, recently played a bold move. Just prior to his first official visit to Moskow, he threw his hope for a ‘restart’ in relations with President Medvedev, and openly slammed Premier Putin as an old crony with ‘one foot in the old and the other foot in the new’. Ever since Medvedev came to presidency pundits have incessantly posted the former president and current prime-minister Putin as being the real power. How would you think that this makes President Medvedev feel? Guaranteed Barack Obama does not agree with the pundits. Obama has alienated Putin to make Medvedev his chum. Whether or not this works remains to be seen, however he has at least achieved his initial objective.

There are numerous questions that remain as yet unanswered. Is Medvedev an autonomous presidential power, and if so, is he capable of improving relations with America? It is reasonable to assume that Putin has at least one foot in the old ‘cold-war’ mentality because in his eight years of reign relations have dive-bombed.

If relationships can improve between the two historic super-power enemies, then my prediction is that Russia will back away from its support for countries like North Korea and Iran. In this way China gets left out on its own, and with the increasing internal pressure (such as show in recent days in the major civil unrest with its Muslim minority), China will be in for a rough ride. Not only will it have difficulty maintaining its current ruinous strategy, it will also start to have pressure on its financial clout to back up this intent. Remember that Japan became a post World War II economic giant and everything you used to by was Japanese. Look at Japan now: a lost decade in a financial mire, and now collapsed exports and trade. Now everything you buy is made in China, but this is about to change. Following this logic, the next direction to look is either in Africa or in the countries where the industrial revolution started its first paradigmatic revolution. Such countries (America, Britain and Germany to name three) are now drowning in debt and are at the bottom of a cycle.

Now back to the poker game. In order to move relations forward with Russia, Obama backs Medvedev and gives Putin a good right hook – better remember that Putin is a spy guru with a martial arts forte. Anyway, the main point is that if relations with Russia improve, Russia will most likely withdraw or reduce support for regimes like North Korea and Iran. If this happens, its importance cannot be overstated. This may well shift the balance of power and bring about real change on issues that are getting more and more out of hand – as weapons technologies improve and potentially therefore proliferate.

So good luck to Mr Obama for he has already played his hand and Mr Medvedev is his new chum whilst Mr Putin is not at all a happy camper.

Intelligence Piracy

When you quote someone, as if to give further strength to a certain point of view, you are in effect deceiving yourselves first, and others second. The wise beings of the past have the vision to see far into the future and deep into the timeless. In quoting a wise being you are saying that you share the master’s vision with respect to some particular issue: you see what the master sees. You see as far as the master sees, and hence everybody better listen to you for your utterances are comprised of both clarity and importance.

There is a catch-22 when backing up your point of view with quotes from the sages. If you see as far as a sage then you are a learned one, and hence do not need to quote someone else. You alone stand tall and your words are ingrained with depth and truth. People will listen to your words, though perhaps in time distant from now. If you don’t see as far as a sage then you are unfortunately clueless as to the wisdom that the shell of words so contain. You are not up to the task of understanding wisdom and hence your parallels in apparent understanding are in fact mimicry. Make your own utterances, write your own truths, and live your own life.

Though lotus flowers and rose bushes are the envy of all, the desert wild flower shall dance vibrantly and wither not until its time has come to yield into the silence vast expanse of the endless undulating dunes.

It is true that beings who have attained yet are of less stature than a Buddha, a Jesus, or an Osho, point to these great beings as a means of reaching people who stand tall but shall fall far. If you were to meet a simple buddha who lives in a little hut by the way, and you had multiple university papers in hand, you shall laugh at the idiocy of the simple buddha. However the only thing that a sage knows is the same only thing that a simple buddha knows. The simple buddha is connected to the source, the very same source that has created the oral and written truths that inspire and uplift nations. The simple buddha knows that the sage’s beautiful message is still only a finger pointing to the moon; no problem in borrowing fingers if you are yourself the moon.

Rather than live your life according to another’s quotes, make your life a flowering worthy of being quoted.

Turmoil in Iran

There is a complicated web of problems with the power structure in Iran. I won’t here repeat or explain the structure but rather point to where its shortcomings lie.

The first problem is that the first Supreme Leader was indeed as the name suggests. Hence he set up a power structure that put himself numero uno. This meant that the legacy of the power structure is with the next supreme leader having a lot of power.

The second problem is that the central hub of the system – the Assembly of Experts – is comprised only of clerics. This means that there is a lack of input from various other intellectual fields to bring about balance in society.

The first two problems are almost intractable legacies of the religious revolution. These two problems can be addressed in time if the third problem is tackled.

The third problem is the vetting power giving to the Guardian Council. These ‘guardians’ have the power to exclude people from running in elections for parliament, president, and expert assembly.

It could be argued that the Iranian people democratically elect the supreme religious leader (via electing the assembly of experts, who inturn elect the supreme leader), a parliament, and a government. However the reason for democracy, just the same as the reason for limiting terms in office, is to reduce the corrupting force of holding positions of power. The problem is that by giving the guardian council the power to vet all candidates at the input side of the power structure, this council by default gets the power to hold themselves (and others) in office. They have the power to entrench themselves in power. In principal this is the fundamental power of (and reason for) democracy. The door is opened for the possibility of temptation.

The first time the Iranian political system operates (with the death of the first Ayatollah), all seems well. However on successive occasions, a feedback loop comes into play that restricts the functioning of the input side of the system. The people in power get more power and the Iranian people get less say. The end result is the possibility of a brutal dictatorial regime that on the surface looks democratic. This is what has happened in Iran.

Much effort in recent years has focused on reducing the vetting power of the Guardian Council. This council does not allow almost all opposing party members to run in elections, and certainly not a single woman is allowed to run for any office.

Today Iranian people are risking their lives - indeed giving their lives - in support of freedom and a better way of life. Brutality, corruption and inequality in the current system are revealing themselves through the benefits of modern communications technology. Indeed the current Supreme Leader yesterday sanctioned the bloodshed that today has eventuated. Yet the ugly face of religious hypocrisy is not hidden.

Meditation is Life

Meditation is life in its essence. Modern daily life is often described as a rat-race. Modernity unchecked can envelope our soul, consume our hearts, and spit out piles of rubbish: the tread-mill of hot-wired hearts in tension until suddenly our heart conks out or our brains blood vessels explode.

Modern psychology has transcended the idea of unconsciousness. There are indeed unconscious thoughts it takes hold. However to extend this description to the concept of unconsciousness itself being an entity is an erroneous transgression along the slippery slope of ill-informed sects, cults, and weirdos. Man is conscious: the defining characteristic that impales man on the cross of righteous domination of all that lies belittled below. This I have always found amusing, when we spend so much time asleep, and probably about the same time day-dreaming.

It is true that modern humanity functions at more than a sluggish level of consciousness. However it is not the quantity but rather the quality of this consciousness that it is strangely incumbent upon me to so clatter out on this electronic type-writer. Strange indeed you may or may not wonder – the explanation is that I am weary, yet all day an incessant nagging prods me to crunch these numbers. I shall do this and thus attain relief and sleep. Perhaps it is a looming volcanic vitriolic vestibule.

Notice what it is like when you are in a state of extreme stress. You may be achieving much in the limited slot of time. However what is this state of mania actually like? What is its quality? In this state it is essentially skimming across the surface of life. There is no depth to your experience; neither is there any understanding.

The ancient Buddhas speak of meditation as a tool for calm, and then insight. A consciousness that is tense is like a mirror; ever so prone to shattering is its brittle nature. There is no possibility of penetration, of depth. Techniques of concentration create a state of increased calm. In this state the experiencer tastes each experience in an increased fullness or depth. The calm awareness of a meditator leads to the quality of experiencing known as insight. A person who sees deeply through experiences knows the subtle nuances of life that are seemingly mysterious or unknown to the manic wave surfer.

There are always two sides to a two-sided coin. It happens to be that some people trudge through life like a dull sponge. In the list of sticky mucky smelly citizens are none other than those holy heroes of the great religious dogmas. The dogged dogmatic dodos are drowning in their own dull delusions. They save the immoral and condemn the amoral. They repeat well the scriptures that are ingrained on the mental rail-road of their predecessors and fore-fathers. There is nothing new or vibrant or insightful in their holy chants, nor in their dull eyes. Their conscious experience is like jumping on a trampoline made from a mat of boiled lettuce leaves, with jelly-fish for springs.

Yes the other side of the coin is a feasty gluttony of calm, with a malnourished consciousness. There can be nothing to challenge one’s spirit into aliveness if the path taken be the holiest of holy; except of course the ‘inconsequential’ transgressions of for example a boiling sexual repression.

Life is a quandary, not a quagmire nor a quip. With neither foggy eyes nor those wired by the drug of neediness, those who experience the richness of each moment, the fullness of each breath, are the few that are both sane and human. This is life, this is living, and this is meditation.

Concentration leads to calm, and calm leads to increased awareness and insight. How can a person return to an object of concentration if this person is not aware of a distraction?

How to Meditate?

What is meditation?
How do I meditate?

People tend to turn to meditation for relaxation and to de-stress. With this in mind, the principal meditation is that of concentration. Sometimes our minds may be going so helter-skelter that even a simple mental task seems daunting. In this case, taking our body out for some physical exercise, and then sitting down and reading a book out loud may help calm your mind.

When there is too much tension in the mind, it is not wise to try and tackle it head on. The issues may not be clear to you, but they will keep pushing themselves into your conscious mind. If you therefore concentrate on something that is not of high emotional value to you, then this seeks to block out the emotional noise that is creating tension.

If your mind runs to the stressful issue, which is presumably inevitable, turning you attention back to the chosen object of concentration reinforces the calming process. If the worrying issue is incessant, try ignoring it while still concentrating on the chosen focus. If this doesn’t work try something else. Even this trying is a concentration on trying and is therefore a help. Perhaps you might like to do some physically exercise rather than sitting like a buddha and watching your breath in some way (maybe on the rise and fall of belly). Is there something in the physical exercise that draws your attention and you enjoy focusing on it? Perhaps you just want to do something, and immerse yourself fully into it? Perhaps you just want to do something?

The idea of concentrating our attention for calm is like generating a powerful spotlight. Simply by turning our mind repeatedly to an object, the mind becomes stilled, and the awareness increases. With shades of grey, we reach a state where there is a sense of being very alert, yet relaxed or calm. Also, the mind is not excessively focused in a manic way on some issue. The mind is calm and quiet, and we have a relaxed awareness.

If you feel sufficiently calm and aware you might like to allow the spotlight to disperse its light in a spherical manner: opening your awareness to allow different aspects of the body-mind system to come and go freely in this expanded awareness.
After some time, and generally after it has already happened, you may realize that this state of relaxed and open awareness with mental and physically events passing untouched through it has given way to tension and particular mental or physical events pressing repeatedly on your consciousness. If you feel uncomfortable you may then like to make the consciousness choice to return to concentrating on a emotionally neutral object.

Meditation is the rhythm of moving back and forwards from a state of focused attention to a state of relaxed and open awareness. It is about being here-now, while choosing what to be here-now with. Sometimes the here-now is a little overwhelming. In this case choose a friend to be here-now with. If that is overwhelming just give-up and go with the flow. What ever you do and don’t do, you are in the here and now. This is reality. If you can’t find the truth, the truth will come and find you. It will set you free.

Meditation can seem confusing, and here are two areas that may prove to be a puzzle.

Firstly, sometimes we feel calm yet we are not particularly aware – something like day-dreaming. In this case you may find that if you decide to concentrate on something you can’t. Actually by doing so, this increases the awareness and brings us to an issue that we may have been avoiding by dulling our awareness (going to sleep to avoid a problem for example).

The second puzzle is that of what is the difference between concentration, attention, mind, and awareness. When it is said turn your attention towards something, is that the same as turning your mind towards it? Is this different to someone saying concentration on something? How does this fit with someone saying turn your awareness towards some object?

The confusion becomes cleared up by understanding that if you turn your mind towards something (lets say you chant a holy scripture), this concentrating your mind also concentrates your awareness. You become aware of what your mind is concentrating on. You become aware of the process of chanting, the sound of your voice, the way it makes your body feel, the way your mouth moves to create sound etc.

A person might say they feel so crazy they can’t seat down and read a complicated book. If they still want to read, they may be able to read a simple book. This focusing or concentrating the mind also focuses or concentrates the awareness. The result is an increase in relaxation or calm.

A person might feel so cuckoo that they can’t do their normal task of fixing rocket engines. If such a person is on mental sick-leave, such a person may be able to enjoy fixing car engines. This concentrating the body on a particular task also focuses or concentrates the awareness. The result is an increase in relaxation or calm.