7 January 2009

Ramos and Compean Should NOT be Pardoned

Local radio conservative talk jocks are banging the POTUS pardon drums for the two Border Control agents convicted of shooting an unarmed fleeing illegal immigrant.

But here is a convincing argument on why they should not and addresses a legitimate gripe their supporters do possess.

Once Aldrete-Davila was down from Ramos’s shot to the backside, they decided, for a second time, not to grab him so he could face justice for his crimes. As they well knew, an arrest at that point — after 15 shots at a fleeing, unarmed man who had tried to surrender — would have shone a spotlight on their performance. So instead, they exacerbated the already shameful display.

Instead of arresting the wounded smuggler, they put their guns away and left him behind. But not before trying to conceal the improper discharge of their firearms. Compean picked up and hid his shell-casings rather than leaving the scene intact for investigators. Both agents filed false reports, failing to record the firing of their weapons though they were well aware of regulations requiring that they do so. Because the “heroes” put covering their tracks ahead of doing their duty, Aldrete-Davila was eventually able to limp off to a waiting car and escape into Mexico.

Whaaaat? But I thought this “drug smuggling illegal immigrant” was a threat to national security? If the agents’ actions were justified, why would they not arrest the suspect and why would they feel the need to cover-up their actions? Were they afraid that the “overzealous” Sutton had an axe to grind against the Border Patrol?

Ramos and Compean’s supporters do have at least a couple of somewhat legitimate gripes though. One being the length of the sentences (11 and 12 years) and the other being use of testimony on the part of a criminal who has something to gain (in this case, Aldrete-Davila himself). But these complaints should not be directed at Sutton or the trial judge.

The blame for the length of the sentence belongs properly to the mandatory minimum sentencing law passed by congress which requires a ten year sentence for unlawful discharge of a firearm while committing a crime (this ten year sentence is in addition to whatever other crimes the defendant is convicted of). While I believe that the sentences are appropriate in this case, I am opposed to mandatory minimum sentencing laws on principle. Judges should have the discretion to decide the appropriate punishment not a one-size-fits-all penalty regardless of any unique circumstances in a unique event.

And allowing Aldrete-Dalvia to testify against Ramos and Compean with full immunity? This is standard operating procedure. Prosecutors use informants who have a motive to testify against defendants every day in this country. Why should we be surprised that Sutton would use Aldrete-Dalvia as his star witness? If this approach is appropriate for the average defendant then it is certainly appropriate when those sworn to serve and protect abuse the public’s trust.

But don’t expect Conservatives to start demanding a repeal of mandatory minimum sentencing laws nor expect them to consider criminal justice reform. To them this case is not about two rogue law enforcement agents but about immigration and drug policy. The facts do not matter because the guys with the badges are always the good guys and their judgment is better than due process of law.

But see, to the conservative mindset, if you're carrying a badge, that gives one the right to be judge, jury and executioner. Those stinking criminals are just all scumbags anyway, and no harm is done if uniformed officers are a bit overzealous in firing their weapons.

21 October 2008

This simple experiment demolished any idea that racial discrimination is a thing of the past

Sticks and stones can break bones, but the wrong name can make a job hard to find

To test whether employers discriminate against black job applicants, Marianne Bertrand of the University of Chicago and Sendhil Mullainathan of M.I.T. conducted an unusual experiment. They selected 1,300 help-wanted ads from newspapers in Boston and Chicago and submitted multiple résumés from phantom job seekers. The researchers randomly assigned the first names on the résumés, choosing from one set that is particularly common among blacks and from another that is common among whites.

So Kristen and Tamika, and Brad and Tyrone, applied for jobs from the same pool of want ads and had equivalent résumés. Nine names were selected to represent each category: black women, white women, black men and white men. Last names common to the racial group were also assigned. Four résumés were typically submitted for each job opening, drawn from a reservoir of 160. Nearly 5,000 applications were submitted from mid-2001 to mid-2002. Professors Bertrand and Mullainathan kept track of which candidates were invited for job interviews.

No single employer was sent two identical résumés, and the names on the résumés were randomly assigned, so applicants with black- and white-sounding names applied for the same set of jobs with the same set of résumés.

Apart from their names, applicants had the same experience, education and skills, so employers had no reason to distinguish among them.

The results are disturbing. Applicants with white-sounding names were 50 percent more likely to be called for interviews than were those with black-sounding names. Interviews were requested for 10.1 percent of applicants with white-sounding names and only 6.7 percent of those with black-sounding names.

This article is from 2002, so perhaps some change in attitudes have occurred since.

If Affirmitive Action programs are not the solution, then what is the antidote? Or as some believe, no corrections, which are often tainted with unintended consequences, are necessary, as things will shake out eventually.

This study by Marianne Bertrand and Sendhil Mullainathan was highlighted in a chapter titled "The Dangers of Rational Racism" within "The Logic of Life: The Rational Economics of an Irrational World". I am Almost finished, it is an excellent read and I plan to review more on these provocative inspections of "rational" economic actors in further posts. Other standout chapters include "Is Divorce Underrated" and "Why Your Boss is Overpaid". If you've read Freakonomics, it is in a similar vein, but I think this book by Tim Harford to be a notch above that one.

Back to Harford's look at "rational racism" — he details how economists break down racism into two kinds — "taste-based" (aka bigotry) and statistical (or his favored term, rational) racism. Taste-based racism hurts both the bigot and the victim. The racist acts against his economic interest is also harmed, as his meritocracy seeking competition will out perform his outfit. Statistical racism, on the other hand, is profitable for the business proprietor, and worse, condemns the victim to a status whereby her efforts to improve her economic lot matter not, thus dooming the affected minority to self-defeating cycle of poverty. The disparity will not go away on its own accord, and that is the difference between rational racism and taste-based discrimination.

24 June 2008

Lies George Bush Told the American People

…so extraordinarily wrong, dishonorable and criminal.

I loathe having to write this. I wish not to focus on the negative, to cast our nation’s leaders in ill light. I always wish to give them grace and the benefit of doubt.

And it would seem that it should be a superfluous exercise, as it should be plain as can be to anyone who as eyes to see and ears to hear. But still, Bush loyalists (or hawkish individuals) stand by the disastrous decision to invade Iraq. Others feel the war was justified, but the post war occupation is the deed that was poorly planned and carried out with little competency. Or they serve as mealy-mouthed apologists, who resort to embarrassing hand-waving gestures to assure that we all thought as the intelligence officials instructed, and that if there is fault to be found, if any, it lies with those who were honestly mistaken.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Revelation after revelation from administration insiders and holders of high government offices confirm that this ill fated path was preordained long before the initial bombings. Even while the 9/11 rubble was still smoldering, Bush and his officers were angling to strike at Iraq. They plugged in their own people to report back to them what they wanted to hear. Anyone with official standing in their way was shoved aside or declared to be radical America haters.

In The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, famed author and former Los Angeles County District Attorney Vincent Bugliosi (the man who put Charles Manson behind bars) lays out the legal framework for the prosecution of George W. Bush for the murder of more than 100,000 innocent.


  1. The preposterous nature of the Bush allegation that Hussien was an imminent threat to U.S. security.

    • Bush and his people were the ones who came up with this preposterous notion
    • Directly stated that Saddam and his weapons are a “direct threat”
    • Repeated use of “now”, “any given day”, “urgent”…
  2. The fact that Bush stopped pursuing, for all intents and purposes, the person responsible for 9/11.

  3. Bush deliberately lied in 1st national TV address on Iraqi crisis (7 October 2002) when he said Hussien was “a great danger to our nation” because he could use UAV with “chemical or biological payloads” or provide biological, chemical weapons to terrorist organizations.

  4. Direct evidence (and just a small sampling) of Bush and his people lying in regards to 2002 NIE:

    • 2004 Senate Select committee said CIA conclusions in that report were either overstated or not supported by underlying intelligence reporting
    • Differences between 2002 classified NIE and 2004 unclassified version
    • Bush administration pressured CIA and intelligence agencies to pin 9/11 on Iraq no matter the evidence
    • On 12 September 2001, according to Richard Clarke, “he (President Bush) wanted us to come back with the word that there was an Iraqi hand behind 9/11”
    • In February 2006, Foreign Affairs article CIA agent Paul Pillar wrote “intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions that already had been made”
  5. Downing Street Memo (minutes) that explicitly record how intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy

  6. Cherry picking intelligence and relying on untrustworthy sources like Curveball

  7. Using discredited info like the famous 16 words about Niger uranium that they knew was fraudulent. The original documents making the claim that Niger agreed to sell Hussien uranium were crude forgeries.


At one point (August 2003), 70% of Americans believed Hussien was involved with 9/11. Who was responsible for this widespread misconception? I believe (and quite certain that some internet smartypants will correct me) over 90% of U.S. troops thought as such also. While not directly stating the linkage, administration voices repeatedly and purposefully intermingled Iraq and Al-Qaeda, over and over, in Goebbels like fashion.

During his infamous “Mission Accomplished” speech, George W. Bush pronounced:

With those attacks, the terrorist and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got.

Tell me he wasn’t conflating Iraq and al Qaeda. If Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, why did the president, vice-president, cabinet officers and aides continue to intersperse these divergent entities into one amorphous enemy blob, all intent to justify their illegal and immoral invasion of a country that posed no threat to the U.S.?

By no means was the “Mission Accomplished” speech an isolated occurrence. The most rudimentary internet search will reveal an abundance of such deliberated remarks in the same vein. Three years later, in February 2006, George W. Bush still stood by the statement that “we’re taking the fight to those who attacked us”. What? Iraq did not attack the U.S. and had nothing to do with 9/11.

As Stephen Kull, PIPA director, stated, Bush was entirely successful in creating a sense that there is a connection, via manipulation of language.

I could go on and on, and present a litany of evidence illustrating the rhetorical jujitsu employed by the Bush/Cheney propaganda campaign, but will just cite the story of Wilton Sekzer, father of Jason Sekzer who worked on 105th story of Tower One on 9/11 and perished on that fateful day. Sekzer was featured in Why We Fight. Mr. Wilton was one who was led to believe al Qaeda and Iraq were, and was so enthusiastic about a justified reprisal that he requested his some be memorialized with his signature on a bomb destined for Iraq.

“Put his name on a bomb”

“What did he just say? I mean, I almost jumped out of my chair. I said, ‘What is he talking about? If Saddam didn’t have anything to do with 9/11, then why did we go in there? I’m from the old school. Certain people walk on water. The President of the United States is one of them. It’s a terrible thing if someone like me can’t trust the president.”

Bush defenders can point and defer blame to “the so called liberal media” as culprits who willingly served up the Iraq war justification, but that is totally naive, given that Bush administration forces were tugging the talking head puppet strings.

And the Democratic controlled Congress act to wipe all this grave malfeasance under the mat is most shameful.

26 April 2008

Why would someone put an operative in the ranks of a nonviolent, peaceful group?

That would be Burger King, who isn’t just refusing to pay tomato pickers an extra cent, it’s now engaging in attacks and other subversive activities against groups like the Coalition of Immokalee Workers and the Student/Farmworker Alliance.
And it looks like Burger King's anti-labor activities run deeper than just its refusal to pay the extra cent. Amy Bennett Williams of the Fort Myers News-Press wrote a story last week that tied Burger King to "libelous" attacks via email and online posts against the Coalition of Immokalee Workers-- a respected anti-slavery group that has helped to prosecute six federal slavery cases and has been praised by the FBI, federal prosecutors, members of Congress, and civil rights organizations. Even worse is an alleged attempt to infiltrate a key CIW ally, the Student/Farmworker Alliance, by using Diplomatic Tactical Services, "a security and investigative firm that advertises its ability to place 'operatives' in the ranks of target groups." … What about the allegations of emails and online posts as reported by the Fort Myers News-Press? Did executives have any awareness of these--some of which were traced to Burger King Headquarters? Again, declined to comment.

Absolutely appalling and disgusting behavior by a mega-corporation that is profiting by gross exploitation and human trafficking.

While I don't frequent eating establishments like Burger King anymore, I'd implore anyone that does to choose a more justice aware competitor.

5 October 2007


Radio talk host genuflects over Clarence Thomas answering questions in a nationally televised CBS interview. Supreme Court Justice Thomas, not note for his frequency of public appearances, has been making the rounds in promoting his new book that's stirred up a firestorm of controversy, re-igniting questions about his qualifications for a high court seat.

Interestingly enough, Thomas also appeared on the Rush Limbaugh radio program for a 90 minute lovefest chat. Nothing like a rabid partisan discarding any veneer of impartiality, still lashing out against his accusers from 16 years later. In his newly released autobiography, My Grandfather's Son, he casts himself as a tragic victim, and still possesses a strong vendetta against his political opponents.

But as the years have elapsed since 1991, it's been discovered that Anita Hill was the individual unfairly flogged, as the charges that were levied against Clarence Thomas during his SCOTUS confirmation hearings were indeed true, and collaborated by others.

One really has to wonder: why is Clarence Thomas drudging all of this out now? Anita Hill’s claims and Thomas’s answers have been exhaustively studied and researched. And the consensus that has emerged is pretty clear: Clarence Thomas perjured himself in the confirmation hearings. Anita Hill was telling the truth. Two major books establish this. One is the award-winning work of Jill Abramson and Jane Mayer, then two Wall Street Journal reporters, Strange Justice: The Selling of Clarence Thomas. That book turned meticulously through the available evidence, and found that it was very consistent—establishing Hill’s veracity and undermining Thomas’s. But far more damning still is the major book which was published to defend Thomas. It was David Brock’s The Real Anita Hill, a work that layed out all the attacks that Thomas and his supporters (most prominently Ted Olson) put forth to protect his nomination. Brock later admitted that his book had been commissioned as a hit job to make Thomas’s position seem more plausible. As he later admitted to the New York Times, “I lied in print to protect the reputation of Justice Clarence Thomas.”

Yes, the Thomas/Hill spectacle was an ugly confirmation hearing event, but it's not the first time such ugliness erupted over the selection of a Supreme Court Justice. In the 1960's, Republicans torched Abe Fortas in an overzealous prosecution whilst in the 1980's the radical Robert Bork was "bork-ed" by Democrats.

Some other evidence Thomas omitted in his screed:

First, Hill did not wait 10 years to complain about his behavior. Susan Hoerchner, a Yale Law School classmate of Hill's, described how she complained of sexual harassment while working for Thomas, saying the EEOC chairman had "repeatedly asked her out . . . but wouldn't seem to take 'no' for an answer." Ellen Wells, a friend, said Hill had come to her, "deeply troubled and very depressed," with complaints about Thomas's inappropriate behavior. John Carr, a lawyer, said that Hill, in tears, confided that "her boss was making sexual advances toward her." American University law professor Joel Paul said Hill had told him in 1987 that she had left the EEOC because she had been sexually harassed by her supervisor.

Second, Hill was not the only former subordinate of Thomas's with complaints. Former EEOC employee Angela Wright described how Thomas pressured her to date him, showed up uninvited at her apartment and asked her breast size. "Clarence Thomas would say to me, 'You know you need to be dating me. . . . You're one of the finest women I have on my staff," Wright told Senate investigators.

Wright's account was corroborated by Rose Jourdain, a former speechwriter who, like Wright, was dismissed by Thomas. Jourdain said Wright had complained that she was "increasingly nervous about being in his presence alone" because of comments "concerning her figure, her body, her breasts, her legs."

Another former Thomas employee, Sukari Hardnett, said of his office, "If you were young, black, female and reasonably attractive, you knew full well you were being inspected and auditioned as a female."

Some conservative Christian champion, a man who exists in direct contradiction to his own life history. A result and product of civil rights reform, he champions the rollback of such justice enacting measures. Promoted for life to the highest legal perch in the land, he brazenly flaunts his favoritism for his own party. Now, in a most audacious manner, he draws a metaphor of his appointment hearing experience with a lynching.

I recognize that for many, no matter what the record is, the partisan goggles are so tightly screwed on that it makes no difference. Certainly, the fact that unlike any other justice on the court, Thomas was not rated as "well qualified" by the American Bar Association (ABA) and actually garnered two votes of "not qualified" did not sway Republican loyalists. The definite concern that Thomas has committed himself to serve as partisan water carrier, tainted by bitterness against his political opponents, no matter the law in question, is seen, instead, as an asset.

Moving forth, Thomas is now unassailable, in his role of evaluating law. Of primary interest to many is his displayed adherence to "unitary executive", a doctrine that un-American and a throwback to pre-enlightenment era of monarchs.

The unitary executive theory has already cropped up in Supreme Court opinions. In his lone dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Justice Clarence Thomas cited "the structural advantages of a unitary Executive." He disagreed with the Court that due process demands an American citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decision maker. Thomas wrote, "Congress, to be sure, has a substantial and essential role in both foreign affairs and national security. But it is crucial to recognize that judicial interference in these domains destroys the purpose of vesting primary responsibility in a unitary Executive."

Justice Thomas's theory fails to recognize why our Constitution provides for three co-equal branches of government.

Thomas hasn't been respectful of the fourth amendment either.

And, then, there was The Betrayal of America, where Justice Thomas sided with an egregious decision that was a work of total partisanship. Moreover, Thomas should have recused himself, for his wife was an allied party to President George W. Bush's campaign. Legal scholars believe Bush v. Gore was a sham. Others feel it was a tragedy.

26 September 2007

They treat the local population like it’s some big shooting gallery

At every juncture, just when it seems that the nation's executive branch overseers can go no lower, at least measured in relative terms when considering a "free people's government", Bush and Cheney throw us a fresh new outrage, another belittling or epic injustice. Among today's transgressions are new revelations that prior to the illegal, immoral invasion of Iraq in 2003, President Bush, in talks with Spanish Prime Minister Aznar, expressed how "efforts to find a peaceful solution to the crisis were a sham and that the war was a done deal". If this is true, and it gels with what we learned when the Downing Street Memos were exposed to the public and displayed how "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" along with all the other testimonials from administration, intelligence agency and Pentagon insiders — that the die was cast long ago to sacrifice the blood of American servicemen and innocent civilians for an elective war.

In lieu of all the terrible developments, I cannot fathom how Bush, Cheney, Rice, etc.… escape condemnation for acts of war criminals. It's shocking to acknowledge that there exist a quarter to a third of Americans who still tally themselves as Bush loyalists, despite the heinous harm wrought by a imperialist presidency that is impervious to being reigned in by any element of our representative government. Despite gains in Congress seats, the majority held in that House is woefully insufficient to conduct the missing but required checks and balances that previous sessions purposefully neglected in their brazen conduct of simply serving as a weak arm in support of neo-Nixonian presidential administration. At least, despite the dismal approval ratings, steps are being taken to restore health into the process. The Senate, is still a tossup, as Joe Lieberman should not be counted as belonging to Democratic ranks, so at best it's a 50-50 deal, and nowhere near the 60 votes needed to muster cloture. And, pray tell, if any legislation can go though in the next 15 months, it will be greeted with veto stamps.

And today, also, we learned that the Bush administration has such an obscene disdain for a "culture of life" that they have instructed Blackwater, the notorious private military contracting firm, not to respond to a Congressional investigation looking at the slaughter of Iraqi civilians. Granted immunity to Iraq law, not covered under military conduct code, and now accused lawbreakers are free to evade domestic review, it seems. Again, trotting out unitary executive doctrine, Bush/Cheney audaciously proclaim they are "the government" and shooing away pesky Congressional runts that dare to bring any attention to deeds of corruption and malfeasance.

Yes, Bush has created a moral vacuum.

Imagine a universe where a man can gun down women and children anytime he pleases, knowing he will never be brought to justice. A place where morality is null and void, and arbitrary killing is the rule. A place that has been imagined hitherto only in nightmarish dystopian fiction, like “1984,” or in fevered passages from Dostoevsky—or which existed during the Holocaust and Stalinist purges and the Dark Ages. Well, that universe exists today. It is called Iraq. And the man who made it possible is George W. Bush.

The moral vacuum of Iraq—where Blackwater USA guards can kill 10 or 20 Iraqis on a whim and never be prosecuted for it—did not happen by accident. It is yet another example of something the Bush administration could have prevented with the right measures but simply did not bother about as it rushed into invading and occupying another country. With America’s all-volunteer army under strain, the Pentagon and White House knew that regular military cannot be used for guarding civilians. As far back as 2003, then-defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld convened a task force under Undersecretary of Defense David Chu to consider new laws that might be needed to govern the privatization of war. Nothing was done about its recommendations. Then, two days before he left Iraq for good, L. Paul Bremer III, the Coalition Provisional Authority administrator, signed a blanket order immunizing all Americans, because, as one of his former top aides told me, “we wanted to make sure our military, civilians and contractors were protected from Iraqi law.” (No one worried about protecting the Iraqis from us; after all, we still thought of ourselves as the “liberators,” even though by then the worst abuses at Abu Ghraib and other places were known.)

Nor can these private armies even be prosecuted in America under U.S. law. The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000, which permits charges to be brought in U.S. courts for crimes abroad, apparently applies only to Defense Department contractors (and even then the administration has rarely used it). Blackwater and other security firms work for the State Department. Even today, despite the crucial role of Blackwater and other private security firms—who employ up to 30,000 operatives in keeping the civilian side of the U.S. occupation going—Iraqis can do nothing if they are abused or killed by them. While many Blackwater operatives are brave and honorable—the company has lost some 30 of its employees in Iraq—many of these paramilitaries have long been known to be cowboys who act as if they are free to commit homicide as they please. And according to numerous Iraqi witnesses, they sometimes do.

Take the case of the Blackwater guard who got drunk at a Green Zone party last Christmas Eve and reportedly boasted to his friends that he was going to kill someone. According to both Iraqi and U.S. officials, he stumbled out and headed provocatively over to the “Little Venice” section, a lovely area of canals where Iraqi officials live. He had an argument with an Iraqi guard, then shot him once in the chest and three times in the back. The next day Blackwater put him on a private plane out of the country—probably only because the incident involved a rare killing inside the Green Zone and the victim was a security guard for a high-ranking politician. That was it. The company has refused to disclose his name. (Blackwater spokeswoman Anne Tyrrell did not return phone calls seeking comment.) Then there was last week’s incident, when Blackwater guards killed between 10 and 20 Iraqis at a traffic stop, including a woman and a child. The company later said in a statement that “the ‘civilians’ reportedly fired upon by Blackwater professionals were in fact armed enemies … Blackwater professionals heroically defended American lives in a war zone on Sunday.” However, even President Bush acknowledged at a news conference Thursday that “evidently” innocent lives were lost in the incident.

Sure, the Iraq puppet government called out Blackwater, but nobody took their ban threat seriously, other than an overture for some more blood money to fill the coffers. They had to make a public statement, as when it's just one or a couple slain, an incident can quickly forgotten, but when it happens to dozens or more in full public view, some measures must be taken, or the charade will come to end sooner than later.

While Blackwater employees are held completely unaccountable (sorry, given a plane ticket home so they can enjoy the bountiful fruits of a lucrative contract payout in secrecy is not the same as possibility of facing criminal and/or civil charges for indiscriminate killing of the innocent), Iraqis are treated to a different standard. Guilty, before any question of innocence can be applied. Killed for getting too close. If that is to be the mode of justice, what on earth can be the rationale for occupying the country for anything other than despotic means?

A few weeks back, I fired off an email in response to a talk radio host who questioned whether the U.S. has a moral obligation to "fix" Iraq. My submitted reasoning enumerated how first our government had to "come clean" and acknowledge it was an immoral act, because the current leadership, as it still stands, has illustrated it is not capable of managing such a campaign, given the corruption, scandals that it is embroiled in. Also, such a charge assumes that we have the power to actually fix things. However, the more I ponder this, it's quite clear that such an admonition is akin to giving an arsonist gasoline to extinguish a fire.

Finally, the actions are an assault on the conscience of all Americans — a total fleecing of the public, where private military contractor firms like Blackwater and others feast on public funds, yet are totally unanswerable to the people, or to the people's elected representatives. Far worse, an imperial president has cast himself as a divine monarch, free to conduct his administration as he pleases, within the confines of the "rule of law" or far removed if he chooses. How can any sane person cite this behavior as reflective of our Constitution?

12 August 2007

Just Warriors ~ Just Wars

Just Warriors ~ Just Wars is my new weblog, dedicated to a biblical consideration of war and the waging of war. Anticipated topics:
  • foreign policy
  • principles of national defense
  • raisng, training and equipping an army
  • conscription
  • individual ethics in war
  • Just War doctrine
  • international law

... etc. & so forth.

As a Christian, it is my view that God is the final measure of justice, and that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are given to man by inspiration of God to teach us, among other things, how to do justice and live justly — whether in peace or in war.

I invite you join in the discussion.