It's almost 4:00 and I'm just now having lunch. Oh well.
My current hypothesis about the MIA articles is that they got misfiled, because I think I've otherwise looked in every nook and cranny that might possibly contain anything resembling paper goods. So I'm going through all my files to see if they somehow got misfiled. So far, for example, I've determined that they're not mixed in with my documents concerning my exiting Russia and they're also not in the military chaplaincy file.
While I'm sitting here eating, however, I'll continue on with the next chapter, chapter 6, which is titled: Military Courts and the Law. I don't suspect this will be a very helpful chapter.
***
"From the Army's point of view, the justice system was never intended, nor is it intended today, to protect the individual from excesses of government. On the contrary, it exists to protect the organization from individuals." (p. 181)
I must say that in this regard, the Vienna mission may have been a little closer to the Soviet view of the law. Wikipedia summarizes this as follows:
"According to Western legal theory, "it is the individual who is the beneficiary of human rights which are to be asserted against the government", whereas Soviet law claimed the opposite.[4] Crime was determined not as the infraction of law, but as any action which could threaten the Soviet state."
Implied in the discussion on Wikipedia, and expressed more forthrightly elsewhere as, for example, "legal nihilism, or disregard for the law."
What I mean is that we did indeed have a sort of handbook with policies, the kind you'd expect to receive as a new employee at any regular place of employment. However, in the spirit of the Soviet "legal nihilism" they conveniently and deliberately (I can't see any other circumstances, but I'll get to the specifics in my chronological narration) ignored them, even when, in at least one case, where I pointed out the rule and how it had been applied to others, but not to me.
I don't think I could or would accuse the Army of legal nihilism, but the part about the Army's justice system being intended to work in favor of the institution at the expense of the individual, might fit, the intention part. The reason I think it might fit, as not the rules themselves which would seem to point to some appreciation for the individual missionary's rights, but in the selective application of the rules they did have. Am I making myself clear.
Let me give you another example. In the former Soviet Union, using the 1977 constitution, which I wrote an undergraduate report on for a seminar class on European Political Systems, did grant several rights individual rights that the U.S. constitution doesn't, such as right to a roof over one's head and a right to work. Everyone had that right, the latter of which was actually both a right and obligation, however. BUT, and this is a big "but", these laws weren't uniformly applied. For example, let's say a Jew, Joe Schmoe, decides to apply to emigrate to Israel. After applying to emigrate he immediately has problems, and it appears that he has become one of those persons the Soviet Union has behind the scenes determined don't have all the same rights as everyone else, even though this isn't literally spelled out as a kind of criteria or limitation on the application of the law. So the next thing you know, Mr. Schmoe finds himself, for which he is given some kind of explanation or another. And since these applications to leave the country can be quite lengthy, he tries to find another job in the meantime. But, despite the law saying he had a right to a job (Constitution part II, chapter 7, article 40) and was guaranteed a job, he can't find one.
At that point appears that Mr. Schmoe has been selectively singled out to not be eligible for that right, which also states that: "This right is ensured by the socialist economic system, steady growth of the productive forces, free vocational and professional training, improvement of skills, training in new trades or professions, and development of the systems of vocational guidance and job placement."
You understand that I was speaking in the present because it's a hypothetical case (although that kind of thing really and truly happened, along with other such things), but I was speaking of the USSR before the putsch.
This is actually a pretty close fit to what I experienced in Vienna, considering they did single me out for disregard of a couple of their written policies that were in my favor. That is a pretty close facsimile to how it was in the USSR.
As I'm speaking now, I did have knowledge like this about Eastern Europe and where there were apparent similarities these weren't lost to me even at the time. I also had had lots of prior opportunity to work through a lot of ethical and ideological issues before arriving in Vienna. Others coming into the mission might not have had that questionable benefit. Since that was a major part of my training though (European studies, religion in Eastern Europe, etc.), I was biased at the time to see similarities with things in Communist countries rather than with some of the other institutions and settings I'm comparing it to via the literature I'm discussing. So at the time I felt in some ways like I was living in a micro Communist closed society right in the middle of a major Western European city.
I know when I was sent home for "treatment" (the quotations indicate my presentiment), for example, I made a very strong mental comparison to the Soviet misuse of psychiatry.
***
"Former Attorney General Ramsey Clark (in discussing the use of troops in urban riots) said, 'Generals resent civilian presence and legal guidance. Their business is war. War knows few rules and forgets them when need arises..." (p. 181)
Now this opens a whole new can of worms, regarding my dad. Is it possible that the military would have had that kind of attitude regarding protection of my dad? Just a question. I'm not sure myself, so in this area I'm walking a bit on thin ice.
The other thing I'd like to bring up from this text, though, is the part about generals resenting outside (i.e., civilian) presence and guidance. The mission in Vienna had this attitude in as much as they are impenetrable to outside accountability. Just try holding them accountable, even just using biblical standards. Go ahead, I'd really like to see that and I might even bring along some popcorn and take a front row seat too. Good luck.
As this implies, the mission had virtually built an impenetrable fortress around their inner workings, and trying to hold them accountable would probably be more akin to trying to hold a covert operations agency accountable.
***
"It is probably a rare occurrence that a commander would be impolitic enough to actually tell a court member how to vote. His ability to select the participants and 'stack the jury' may make this unnecessary." (p. 196)
The Vienna leadership stacked the deck against me, if I may take liberties with extending the similarities a bit, when they sent me to conservative Protestant Christian psychiatrists near the Stateside office. Very clever, no?
***
I just skipped over 12 pages and we're getting near the end of the chapter now, but here's something worth discussing:
"Prior to the recent volunteer Army changes, drill instructor in basic training have been reported as deliberately and explicitly attempting to drive recalcitrant soldiers AWOL." (p. 209-210)
This was published in 1976, after the Vietnam War draft. The thing of interest here is that it is a direct admission that they tried to get rid of problem recruits by driving them to skipping town.
The context in Vienna is a lot different, but one of the possibilities I've considered, is whether there was an attempt to get rid of me. The only real possibility for that would be if it was because of my dad, and there is some indication that could be the case. Eventually they could just have determined that I was unfit, but neither of these interpretations is a perfect fit either, as there are incongruencies. But the thing is, and some of the other literature I hope to eventually get to, is that there was a lot of ambiguity and mixed signals pretty much the whole time I was there, making it more difficult to understand exactly what was going on. And I believe that this ambiguity was largely intended, for whatever reason (security comes to mind). Again, some of my literature does deal with this subject of ambiguity.
***
That's all for this chapter, so I'll leave off again.
~ Meg
