Letter I Wrote Against Targeting Americans

A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. - President John F. Kennedy

President Barack Obama

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington, DC 20500

 Dear Mr. President,

I am writing you about the ongoing Official practice of targeting American Citizens just because of what they say; I urge you to immediately stop all illegal, immoral, counterproductive and unneeded means to fight terrorism.

Example: US-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaqi, described by US officials as “the most significant risk” to the United States, was killed [in Yemen] on Friday [9/30/11] in what was called a “significant blow”

"A significant blow" all right - a significant blow to the rule of law and our precious American democracy!

First, *if* it is OK for our Government to kill this American, it would be OK to kill any American anywhere any time for any reason.

Example 10/19/2011: Anwar al-Awlaqi’s 16 year old US born son was also killed in Yemen in a drone strike ‘sanctioned’ by the US Government. As far as I can tell, he was not accused of anything at all.

This is just plain wrong!

Second, while I do not like hate speech, religious and political comments are always protected by our US Constitution. What would have prevented our Government from saying that Reverend Martin Luther King's 1967 anti-war statements gave aid and comfort to our enemies during wartime, and, therefore, designating him as a target for 'legal' assassination?

No evidence has ever been offered that cleric al-Awlaqi had any connection to Al-Qaeda. Information does exist that his opinion of the US changed from support to hostility when we attacked, invaded and occupied two sovereign Islamic Nations that did not attack or pose a threat to the US.

*if* this Cleric gave 'material support to terrorists', fine: arrest him and have him stand in a jury trial in open US court with real legal charges in front of a Judge where witnesses can be cross examined. But, even if found guilty, this charge does not carry the death penalty, nor should it.

Documents for the process used to decide who is a target and why are said to be State secrets. We were told not to worry because it is wartime, only a few Americans are on the ‘hit list’, and some lawyer said it was OK to kill them - but only if it is a clear life or death situation where the person cannot be arrested.

Finally, these actions give America an even worse name in the Arab and Muslim world. How can we claim to support Democracy abroad if we kill those of us we do not agree with? Isn’t that what the Rulers in Syria are doing right now, and what the Governments in Egypt and Libya did for 40 years?

Thank you for your time to read my letter,

Sincerely,

Stephen Salgaller

338 Gerard Avenue

Elkins Park, PA 19027

steve@don-eve.dyndns.org

Questions about America's Policy on Unilateral Actions

Dear Friends,

The Administration just announced its policy on so-called targeted killings; I have the same questions as I did last year:

First, who says a person is such an imminent threat to the United States that any action is needed?

Second, the Geneva Conventions and the US Constitution do not allow such unilateral actions. Just because our Congress passed a vague authorization does not mean all subsequent activities are legal.

In the case of the Cleric killed last year, and for that matter, also in the case of OBL, these men were not an imminent threat to us.

The Administration said that National Governments’ Laws would be followed. Yet in neither of these cases was the host Country asked for an OK to act.

The Administration also said suspects would be arrested and tried in US Courts. Great, yet neither man was captured alive to stand trial – or, as the Admin also pointed out, were they kept alive to find out what else useful they knew.

As I asked last year, we are supposed to be a bastion of Democracy and fully honor the rule of law. Isn’t that why we fought WW2; our enemies did not respect laws, individual civil liberties or National Sovereignty.

As I asked last year, our ‘do as we say, but not as we ourselves do’ sends the exact wrong message to places like Syria and Iran. It also confuses those in Nations like Egypt and Libya who looked to us as an example of what they were striving to accomplish.

'Tomorrow was Yesterday' TV Episode Idea

Dear Reader,

Here is some advice I got back in about 1990 regarding my idea for an episode of a TV show that was then on NBC.

To both explain what sort of advice I can still use, and to say why I believe my rare ideas for a TV show episode, movie or music video are worth doing, I am writing you this note.

Back in the 1990’s NBC had a TV show on called “Quantum Leap”. Set in the year 1999 (then 10 years in our future), the Sci-Fi show had American scientists inventing a type of time machine. This allowed them to send one scientist’s ‘soul’ (for want of a better word to describe what happened each week) back in time up to about 50 years.

For the fiction of the show, this scientist *could* affect history – but, with one exception, the show never even tried to make a positive difference to society.

My episode would have changed all that. Let us call my episode “Tomorrow was Yesterday”.

My plot was seemingly simple: the scientist would go back in time to 1963, and prevent President Kennedy from being shot.

As you know, an hour Network TV show has from 47 to 51 minutes of footage after commercials.

How could I fill so much time? So far, my episode is only about 5 minutes long.

I now need to explain more about my idea, and how my Sister in Law gave me needed advice…

For the fiction of the show, scientists could not actually send a man back in time; instead, they exchanged ‘souls’ with another man back in time. So the Star of the Show, an actor named Scott Bakula, would look to everyone back in time to be exactly like the man who existed back then; even sounding just like the man in the past. He would, however, retain his own memories and motivations.

So here is more of my idea:

Scott Bakula would ‘be’ Abraham Bolden – the first black Secret Service on the White House Staff. Hand selected by JFK himself, this would be literally the perfect person to pretend to be, since his job was to protect the president from being shot, no one would think to question him if he actually did stop the shooting.

Now you see that I only have about ½ hour of material.

How could I fill all available time?

Here is where my Sister in Law helped me:

Remember the show aired in 1990; for the fiction of the show, it took scientists another 10 years to perfect the time travel process.

What, I wondered, would America be like in 2000? Could I fit that vision into my episode?

My Sister in Law showed me a photo she took of an Army General, Colon Powell. What if he became President in 2000?

*Perfect* !

Of course, no one knows what happens if you really change history, and I had to ‘sidestep’ this question for my episode.

If JFK was not shot, many Bills to advance minorities might not have been passed. After all, President Johnson was able to push through these types of Laws because he could say he was finishing the vision of JFK; without this motivation, some in Congress would never have voted for the legislation.

I needed the real Colon Powell to play himself as President; if the White House Oval Office scene was filmed in B&W, with a black Secret Service man and a white President, it was set in 1963; if in full color of a white scientist and a black President, it was set in the future world of the year 2000.

I still have my time travel paradox to deal with; I now have to remind you that I know many of you do not believe as I do regarding the true motivation behind world events. So just pretend that this is just a silly Sci Fi TV show idea…

The scientist would be arguing with President Powell that since he can do so, he was obligated to change history for the better. President Powell reminded the scientist that he would not have just been elected if JFK was not shot 36 years earlier. Powell even asks the scientist – since he *did* already change history long ago, how is it that he was not ‘erased’ from what is then ‘present’ day events?

Powell then expresses his sadness he felt that day in November, 1963, after learning that JFK was shot. He say he would OK changing history - *if* that could be done without affecting the civil rights that lead him to be the first black President.

He says that every American remembers where he was when he heard Kennedy was shot on Saturday, November 2^nd.

BUT WAIT, says scientist Bakula. Since he ‘exists’ in both 1963 .and. 2000, he knows Kennedy was not shot until Nov. 22^nd.

Scientist and President now realize both histories ARE true: Secret Service Agent Abraham Bolden DID save Kennedy’s like when he was to be shot in Chicago on Nov. 2^nd, but, sadly and necessarily, JFK was still shot in Dallas 3 weeks later.

There would be a parallel scene in 1963 where Agent Bolden begs Kennedy not to go to Dallas. Kennedy wisely says that he was elected by the people to make America better; he cannot be so fearful of death that he avoids difficult situations. JFK then repeats what he actually said in real life: that the Secret Service cannot fully protect him if some sick man shots at him with a rifle from the top of a building.

I hope you now see what I sometimes say  “do MY episode !”

I leave as a puzzle how I was able to come up with this episode since I have no imagination.

Thank you for reading my long note about how my Sister in Law helped me 22 years ago.

Stephen

Matthew 5.5 and Exodus 3.14 Better Translation and Commentary

Matthew 5:5 doesn’t really say "Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth"; the Greek translation does not capture the poetic beauty of the original Aramaic: a better translation was something like:

"Blessed are those who can soften the emotional rigidity within their hearts, for then they will have all the power of nature" - from Caroline Casey's Visionary Activism (AKA Coyote News Network) Radio Show, about 2003. 

She pointed out that the Greek language is matter-of-fact --- so, while the "official" translation of Matthew 5:5 is NOT "wrong", it lacks the full meaning of the original Aramaic.

•      And Exodus 3:14 does not really say: “I am that I am"; this makes no sense; a much better translation as to what the Lord tells Moses to tell his people was: ”I am everything that it is possible to be"; again this is much more poetic! (My Rabbi commented about this: "I like this translation.) Hebrew works via a 3 or 4 letter "root" *concept*, so, while the "official" translation of Exodus 3;14 is NOT wrong, it, too, lacks the full meaning of the original Hebrew.

•    The root Hebrew word "Mitzour" does not only mean "Egypt"; it means ANY obstacle that blocks us from helping the Lord to perfect our Universe.

•      Now you see why "I am that I am" is nonsense! The Lord said that 'he' was beyond all of the limits that humans have; when the Israelites asked who sent Moses; Moses said this Person was not subject to any limits of our Universe.

•      As Joni Mitchell beautifully said, it is up to all of us to get back to the perfection found in the blue print commonly called the Garden of Eden. This place did not really exist; it is a model for how our Universe is supposed to be, and it will take all of us together with the Lord to get back to the perfect world we need to have.