Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group

When U.S. Veterans Become Violent: Death Penalty Opponents Called to Take on the Tough Cases

By Sandra J. Jones

On November 11 our nation honored its military veterans for their service, yet on the eve of this national holiday one veteran in Virginia received national attention for a vastly different reason. John Muhammed, a Gulf War veteran, had become known as the “D.C. Sniper” when he and his juvenile accomplice went on a killing spree in 2002 throughout Washington D.C. and the surrounding area that left 10 people dead and 6 others wounded. Now seven years later he faced his own execution, as he had been sentenced to the death penalty by a Virginia court. The irony of veteran Muhammed’s execution on the eve of Veteran’s Day became even more pronounced when, one week later, another veteran was executed in Virginia. Larry Elliot, a former Army counterintelligence officer, became the first person to be killed in the electric chair in the United States this year.

Outside of the loyal few abolitionist members of VADP (Virginians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty) who stood vigil outside of the prison during these two recent Virginia executions, any national outcry of the broader anti-death penalty movement went largely unnoticed. Yet the movement has been extremely vocal lately. The National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (NCADP) has launched a campaign to “Shout from the Rooftops” the results of a recent study that has revealed an innocent man, Cameron Todd Willingham, was executed in 2005 by the state of Texas. Certainly, it is no surprise that abolitionists would choose to build a campaign against the death penalty around cases of innocence like Willingham’s, rather than cases similar to those of John Muhammed. Particularly for those residents of D.C., Maryland, and Virginia, the sheer terror that Muhammed and John Lee Malvo brought during their three week long murderous rampage does not elicit public sympathy for death row inmates.

In order to fully understand the relative silence of the anti-death penalty movement around the two recent Virginia executions, however, it is important to note a significant event that occurred just five days before Muhammed’s scheduled execution. On November 5, an Army officer named Nidal Hasan walked into a busy building within the Ft. Hood Army Base and opened fire, killing 13 people and wounding 29 others. Initially, Hasan was reported to be among the dead, yet as the chaos subsided, the news that he was alive shocked the nation. There is little question that the charges against him are likely to lead to a death sentence. The public reaction to this horrific event was immediate and harsh. Any hopes of death penalty opponents to subsequently seek mercy for Muhammed, or any other military veteran, on the basis of arguments that focus on the traumatic effects of military service were dashed.

The anger toward Hasan could be felt around the nation, yet as reports began to emerge that numerous warning signs had existed that Hasan was mentally unstable and capable of such an atrocity, political pundits have attempted to redirect our outrage. The target has become notions of “political correctness” that are presumed to have allowed Hasan, a Muslim American, to remain in his position of Army psychiatrist. Death penalty opponents must not shy from the rhetoric around race/ethnicity and religious affiliation that is being advanced by those who aim not only to strengthen the punitive response to Hasan, but also to weaken our nation’s commitment to multiculturalism. They can start with a simple reminder that, while John Muhammed was a black Muslim American, the next military veteran to enter Virginia’s death chamber a week later, Larry Elliott, was a white man. More significantly, the most notorious United States military veteran turned terrorist, Timothy McVeigh, was also a white man. The death penalty has certainly not been able to fix the mental state of our military veterans who become violent. We must avoid the temptation to reduce them to their race/ethnicity or religious affiliation and focus our energies instead on repairing the faults that lie within our military institutions and the wider society that allow such mentally unstable individuals to go untreated.

Sandra J. Jones is assistant professor of Sociology at Rowan University and is the author of Coalition Building in the Anti-Death Penalty Movement: Privileged Morality, Race Realities.

Nat Turner’s Execution

By Erik S. Root

Today, November 11th, is the 178th anniversary of the execution of Nat Turner. This event is significant in the history of Virginia, but also for the entire Union. The events that Turner set in motion likely caused the solidification of slavery in the South, which was not ended until the conclusion of the Civil War.

On an August night in 1831, Turner and a band of approximately 60 men went on a murderous rampage in Southampton County killing 65-70 white men, women, and children. The band of slaves and some free blacks slit the throats of men, women, and children. Some were decapitated. Others were thrown into bon fires. When people arrived on the scene, some were being eaten by wolves.

The event caused much anxiety in the state. Several militias were sent from Richmond, and even North Carolina, to the county seat at Jerusalem in order to quell the rebellion. By the time they arrived, however, Turner’s band was dispersed and the threat was gone.

Most of Turner’s men were quickly captured and put on trial. However, “General Nat” would remain at large for over a month. He literally hid in a hole in the ground near one of the sites where he and his men committed their violence, before he was accidentally discovered by a farmer.

What prompted Turner to become a leader of a slave rebellion comes to us through the pen of others. Turner himself left no surviving manuscript to justify what he did. What we know from such books as the Confessions of Nat Turner, is that his inspiration to violence stemmed from his religious conviction that God wanted him to free the slaves. He believed a February 1831 solar eclipse gave evidence to this divine command.

The violence alarmed none other than Thomas Jefferson Randolph, and his wife, Jane, who believed that the sin of slavery was somehow responsible for the acts committed in Southampton. Not to justify the acts of Turner, the Randolphs believed that slavery was an evil that should cease to exist.

The Turner insurrection was thus responsible for the most remarkable debate over slavery in the antebellum period. Led by Thomas Jefferson’s grandson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, the anti-slave forces came to the state legislative session prepared to lay the ground for gradual emancipation.

Unfortunately, Randolph, and the anti-slave forces, failed to secure a gradual emancipation plan for Virginia. No other state had such an open debate on slavery and the principles of the United States; no other southern state would consider the emancipation of the slaves in such fashion.

Turner’s resurrection did not secure the end of slavery, but in the end, served to further entrench the institution. His irrational act served as a convenient excuse to reject the rational presupposition “all men are created equal.”

Erik S. Root is chair of economic philosophy at West Liberty University. He is also the author of All Honor to Jefferson? and Sons of the Fathers: The Virginia Slavery Debates of 1831–1832

The Dress Code: The Personal Style of Public Women

By Nichola D. Gutgold

In October former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright unveiled her collection of fashion pins in the Tiffany and Company Gallery of the Museum of Arts and Design in New York City. The pins, she said, helped her to communicate messages to those whom she met as secretary of state. Perhaps most famously, when meeting with then president of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, Secretary Albright wore a snake pin to subtly counter an Iraqi poem that described her as a serpent. She has continued to wear the pins—mostly costume pieces—and notes that they are a fun way to signal a mood for an event. Since what a public woman looks like—most often her hairdos and hemlines—is written about, unfortunately to the negligence of other more important information about her, it seems particularly wise and strategic that if you can’t beat the media you should join them by embedding a message in your style. Hearing about the display of Madeleine Albright’s pins, and her forthcoming book, Read My Pins, I started to think about other public women who have communicated—perhaps quite intentionally—important messages with their style.

The late Margaret Chase Smith, Republican senator from Maine always wore a fresh rose. When I visited The Margaret Chase Smith Library and Museum in Skowhegan, Maine, a worthwhile trip for anyone interested in women’s history, I saw the specially designed miniscule water holder that was rigged up to keep the flower fresh. A timelessly tailored, usually dark colored business suit or dress allowed her to blend into the male bastion of politics, but her touch of the trademark fresh rose, Senator Smith said “allowed me to remain ladylike” noted Angie Stockwell, Senator Smith’s longtime personal secretary and now the collection specialist. At the well appointed museum and extensive library, Ms. Stockwell also serves as a library tour guide, staff photographer, newsletter coordinator, and librarian.

As a senator, presidential candidate and now as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton consistently wears pantsuits. She wore skirted suits as a first lady, but perhaps as a sign of her relatively new found freedom to speak on her own behalf, not her husband’s administration, she now wears pantsuits. The emergence of the pantsuit into mainstream fashion for women in the 1970s coincided with the upswing of the women’s liberation movement. Is Hillary Clinton telling us that she has finally been liberated? Hillary Clinton even speaks about her pantsuits. After she won a New York senate seat, she recounted, in her victory speech, “Sixty-two counties, sixteen months, three debates, two opponents and six black pantsuits later, because of you, we are here!” And again in her Democratic National Convention speech in 2008, resplendent in a bright orange pantsuit she assuaged the raw nerves of her fervent supporters who were none too happy to see her lose the nomination to Barack Obama. She urged them to "unite as a single party with a single purpose." She appealed to the "sisterhood of the traveling pantsuits" –a nod to the young adult book series, and movie Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants to embrace Barack Obama as their candidate.

First Lady Michelle Obama, unapologetically continues to bare her impressively toned arms, most recently on the cover of October’s Prevention magazine, perhaps in an effort to remind women to be strong, to take care of themselves and to also signal that she isn’t likely to cover up just because some opinion columnists and pundits say she should. In Prevention magazine, Mrs. Obama describes her exercise and fitness routine and encourages women to continue to take care of themselves as they age. Also a style signal from our first lady, this one reminiscent of then vice presidential candidate Richard’s Nixon’s description of his wife, Pat Nixon’s “respectable Republican cloth coat” first Lady Obama frequently dresses in affordable J. Crew clothing, communicating, perhaps that in lean economic times, we all need to find places to save money. Like many first ladies before her, the fashion preferences of Mrs. Obama are being closely watched. CNN reports that there is a blog that tracks the first lady’s daily fashion choices.

The personal style of our public women has always been a fascination to the press and the public and some astute public women seem to be putting their messages where they’ll get the most attention. They are wearing them.

Nichola D. Gutgold is is Asssociate Professor Communication Arts and Sciences at Penn State University, Lehigh Valley Campus and author of the following books: Paving the Way for Madam President, Seen and Heard: The Women of Television News, and Almost Madam President: Why Hillary Clinton ‘Won’ in 2008.

Excerpt from “A (Cautionary) Lion’s Tale” posted on tomkrattenmaker.com

By Tom Krattenmaker

It might seem a distant memory. But just two years ago, in the fall of 2007, the [Detroit] Lions, who had been one of pro football’s most forlorn franchises, won six of their first eight games and created a surge of media interest around the country.

As much of the coverage stressed, the Lions were not only hot on the field, but on fire for the Lord. From secular outlets like ESPN and Sports Illustrated, to religious media including the Christian Broadcasting Network, the resurgent Lions were portrayed as the sports version of a faith-based organization.

There was the evangelizing quarterback and team leader Jon Kitna, who claimed a miracle following his return from a concussion in the Week Two win over the Vikings, and who preached salvation as frequently and naturally as breathing. There were reports of rampant conversions...And there was the message from faith promoters that the Lions’ competitive resurgence was fueled by their devotion to Jesus. Here, we were told, was compelling evidence for the wonder-working powers of Christian faith. As sports journalist Jemele Hill wrote at the time, “It’s hard not to note the impact spirituality has had on the team’s incredible resurgence.”

You know what happened next: The Lions lost seven of their eight games over the second half of that once-promising 2007 season, and that was just a grim prelude to the winless 2008 campaign. And therein lies a cautionary tale for the promoters and admirers of the Christian religiosity that has become such a conspicuous part of big-time sports in this generation: Pinning the validity of faith to sports success can appear mighty tempting, but when God’s team or player falls–as will inevitably happen–someone’s going to end up with egg on his (or His) face.

Since the formation of the Christianity-in-sports movement several decades ago, sports ministry organizations have been hard at work to leverage the popularity of big-time spectator sports to reach the public with their evangelistic message. And in doing so, groups like Athletes in Action have consciously attempted to meet Americans on their turf–their love of sports, and their love of competitive success.

Cynics, of course, had a field day with the religion that the Lions were wearing on their sleeve back in 2007, especially when they collapsed and Kitna began piling up the sacks, interceptions, and incomplete passes. The snarky “Deadspin” sports website put it this way in one hilarious headline: “Jon Kitna was sacked for your sins!”

As it turns out, those close to the Lions that season will tell you that Kitna and his Christian teammates remained committed to their faith and one another, even as mounting losses disproved the notion that the team that prays the best plays the best. Kitna would later testify before a local church congregation that the riches-to-rags season deepened his understanding of what it means to be a Christian. In a sense, he and his faithful teammates found Jesus– in the loss column.

But by then, the religion promoters had moved on, in search of the next hot team with a cadre of Christians. As it happened, the playoffs found the Green Bay Packers just one win away from the Super Bowl, and like virtually every team in pro football, the Packers had their share of pious players. One could see the CBN headline coming from a mile away: “Super Faith Taking Packers to Super Bowl?”

The Packers, alas, lost the game.

Any embarrassment in such situations obviously belongs not to God, who is quite above that human frailty according to religious teaching, but to those who would hold up something as fleeting as sports success as evidence for Christianity’s validity. Faith has much to recommend it. But as the Lions’ story attests, a team’s win total is no place to rest your case for religion.

Tom Krattenmaker is a Portland, Oregon-based writer specializing in religion in public life and a member of the USA Today Board of Contributors. He is the author of Onward Christian Athletes: Turning Ballparks into Pulpits and Players into Preachers.

What Went Wrong in Afghanistan?

By Elan Journo

Two hundred twenty-two Americans died in Afghanistan in the first nine months of this year--more than in all of last year, the bloodiest year of the war, up till now. After eight years of U.S. military intervention, the fighters of the Islamist movement are not only unbowed, but on the march. The Islamists (often misidentified by one of their favored tactics: terrorism) seek to impose the totalitarian rule of Allah's law worldwide--an ideal that entails smiting down infidels and subjugating others under sharia. And they're making headway. The borderlands between Afghanistan and Pakistan are the global nerve-center of jihadist operations, where mass-casualty attacks on Western targets are hatched.

From both liberals and conservatives we hear calls for an immediate withdrawal. President Obama, for his part, has dispelled hopes of achieving victory. A common view now holds that we must resign ourselves to a world in which the Islamist menace remains a fixture of our lives--a threat we might mitigate, but never eliminate. Some now tell us we should negotiate a settlement with the Taliban, bribing them to put down their arms, at least for as long as we keep doling out cash. Witness the emerging consensus that there's no military solution--not in Afghanistan, not in the wider conflict with Islamists.

How did America, the world's most powerful nation, find itself in this morass? A shortage of troops and resources? Reliance on a corrupt Afghan regime (a fact highlighted by the charges of massive election fraud, to name a comparatively tame example)? Some combination of these themes? No, the problem goes far deeper. Our post-9/11 policy--in Afghanistan and across the board--was subverted by a factor that few have thought to examine: the basic moral ideas that animate our foreign policy.

My colleagues and I reached this conclusion by looking at how Washington has directed the military and diplomatic response. The evidence (set out in our book) shows that our culture's mainstream ideas about right and wrong are what shaped our leaders' response to 9/11--from their failure properly to identify the enemy and its chief state-sponsors, to their goals for the Iraq and Afghan wars, and on down to the rules of engagement on the battlefield. These ideas have warped the prevailing conception of the "military option." In essence, the kind of war that our leaders believed was morally proper to wage entailed placing "compassion" ahead of the proper task of self-defense.

Take one example. To avoid affronting or injuring Afghans, Washington drew up lengthy "no-strike" lists including cultural sites, electrical plants--a host of legitimate strategic targets ruled untouchable. This handed the enemy a clear advantage--all the more so as the "no-strike" lists have grown longer. The Islamists exploit this policy (e.g., hiding in mosques and situating themselves in known no-strike zones). In response, Washington has misdiagnosed the problem (its own self-effacing rules of engagement) and further hamstrung our soldiers with ever more absurd restrictions. General McChrystal, who oversees Afghanistan operations, recently lambasted U.S. policy for being "preoccupied with protection of our own forces." (!) Instead he urges that they must minimize their time in armored vehicles and walled bases and "share risk, at least equally, with the people."

That's just a sketch of a tragic larger pattern underlying not just the efforts in Afghanistan, but our broader response to 9/11. A point we make in Winning the Unwinnable War is that the way out of the Afghanistan morass requires Americans to recognize how certain (allegedly) moral ideas have informed, and crippled, our policy--and to challenge those ideas.

Elan Journo is a fellow with the Ayn Rand Institute focusing on foreign policy. He is the editor of and chief contributor to Winning the Unwinnable War: America's Self-Crippled Response to Islamic Totalitarianism.

Stop the Beach Renourishment v Florida: When Will it Stop with the Weakening of Property Rights?

By Kyle Scott

In the case of Stop the Beach Renourishment v Florida the question is raised as to whether the state of Florida's effort to renourish a seven mile stretch of beach near Destin, FL is a regulatory taking and therefore requires conformity with the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Shore renourishment is when sand is dredged up from the ocean's bottom and redistributed along an eroded shore front. In this case, the shore would be widened by 210 feet. The government will take ownership of the newly renourished land, which then sparks concern among affected property owners. By renourishing the beach and taking ownership of the new land the state has affectively transformed the nature of the owner's property in that it is no longer waterfront property which could diminish the value of the home that once sat on a private beach at the water's edge to which the owner had direct access. If the U.S. Supreme Court agrees with the holding of Florida's court of last resort then this becomes the most recent in a series of takings cases, including most notably Kelo v. City of New London (2005), in which the Supreme Court has weakened the rights of property owners.

The weakening of property rights in the U.S. is symptomatic of a larger problem. We will not know until the winter term whether the Supreme Court will agree with Florida, but we do know that recently, the Supreme Court has found it proper to deprive property owners of their rights. When property is placed in its proper historical and philosophical context we recognize that the threat goes beyond property given the unity of rights expressed by the founding generation and their intellectual forerunners. Rights that were once thought inalienable--such as life, liberty, and property--have become just the opposite; everything is up for grabs. When we allow politicians and the courts to decide for us what our rights are, we put our rights, and ourselves, at risk. Citizens adversely affected by the government have little choice but to press their rights through the judiciary, but the judiciary cannot be the final arbiter of rights for they too can error in their judgment. The court is allowed to determine what our rights are because too few pay attention to its decisions; therefore, when it sides with a government enacted policy, such as a regulatory taking, there is no check on the court's action. A system of checks and balances fails to do either if the branches are in agreement. Nothing less than a fully engaged citizenry that is willing to voice its opposition through means beyond voting will do. If we are not willing to place the final check on government action then we deserve to have our rights gradually taken from us.

Kyle Scott, University of Houston, author of Dismantling American Common Law: Liberty and Justice in Our Transformed Courts and the forthcoming The Price of Politics: Lessons Learned from Kelo v. City of New London. Both books are published by Lexington Books.