Wearing signs of Amnesty, in Iraq and in ....

This is a knee-jerk response to ongoing news re Iraq's continuing struggles.

"Amnesty" is the technique now being tried, I read. Amidst replies of thresholding the amnesty, some get it others don't. I've an idea re how to do the amnesty.

Some religious viewpoints of ancient wisdoms recommend "forgive; but don't forget, until full recompense has been made." Or some variation thereof.

So, with that in mind, consider the hypothesis' of:
1) every person at every instant does the very best he/she can do, based on balance of all factors concerned, within the neurophysiology of the individual" and
2) every person doing "wrong" (as defined by others) believes he/she is fully justified in doing what is being done, and in fact has no choice but to do the action.
3) each person has a multiplicity of complex individually-consistent roles he/she plays, and the one called up is based on the perceived situation confronted at any moment.

Creatively fleshing out the amnesty thing with these things in mind, an amnesty might be done by having each person involved in any way, carry a sign that proclaims the "wrong" as perceived by others and also proclaims the factors the person was following when doing the "wrong" to others. For simple example "I (name 1) punched (name 2) in the nose, on (date) because I thought his nose was ugly, based on a neighbor boy punching me in the nose long ago while saying my nose was ugly." A next part of this carried sign might be "I am providing (identify speciic duty being done at times) in recompense for this action, until recompense is satisfied in agreement with (name 2)" An appropriately modified formatted sign would also be carried around by the person who was punched in the nose, specifying his/her part in the involvement.

Such signs could be carried by, say, "insurgents" and in fact by all who did violence of any kind whatsoever in the overall fracas. Surely every one of them believes he/she was in the right in each instance. Yet the carrying of the "sign" would be a sign of amnesty, and the wearer would be protected from retaliation; if any did an asault on the "wrongdoer" carrying the admission of the action along with belief that "justified" it, and promise to no more do that kind of thing... the retaliator would then be the recipient of an appropriate amnesty sign along with the recompense duty committment.

Part of this would be an effective apology to those wronged, face to face at times. At the same time, the sign would speak of the belief from which the wrongdoer acted in the case, available for some understanding by those wronged in the event.

Among civilized folk this seems like it might work, but what happens in the case of those who have an oversized helping of "bully" in their makeup? Such a sign might read "I (name 1) beat up (name 2) because I believe I am stronger; therefore I deserve to have all the goodies and mates that (name 2) would have had." It is the recompense duty part: to have amnesty, (name 2) must continue to do (appropriate activity) until recompense has been completely fulfilled.

Any "wrongdoer" not protected under such offered amnesty, would be identified as a dysfunctional-assaulter expected to continue to similarly dysfunction, beware all who encounter that one.

Well, that is the knee-jerk idea. I can see potential problems, such as that frame-ups and set-ups that make it look like an innocent person is a wrongdoer, and thus would not know of the wrongdoing and required amnesty duties involved, thus society would be brought down to assault the innocent, as targeted by clever ones.

Such problems appear to be done even today, using the private security video monitoring of stores by centralized guard systems, effectively branding that innocent person every time he/she attempts to buy or sell something in the marketplace. Those in the know involved in the underground national privateer business security networks clearly can easily arrange a fake event play or two, thereby branding the innocent target person evermore as if a wrongdoer to be mistrusted, making life extremely dificult for the target. I doubt the "security" personnel (and probably actual law enforcement personnel sometimes too) care at all that they are thereby doing the dirty work for somebody. Indeed, it might not actually be illegal to "frame up" a person so as to force the target person to endure the various kinds of group assault & restraint activities society uses.

Perhaps safeguards and legal checkpoints for verification including cognizant involvement of the accused, could repair such misuse of the systems which were supposedly for the protection of businesses and people.

If so, the expansion of the "forgive, but not forget until..." tool of amnesty seems something worth exploring by others as well as myself. A way out of the "tit for tat" endless strife. The world might have a chance for survival, after all, if in time.

And, I wonder, who would have been capable to have gotten the "Hatfields and McCoys" to adopt such a process?

by Jim Cline on 20060701 and revised on 20060704.