Surviving Imprisonment as a Buddhist.

As the echoes of the "Saffron Revolution" in Burma continue to reverberate, I have often contemplated the humble monks living in a very real "Hell Realm" of unjust imprisonment. Along with other Buddhists living in prison. One doesn't have to look very far in this world to find the "Hell Realm."

Nor does one necessarily need to believe in a metaphysical "Hell Realm" to experience the concept rattling your fragile sense of identity. For these Buddhist in prison, however, their "Hell Realm" is an all too real cage of steel and razor wire that echoes with the sounds of pure suffering.

My nights have found me haunted by the imagery of such a place; and what it does to these innocent, peaceful monks and others. So, I decided to put my university degree to work and do some research into how monks (and others), who have been released or escaped imprisonment dealt with their "Hell Realm" without becoming bitter, angry, broken spirits. What I discovered in my sleuthing not only humbled and impressed me but gave me insight into dealing with my own demons and hellish suffering.

Prison does not seem like a place conducive to any kind of Buddhist practice. It's chaotic, violent, loud and uncaring. However, something interesting happened with these people who were thrown down into the pit of despair. They were not only able to practice in captivity but understand how to live with suffering without letting it consume them. This research has been a project that has sharply focused my view of trials in my life. And just how far the human spirit can endure despite overwhelming odds stacked against it.

I want to speak first about a Buddhist layperson serving time in incarceration. In prison, there are no distractions from suffering. It is all around you. You are forced to learn how to live with your suffering and stay rooted in the now without burning a hole through your view of humanity. Take for example the case of Buddhist inmate Jarvis Jay Masters. Susan Moon relayed the following wisdom in a Shambhala Sun article from Mr. Masters:

“It’s challenging to meditate in prison,” he says, “but it’s also the perfect place. People think they have to get a nice new cushion to be able to meditate. I would be that way, too, if I had the choice. But I’m fortunate not to have a new cushion. I feel the hard floor. This is where life is. Not knowing what’s going to happen tomorrow has its way of making time more precious. When you’ve been sentenced to death, you know you don’t have much time. You’re forced to look at what is, right now.”

James: Masters realized that trapping himself inside his mind, fighting in vain to take back his crimes wasn't going to change anything except ensure a deepening of suffering for all involved. Desiring to escape the consequences of his actions wasn't going to help. After all, desire, he says are what got him in trouble in the first place. He had to absorb himself in the moment and find freedom in the Dharma. Again from the Moon piece: "You’re either going to go crazy, or kill yourself—just go dead inside, in your soul if not your body—or find something to sustain you in a spiritual realm. You’ve got to have a way to take care of yourself when things go wrong, when you don’t get any mail or visits, or you start messing with your own head..."

This brings us to the monks. Palden Gyatso spent 33 years in a Chinese prison for being a Tibetan Buddhist monk who refused to denounce the Dalai Lama. Murderers, were set free before prisoners like Gyatso. The suffering he faced makes what most of us endure sound like pleasure. The following quotes about Gyatso come from an article by George Bryson. "His worst experience of all was the time he was under interrogation and a prison guard shoved the electrical cattle prod straight into his mouth. The explosive shock that followed knocked him unconscious."

James: How do you carry on with life after being treated worse than animals for slaughter? Especially the self-torturing question of, "Why me?" Gyatso's Buddhist practice of not clinging to a sense of self (anatta) is what helped him keep from being consumed with a feeling of personal injustice.

"It's not just Tibet. It happened to Jewish people (during the Holocaust), and it's happening all over the world." In this regard, he was far from alone. He was linked to all wrongfully imprisoned people around the globe. This gave him a reason to live -- to help others suffering in prison through meditating on compassion. That is also what aided him to avoid being utterly consumed by rage for his captors. "His torturers simply struck him out of ignorance, he said. The ignorant need our compassion and our help. He holds no lingering animosity toward them. Said Gyatso: "I have no anger toward any human, any Communist Chinese."

In countries like China and Burma, it is common for police, military and prison guards to have taken that job out of fear of being the one oppressed. Plus, it's a job in a society where economic opportunity is rare. The karma from their actions will sting far longer than the whips lashed upon their innocent prisoners. So, for Gyatso to be able to see the fear and weakness in their minds brought about a change in focus that made all the difference in surviving prison not only intact, but spiritually stronger. For Burmese activist, Nay Tin Myint, the turning point to surviving wrongful imprisonment came through not attaching to the limitations of the body. "They put my body in prison, but I decided they could not have my mind" said Myint in an article for The Wall Street Journal.

In conclusion, I can not imagine the suffering that these prisoners face. Nor can I imagine the physical pain they endured, but I am convinced that the Dharma is a powerful tool if we remember to use it. This isn't just something that only well-trained monks are capable of; we're all capable of it as well. Take the example of lay Buddhist meditator, Wang Jianxin of China. The ditch digger survived being buried alive for two hours by controlling his breath through meditation; according to the article from The Daily Mail online by

~Peace to all beings~

Torture, Still U.S. Policy

One standard ploy on the part of American conservatives when arguing about the BushCo military adventures in Iraq has been to ask something like "Well, are you saying that the Iraqi people are not better off now that Saddam Hussein has been removed from power?" The implication was that even though each of the rationalizations that BushCo trotted out to justify their criminal invasion and disastrous war (e.g., the Hussein-al Qaeda connection, WMDs, and so on) proved to be lies, the consequences of their policy had been salutary. After all, the conservatives smirked, we lied to topple a brutal dictator who sanctioned systematic torture of Iraqi civilians.

Well, it turns out that that line of argument, like the earlier conservative and neo-conservative lies, is proving to be less and less persuasive. What the U.S. military did was to unleash an alternative source of brutal, arbitrary power on the Iraqi people. You can find reports here and here in The Guardian. Indeed, the U.S. military has continued to participate in the systematic torture of Iraqi "detainees" by proxy, that is, by allowing the Iraqi police and military to do the torturing for us.

What evidence do we have that the practices detailed in these reports have ceased under the Obama regime? None.

Another Crystal Clear Indication that Obama is (at best) a Right Leaning Centrist

The Obama Administration won a court decision today (hopefully not a final one, but given the reactionary make-up of SCOTUS, there is at best a fleeting hope that this decision will be reversed) by invoking "state secrets" as a defense against detainees who have been tortured by the CIA in black sites around the world. You can read the report in The New York Times here. The delicious part appears in these paragraphs:

“The administration’s aggressive national security policies have in some ways departed from the expectations of change fostered by President Obama’s campaign rhetoric, which was often sharply critical of former President George W. Bush’s approach.

Among other policies, the Obama national security team has also authorized the C.I.A. to try to kill a United States citizen suspected of terrorism ties, blocked efforts by detainees in Afghanistan to bring habeas corpus lawsuits challenging the basis for their imprisonment without trial, and continued the C.I.A.’s so-called extraordinary rendition program of prisoner transfers — though the administration has forbidden torture and says it seeks assurances from other countries that detainees will not be mistreated.”

The understatement is obvious. For those who are 'disappointed' that the putatively progressive Obama is constrained somehow from putting his true political aspirations into effect this case should be a clanging whack upside the head. If Obama were a progressive this case would not exist. His administration is resisting the efforts of individuals seeking justice and he cannot blame this on the Republicans. His administration is saying 'you don't even get your day in court ... we want the torturers to be immune from any recourse ...'. This is shameful.
__________
P.S.: (Added early the next day) ~ As I re-read this this morning there is something else. Does it need saying that the appeals court panel (11 judges!) in San Francisco who made this decision on a 6-5 vote are shameful as well. They sold the constitution down the river.

P.S. 2: Even The New York Times sees this more clearly than our political leaders ~ "Torture is a Crime, Not a Secret." Just So.

Orwell's Shadow (2) ~ How "Torture" Disappeared From (or, Was Banished By) American Journalism

"Yet the most dangerous side of our new semantic war, our use of the words of power – though it is not a war, since we have largely surrendered – is that it isolates us from our viewers and readers. They are not stupid. They understand words in many cases – I fear – better than we do. History, too. They know that we are drawing our vocabulary from the language of generals and presidents, from the so-called elites, from the arrogance of the Brookings Institute (sic) experts, or those of those of the Rand Corporation. Thus we have become part of this language." ~ Robert Fisk

In my last post (here) I recommended the essay by Robert Fisk on journalism and the language of power from which I've lifted this passage. The "we" and "our" he refers to are journalists. His complaint is that the press (print and broadcast) have embraced the language of the powerful. Sometimes this is because of the putative need to retain "access"; sometimes it reflects the convention of being "fair" or "neutral" or "objective." Either way, capitulating to the powerful and their claims leads, as Fisk indicates, to decidedly partial and political reporting.

As if on cue, yesterday Glenn Greenwald posted on a newly released report on the U.S. media entitled "Torture at Times: Waterboarding in the Media." The study finds that the four largest circulation national print news outlets - The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, and USA Today - capitulated more or less completely to the campaign by the Bush Administration to redefine interrogation techniques commonly recognized to be torture as something other than torture. They did so in a sharp break from their own historical practice, reaching back nearly a century, and from their own descriptions of practices in other countries. ("They" torture, "we" don't; we simply rely on "enhanced interrogation techniques.") These outlets, thereby, did not maintain "neutrality" or "objectivity" or "fairness" but actively connived in legitimating the torture policy that the Bush administration implemented.

This is a damning report. We are not talking about the clowns at FOX "News" here. We are talking about the purportedly "liberal" media. Fortunately, as Fisk notes, people are not stupid. They know torture when they see it and can call it by its name.
__________
P.S.: While I don't want top ring my own bell on this one (too loudly), this is a pattern that I have posted about repeatedly - see here and here and here, for instance.

P.S.(2): You might want to see Andrew Sullivan's post on this, and the reply issued by the lackeys at The New York Times. Why read Pravda, when you can read the American mainstream media.

P.S.(3): Update 7/6/2010 ~ See this follow-up by Glenn Greenwald on the vapid response of editorial higher-ups at The Times.

Shahidul Alam Crossfire

What is the last thing a person sees before being murdered by quasi-official death squads? That is among the matters Bangladeshi photographer Shahidul Alam is trying to address in this series of images. You can read about his work here at The New York Times photography blog "Lens" and, more directly, here among Alam's own "musings."

Note that the images straddle the line between fact and fiction in that they allude to actual cases but do not simply document them. Even so, as The Times post makes clear, speaking out on this topic cannot be safe. You will note too that the exhibition of his images has passed and that it was in Dhaka. Perhaps this small increase in publicity, however belated, will help forestall risk for Alam.

João Pina ~ Fleeting Occurances, Banality, Offical Terror

I stumbled across this post at The New York Times photography blog "Lens." It details ongoing work by Portuguese photographer João Pina (about whom I posted here before) in which he is retrieving the memory and consequences of coordinated state terror across Latin America in the 1970s. The images are extraordinary.

Keep the "Change": The Bush/Cheney-Obama Torture Policy

As discussed here and here and here and here and here and here, the Bush/Cheney torture policy is rapidly being embraced by the Obama administration. It is not just that Obama has failed to close Guantanamo, although that is bad enough. He has continued to implement similar policies in Afghanistan. And he has refused, systematically, to fulfill the duties of his office (you know, the bits were he pledged to faithfully execute the laws and uphold the Constitution) by investigating the systematic program put in place by BushCo to engage in and rationalize torture.

Their Criminals, and Ours

"China has no 'dissidents' . . . There is only the difference
between criminals and those who are not criminals."
~ Ma Zhaoxu, Spokesman Chinese foreign Ministry

This is a remark, reported here at The Guardian, by a Chinese government official commenting on the imprisonment of Liu Xiaobo. It might seem comical to hear regime mouthpieces, with a straight face, parsing words in hopes of rationalizing their oppressive actions. But, as I have noted here repeatedly, it makes a difference. It makes a difference to individuals like Liu Xiaobo. It has consequences for the debasement of language and thereby of politics. And it does not, of course, happen only in those despicable far away authoritarian places like China. After all, just this week David Margolis, an official at the U.S. Justice Department, engaged in the very same practice. He announced that when John Yoo and Jay Bybee flouted - systematically and knowingly - domestic and international law in their quest to rationalize the torture of people being held in U.S. custody under suspicion of partaking in terrorist activity they simply exercised 'poor judgment' instead of professional misconduct. The distinction Margolis draws basically is between being morally obtuse and being legally culpable. The news reports are here and here. We don't have war criminals in the United States, we just have eager, if slightly flawed, public servants operating under circumstances of extreme stress.*

Just to be clear about the political consequences of all this - Margolis not only lets the Bush minions off the hook here, he gives cover to the 'let's ignore the past and hope for the future' strategy that Obama is pursuing on this matter. And, not to be overlooked, he allows countries like China to continue thumbing their noses at sanctimonious rhetoric from Americans.
___________
* But of course, as subsequent news reports make clear, we have dramatically incomplete record for making that assessment because large numbers of official emails to and from Mr. Yoo during the relevant time period mysteriously are missing and unrecoverable.

P.S.: And if you want to see that this language game is being played not just in the halls of justice but in the mainstream media, see this post and this follow-up by Glen Greenwald at Salon.com . . . We don't have Terrorists in the U.S., we just have deranged 'tax protesters.' (Meaning, presumably, that we cannot torture the latter if they are captured?) Just ask the folks at Newsweek. Pretty remarkable!

Dick Cheney Punks Barack Obama and Eric Holder

KARL: ... waterboarding, clearly, what was your...

CHENEY: I was a big supporter of waterboarding. I was a big supporter of the enhanced interrogation techniques that...

KARL: And you opposed the administration's actions of doing away with waterboarding?

CHENEY: Yes.

This past weekend on national television Dick Cheney, former Vice President of the United States, admitted to criminal activities. More specifically, he admitting to advocating torture while he was in office. This - justifiably - has gotten reliable commentators agitated - look here and here. As is usual, Glenn Greenwald has a useful take on the situation:

"In general, people who commit felonies avoid publicly confessing to having done so, and they especially avoid mocking the authorities who fail to act. One thing Dick Cheney is not is stupid, and yet he's doing exactly that. Indeed, he's gradually escalated his boasting about having done so throughout the year. Why? Because he knows there will never be any repercussions, that he will never be prosecuted no matter how blatantly he admits to these serious crimes. He's taunting the Obama administration and the DOJ: not only will I not hide or apologize, but I will proudly tout and defend my role in these crimes, because I know you will do absolutely nothing about it, even though the Attorney General and the President themselves said that the act to which I'm confessing is a felony. Does anyone doubt that Cheney's assessment is right? And isn't that, rather obviously, a monumental indictment of most everything?"