Slashdot Mirror
The Constitution in Wartime
Findlaw has an excellent essay discussing the history of law in wartime. The author makes the point very elegantly that inter arma silent leges (usually translated "in time of war the law is silent", but I prefer "in the face of arms, the law is silent"). Richard Stallman has an essay on a similar theme, not quite as good, but still worth reading.
Actually, I was reading that, in the US, there is some law.. I forget the name. Something about declaring a state of national emergency. In such a state, the president has power to, well, basically, do anything, and ignore the constitution.
Taken from Here.
This nation (The U.S.) has been gearing up for internal problems for many years.
Hundreds of Presidential Executive Orders have been issued to allow emergency powers under any type of crisis - perceived or real. A Presidential Executive Order, whether Constitutional or not, becomes law simply by its publication in the Federal Registry, bypassing Congress completely. Here are just a few Executive Orders that would suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These Executive Orders have been on record for nearly 30 years and could be enacted by the simple stroke of a presidential pen:
PEO10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.
PEO10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.
PEO10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.
PEO10998 allows the government to take control of all food sources and farms.
PEO11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.
PEO11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.
PEO11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.
PEO11003 allows the government to seize control of all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.
PEO11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.
PEO11005 allows the government to take control of railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.
PEO11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.
PEO11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.
Without Congressional approval, the President now has the power to transfer whole populations to any part of the country, the power to suspend the Press and to enforce a national registration of all persons. The President, in essence, has dictatorial powers never provided to him under the Constitution. The President has the power to suspend the Bill of Rights in any real or perceived emergency. Unlike Lincoln or Roosevelt, these powers are not derived from any wartime need, but from *any* crisis-- domestic or foreign, hostile or economic.
Scary, huh?
IAAA (I am an American), but I don't understand why we are at war--especially with Afghanistan. We were attacked by people who have never claimed responsibility. It is possible that all who were involved perished in the crashes. Our government and the major media want us to believe that Osama ibn Laden was responsible, despite the fact that he actually claims responsibility for his attacks. He is a guest of the Taleban, who has told us (since 9/xx) that they will turn him over upon receipt of conclusive evidence. The Taleban has offered to negotiate several times; meanwhile, Bush's claim that "we will use Diplomacy" remains untrue (he has rejected every offer). Bush refuses to turn over any evidence, citing "National Security"--does that mean that Americans would riot in the streets if they knew what was really happening? Now we are bombing the shit out of the poorest nation in the world because they are bound under their Holy Law to protect their guest. We slander them on TV with false stories about opium (which can't grow in a four-year drought...), while we are using neighboring Uzbehkistan--#2 worldwide in opium production--as an air base for our troop transports, just like we did with Laos/Cambodia during VietNam (search on google.com for Bo Gritz if this doesn't ring a bell).
Back to the topic, our politicians and lobbyists are shredding the Constitution with the full support of the misled American majority. This wasn't in the EULA. I wish to move to a country with more civil liberties, such as Germany.
"What is the sound of one belly slapping?"
What with the "PATRIOT" bill, the USA bill, the SSSCA and whatnot throwing citizens' rights out the window, I'd figured we were already in a state of war.
Go figure.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
Basically, now is when it's most important to have groups like the ACLU. Like most liberal groups, they're being attacked as unpatriotic, but considering we have cases like Korematsu on the books and not overturned, having groups that will watch out for violations of our rights and raise public awareness is important.
And it's not like it's only leftist groups fighting for these thigns, either. The article in the post didn't mention things like the Alien or Sedition Acts, but some of the languge in the bill Ashcroft is trying to ram through congress. There was a coalition of groups from the ACLU and gay rights organizatons to the NRA and anti-aborition activists all united in opposition, saying that we can find ways to protect the security of citizens *without* depriving them of rights.
FA Hayeck (bigtime libertarian dude) acknowledged that the law may be suspended in times of war. The basic idea is that if you lose everything, then what was the point of playing by the rules. This comes with a _VERY BIG_ but, namely that once order is restored, the government is held responsible for the laws it violated. This isn't to say everyone is put on trial, but they should be required to compensate (how they compensate is left vague) the citizens who were violated.
This is a very sensible view, IMO, but the compensation part is tricky. Especially because once peace is restored, tempers & public sentiment are still running hot and the public (read: voters and hence representatives) may not be in a compassionate mood.
-spRed
.sig Karma out the wazoo, better to spend points elsewhere if this is above 2 or below 0
Lincoln's justification of his abrogation of rights during the civil war is just another manifestation of the tired ends-justify-the-means-argument. Unfortunately, not everyone would agree with his ends, and certainly not many would agree with the means. In breaking law to save the union, he ultimately set precedent to fundamentally change that which he sought to save.
Law, even in its happy-faced, kinder, gentler democratically accountable form, is force. If it were unnecessary to compel one to act in a certain way or to not act in a certain way, there would be no need for law. Similarly, if it were unnecessary to compel Afghanistan or Somalia or Serbia or Vietnam or Germany, or any of the countries against which we have waged war to act a certain way, there would be no need for war.
The use of force on the domestic public in the form of law during wartime is ultimately no different than the use of force during peacetime. It is simply stripped of all its warm, fuzzy clothing that make it palatable come election time. Try it for yourself. Go up to the treasury and ask for your share of the War on Drugs budget back and see what happends.
>End Anarchist Rant
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that helps out natural disaster victims and so forth, is actually part of a martial law government in waiting. Under Jimmy Carter's 1979 consolidation of various related agencies into FEMA, it acquired the Defense Department's Defense Civil Preparedness Agency. With the end of the Cold War this aspect of its mission has probably taken a back seat to floods, earthquakes and huricanes. But the capability is still there.
"If our liberties are to be protected, it is up to us to protect them."
But what happens when the media is a toy that does not discuss these issues and that is the people's only source for information? Many of my friends have no idea about what is going on with DMCA and the major news organizations refuse to give any coverage from the people's POV. It will be a grim future where we have an uninformed populace who does not even know which issues to oppose.
"Every man is a God in disguise; a divinity playing the fool."
-R.W. Emerson
Of course, at that time, almost everyone was shell shocked, and it was not on the radar yet
In this situation, war has not been formally declared. Usually, in a war, such laws are "for the duration". Since we are not "formally" at war, there is no such limitation.
Freedoms lost may likely be a permanent loss, unless people strive to make sure otherwise.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
T: After this conflict, will we see that Bin Laden speech in full? Will we hear about all the other things that are being kept (rightly) silent now? Or will they be stamped "Top Secret - 25 years", and only released when many of us are collecting our pensions and don't give a damn?
We just have to make sure that the current conflict just keeps on with its original aims - combat terrorists, terrorism and supporters of terrorism, and doesn't morph early next year into a different beast (cheaper oil would be nice, wouldn't it?). There needs to be public accountability for the actions of the military within all conflicts, to ensure that they operate within the bounds of their mission, and that they should not become a pawn in some political game.
Which I don't think will happen this time, but though like pointing out.
CmdrTaco explain this one: Invalid form key: On9kApk2Hq ! and Invalid form key: GSQ8puWVyf !
Hattig :)
-- The price of Linux is support: Book Prices to Kill...
The government of the United States was created to uphold several principles; these are enumerated in the Preamble to the Constitution. (C'mon, everybody, sing it with me! "We the PEEEOPLE, in order to form a more perfect union..." Yeah, that.)
Generally, we've found that following the procedures outlined in the Constitution is the most effective way to do this. However, our history shows that sometimes, disobeying the law is the right way. The case for the government itself doing this can be found in the words of several presidents, Lincoln and FDR being the most prominent examples. The case for individuals is effectively laid out by Thoreau in "Civil Disobedience," and in the works of Martin Luther King Jr.
If the constitution is not in effect at all times, then what is the point?
Will work for bandwidth
The Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights and how they are being routinely ignored by the government.
Free Speech: Second thoughts on the First Amendment. Another very interesting read.
I have been lucky enough in the past few weeks to attend a couple of Howard Zinn's talks in Boston.
Miguel.
Why is the country so pro-government all of a sudden, when its so easy to prove that its exactly those in the elite that control its every move?
In the war against Iraq, many of those at the top of the pyramid (G.H. Bush, Cheney, Schwartzkopf, etc) were found GUILTY by the International War Crimes Tribunal. The war against Iraq was not about Saddam Hussein, but about oil interests. This was never covered in the media, and many United Staters today fully support the actions we used against the "enemy." Saddam is not crazy, not stupid, and was probably not wrong in his reacquisition of Kuwait. He even asked us if he could do it, and we didn't say no.
In Afghanistan, oil interests of our President and his cronies are the only thing at stake. The proof against bin Laden is thin at best, and the translations of bin Laden's video that everyone thinks he is accepting blame are off at best. But the 500 years of oil (at current consumption rates) that UNOCAL and the elite's friends want access to is currently controlled by the Taliban. Again, ignored by the government controlled media.
Freedom of Speech is gone when it is regulated. With the FCC punishing anti-government sentiment from its beginning, its obvious there is no freedom of speech in the TV and radio media. Since the newspapers are now controlled by those same media mavens, they too should be ignored.
The Libertarian philosophy of non-intervention and free trade is more important than ever to focus on. Even lifetime Libertarians though are towing the government line and wanting revenge, even though the proof against Afghanistan and bin Laden is shamefully non-existant.
And the biggest kick is that we are not even at war. We can't be. If we are, it is illegal, as the Constitution REQUIRES Congress to declare it.
Want to stop terrorist militant attacks on our nation? Limit the powers of Congress as set forth in the Constitution. Create a new foreign policy of non-intervention by our government, remove all sanctions and embargos, tariffs and subsidies. Let good people trade with whoever they want, and stop subsidizing big business in every way.
I think many slashdotters would understand that 99% of the problems we complain about here is not Big Business' fault at all, but governments and the people's. We LET Congress give Big Business subsidies, so why are you complaining that M$ has a monopoly? If Congress couldn't subsidize, M$ wouldn't donate to their campaigns, and we wouldn't have such a monopoly-like fiasco. On the same hand, when we give Congress the power to subsidize business, we give the U.S. "interests" in other countries. This is the cause of almost all our problems, including terrorism!
Limit big government, and you will limit so many problems that we face in the world and locally each and every day. Give the government more power, and you only make it worse.
If you don't believe me, why not drop me an e-mail and lets debate it one on one. I, too, was a non-believer, until I spent just a few months researching the realities of "Big Government."
Voting doesn't work anymore because the process used to become a candidate has been destroyed.
Instead of openly allowing anyone to run, the Democrats and Republicans in many states have made it near impossible to get on a ballot if you're an independent. The Libertarians have been fighting this in each and every state, slowly winning the right to be called what they are on the ballot.
Secondly, the idiots in Congress has fooled almost every United Stater in believing that the problem with elections is that campaign donations are skewing the results. This is the farthest from the truth. I say let big business give as much as they want, hell, let the enemy countries give as much as they want. The problem is that we allow our Congress powers beyond what is allotted in the Constitution, and THAT is why people give them so much money.
Campaign finance reform has screwed the third party because most of the money a third party uses to promote itself comes from relatively few large donators rather than many small donators.
But how many of you think campaign finance reform will work to curb donations? It won't, because all campaign finance laws have loopholes that allow the incumbents or the two parties to raise money from PACs and big business in other ways.
THe only way to make voting work, and to reduce corruption and bribery, is to reduce the power of Congress to the itty-bitty strength allotted in the Constitution.
MBR
Not time to emigrate. Time to protest.
Don't let the abusers wear you down.
U.S. government corruption: What should be the Response to Violence?
Bush's education improvements were
"We must give up some of our freedoms to help combat terrorism."
The predictable words -- and actions -- are beginning to spew from political, military, and law enforcement officials and their supporters. For safety, for security, for the greater good, they somberly tell us, we must comply with their agendas. To be protected from terrorism we must submit to more restrictions -- on our ability to travel, our freedom from arbitrary searches, on the privacy of our communications, on our right to bear arms, on our ability to conduct business hidden from the prying eyes of government.
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire) has called for a global prohibition on encryption products without backdoors for government surveillance.
Travel regulators have banned knives on planes. (Does this mean even the pilots can't protect themselves and passengers against hijackers?)
ISPs who were reluctant to cooperate with the FBI's invasive Carnivore program are now rushing to comply.
The Senate has, in the wake of Black Tuesday, voted to increase the FBI's authority to tap the phones of anyone suspected of terrorism. As we've seen by all these other random restrictions, we are ALL suspects in the eyes of the U.S. government.
Perhaps most ominously of all, the Washington Post quoted House Democrat Leader Richard Gephardt (D-MO) as making the self-contradictory, but entirely predictable statement, "We're in a new world where we have to rebalance freedom and security. We can't take away people's civil liberties . . . but we're not going to have all the openness and freedom we have had." The Post then went on to describe how every war or crisis of the last 100 years has been use to increase government power -- often in the most draconian ways. More Data Here Freelance supporters of the Surveillance State are rushing to urge everyone to comply. One liberal talk show host responded to callers who complained that Big Brother policies at airports were a problem, "Big Brother is the only thing holding us together!"
He offered no evidence to show how Big Brother made us safe on Tuesday, September 11.
WE MUST THINK FREE, NOT PATRIOTICALLY JERK OUR KNEES
Soon we may be at war. And as always at such times, we'll be expected to "pull together," "do what our leaders tell us is necessary," and sacrifice more freedom in the name of "safety and security" or patriotism. And, as the reality of the Day of Horror seeps in, who doesn't feel an urge to strike back, to "get behind our government," to "show those murdering bastards they can't push Americans around," and to "do whatever it takes to defend the greatest country on earth"? -- even if that means sacrificing individual liberty to "the cause."
Whatever happens from here on out, we need to remember that Big Brother is NOT holding us together -- that he never can and never will. We must remember that the kind of restrictions on the liberties of ordinary Americans that were entirely ineffective in preventing the attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2001 will not magically prevent future attacks merely because their severity is increased.
What did all of Big Brother's efforts do to prevent Tuesday's slaughter? The violations of freedom we've already been subjected to in the name of safety -- airport x-rays, ID checks, disarmament, body searches, and the whole gamut -- became a sick a joke when the day arrived that we needed them to protect the country against the world's worst criminals. In fact, Daniel Pipes of the Wall Street Journal was quick to point out how the government's reliance on mass eavesdropping and tracking actually diverted resources from more effective anti-terrorism methods, such as actually studying and infiltrating genuine terrorist groups.
Yet now the government proposes a giant national effort to do more of the same -- to impose more ineffective, wasteful, and oppressive mass surveillance and restrictions.
New restrictions on the freedoms of non-violent people will do nothing to make America or the world safer. They'll make us less safe, as well as less free.
There are at least two reasons for this:
THE FIRST is that more restrictions, and more power placed in the hands of government, will simply, in the long run, create more rage and therefore more desire to strike violently. (As we also saw, some restrictions, like those that forbid armed citizens on planes, also make it harder for Americans to protect themselves and their country.)
THE SECOND is something we observed, tragically, though cell phone calls from four doomed, hijacked planes: the fatal passivity and dependence that seems to be becoming the norm in American behavior.
THE PASSIVE, UNTHINKING AMERICAN
It appears now that a handful of heroic passengers on one flight, having learned via telephone that two other hijacked planes had already smashed into the World Trade Center, decided not to allow themselves to be used as weapons of war. These passengers on United Flight 93 attacked the hijackers who were in control of the plane. Doomed in any case, they ended up dying in the woods and fields of rural Pennsylvania, rather than passively allowing their captors to get away with an even more horrendous mass murder.
We also know that, on at least one other flight --American Airlines Flight 77, which smashed into the Pentagon -- passenger Barbara Olson learned from her husband, U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, of the World Trade Center catastrophe. During two separate calls, Mrs. Olson (a well- known author and conservative television commentator) asked her husband what the pilot -- standing next to her in the back of the plane -- should do.
Picture that. Passengers and crew have been herded -- and note that word well, herded -- to the back of the plane. Even the pilot, the leader, the chief decision-maker, does nothing. Can't think what do to. Can't act. Instead of attempting to save their own lives and the lives of others on the ground, what do they do? They expect a federal government official to make the decision for them. THE EVIDENCE SAYS THAT THESE PEOPLE DIDN'T EVEN FEEL EMPOWERED TO DEFEND THEIR OWN LIVES WITHOUT FIRST ASKING THE ADVICE OR PERMISSION OF WASHINGTON, D.C..
And why should we have expected otherwise? Americans have been told repeatedly never to resist crime, always to submit to any demand a thug makes of them. Always go along -- for safety's sake. Go along in order to avoid angering the criminal. We've been told always to submit, as well, to any demand made by anyone who appears to be "in charge." These people on Flight 77 -- and presumably on two of the other flights -- were apparently so paralyzed by their conditioning that they couldn't assert themselves even when the alternative was certain death.
Even as pathetically disarmed as they were, they could have battered the hijackers with their briefcases, with their shoes, their purses. They could have overwhelmed them with sheer numbers of bodies. They could have gouged at their eyes with fingers or car keys. Could have knocked them unconscious with luggage from the overhead racks. Could have tripped them, stomped on them, tied them up with cords from audio headsets.
But except on United Flight 93, they apparently did nothing. And so three planes flew, sure and true, into the heart of three American landmarks, slaughtering thousands.
THE ONLY TRUE SECURITY MEASURE: A BILL OF RIGHTS CULTURE
We must take back America as a country. We must make it free and independent again -- no longer the would-be ruler of its own people, and no longer playing at being the world's supercop. Only by doing that will earn the world's peace and respect.
We must take our own individual lives and independent spirits back from would-be rulers and criminals, as well.
If we consent, passively, to give up more freedoms -- even "temporarily," or "as an emergency measure" -- we'll be doing the opposite. We'll be less safe, less free.
To restore American freedom and personal courage, we must restore the Bill of Rights -- in our country and in our hearts and minds. If we understand the Bill of Rights, we'll understand what we're fighting for -- and why. If we let it slip away what's left won't be worth fighting for.
This means not merely having an intellectual or legal understanding of the Bill of Rights. This means not merely memorizing the Bill of Rights or teaching it to our children. This means understanding the concepts of individual liberty that underlie the Bill of Rights -- then living those concepts, breathing them, eating the, dreaming them, holding them as the most central values of our lives, in the same place we hold our beliefs in the diety, or our dedication to our families, or to truth or justice.
We must behave as free people, expect and encourage others to behave as free people -- and have zero tolerance for anyone who abuses freedom or uses his authority to violate the Bill of Rights.
If there ever was a time in history to get behind the Bill of Rights and promote it, it is now. If we yield to this mushy thinking that the road to freedom and safety lies in GIVING UP freedom and the Bill of Rights, then we might as well bow down in defeat right now.
If we don't defend our rights, we'll have no rights. If we don't defend ourselves, our family members, and our fellow citizens -- AND defend their freedoms -- then our lives will be no more valuable than those of cattle and sheep. And the America we end up with won't be the America we thought we were fighting for.
If you want to be a passive herd beast -- obey whatever the authority of the moment, be that a bureaucrat or a hijacker, tells you to do. Listen to their lies about "safety and security" and obey, obey, obey.
But If you truly want to combat terrorism or terror-war, learn the Bill of Rights, teach the Bill of Rights, and enforce the Bill of Rights with every action of your life.
FIGHT BACK WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
The Liberty Crew Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc.BR
I believe Juanita
The cry has been that when war is declared, all opposition should therefore ... In war, then, as in peace,
be hushed. A sentiment more unworthy of a free country could hardly be
propagated. If the doctrine be admitted, rulers have only to declare war
and they are screened at once from scrutiny.
assert the freedom of speech and of the press. Cling to this as the bulwark
of all our rights and privileges.
-- William Ellery Channing
Also see The War Powers Act of 1973.
I think that most of the corruption comes from agencies of the U.S. government that are allowed to break the law, secretly. This article is about that: What should be the Response to Violence?
Invalid form key: RY1U5tMMTq !
Bush's education improvements were
Excellent episode of DS9.
Now where were we?
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Good article, are you a libertarian?
Before one can uphold the Bill of Rights, one must understand them.
The Bill of Rights is a misnomer for the articles it contains: it is better called the "Bill of Prohibitions."
The Bill of Rights does not grant anyone any rights. The freedoms it is focused on are granted to all humans of all nations from birth, "God-given" rights if you will. The Bill of Rights was written to restrict government from infringing on these inherent rights.
Once you read it and see that the government is prohibited from infringing in any way these rights, you will understand how screwed we are as a country.
Perhaps a the most significant reason to support the Second Amendment.
Otherwise, someone better armed than you will take away your rights.
I believe Juanita
Dissenting Opinion
Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 US 1, 37 (1949)
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
10990 -> 11612 -> 11807 -> REVOKED BY 12196
10995 -> REVOKED BY 11556
10997 -> REVOKED BY 11490
10998 -> REVOKED BY 11490
11000 -> REVOKED BY 11490
11001 -> REVOKED BY 11490
11002 -> REVOKED BY 11490
11003 -> REVOKED BY 11490
11004 -> REVOKED BY 11490
11005 -> REVOKED BY 11490
11310 -> REVOKED BY 11490
The interesting bit is that 11490 was itself revoked by 12656. PEO 12656, "Assignment of emergency preparedness responsibilities", is still on the books.
Of particular note is Sec. 102, which states in part:
As well it should... it's not within the Executive's powers to make law, only to regulate how its agencies carry out the execution of law defined by the Legislature.
I don't think I'm at all unreasonable in thinking that you Libertarian guys would like to get in there, abandon anything resembling campaign finance reform- and try and get MORE power, not less, because you have things you want to accomplish. Unfortunately, I don't think you are at all likely to get in there and reduce your own power.
Levinson, in establishing that Lincoln did not have the authority to suspend habeas corpus, clearly established that Congress does have the authority. In September, 1863, Congress subsequently granted Lincoln the authority he had assumed.
The threat today of detention without trial does not come from presidential decree but from Congress. The current anti-terrorism law imposes detention without trial on non-citizens for up to 7 days.
There is no doubt that detention without trial, along with denying access to a lawyer, are very useful tools in fighting terrorism. The pressure to adopt them doesn't have to come from a government bent on despotism but from an honest concern for protecting the lives of citizens. Given Congress' authority to enact such laws, people who oppose them on the grounds that they threaten civil liberties are in effect saying that their elected government poses a greater threat than the terrorists.
After 9/11, who can doubt where the greater threat lies?
I'm sick of everyone saying "bin Laden didn't do the WTC attack, and we shouldn't be attacking Afghanistan because we don't have proof." Okay, I don't really care at this point whether or not bin Laden did the WTC attack - we've been trying to extradite him for YEARS for crimes he ADMITTED he was responsible for.
So what if he didn't do the WTC attacks? He's guilty of plenty of other things. As for suspending the Constitution in time of war - it clearly allows suspension of the writ of habeous corpus in the event of war/military action. And as for Executive Orders - all it takes to override them is Congress passing a law with enough majority to overrule a veto, and they cease to have an effect.
As for Bush "not negotiating" - Afghanistan has made offers, sure, but none of them are sane. They want to try bin Laden themselves - yeah, that'll be a fair trial. They want to hand over bin Laden to a third country - as long as that country is one of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, UAE, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc, etc. All countries whose populations (and probably judicial systems) are very bin Ladin-sympathetic. Once again, I'm sure he'd get a fair trial.
As for our "horrible" policies in the Middle East. Yes, I'll admit that some of the things we've done were horrible - but what about the other things that people so readily forget? Like the fact that Afghanistan's government's budget consists mostly of foriegn aid - and we provide most of that to them. And the sanctions in Iraq - they don't, as many people say, prevent food or medicine from getting in. They're deliver food and medicine to Iraq, and then have no idea if it's delivered to the appropriate places. Saddam was constructing weapons that could kill hundreds of thousands of people, in violation of international law, and then won't allow people in to see that he's complying with international law. Even though the US allows Russian and UN weapons inspectors in at least once a year to verify their chemical/bio weapons factories are shut down.
I'm sick of all these Americans deciding that America is wrong in this. I'm a freaking citizen of Luxembourg, and I think America's right in this. Why do its own citizens think that it's wrong to defend itself?
...but it's being eaten...by some...Linux or something...
Here's the original, if you feel like polishing up your language skills or try a better translation.
In Kriegszeiten ist das Versäumnis zu lügen eine Nachlässigkeit, das Bezweifeln einer Lüge ein Vergehen und die Erklärung der Wahrheit ein Verbrechen. [Arthur Ponsonby, aus "Lügen in Kriegszeiten"]
+++ath0
Yeah, Vietnam was one hell of a police action. You tell my father and the thousands of others who fought during Vietnam that that was not a war either.
Do we really need a declaration of war from the congress to make it a war? We are bombing, we have landed troups, we are fighting on the ground? How is this not a war other than the perfunctory "declaration."
"Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates.The violent destruction of life and property incident to war, the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort to institutions which have the tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they are at length willing to run the risk of being less free.... It is the nature of war to increase the executive at the expense of legislative authority."
-Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #8, 1787.
(For those who don't know, the federalist papers were written in support of ratification of the constitution by some of the very people who wrote the constitution itself.)
Yes, we do need a declaration of war from Congress to make it a war. All sorts of really great stuff kicks in if you're actually at war, including treaties and other international law, an expectation by the people of sunset clauses on emergency laws, and so forth.
I agree with your sentiments respecting Vietnam... it should have been called the war that it was. But it's a lot easier to get people to support an "intervention" in defense of a democracy beset by Commie usurpers than it is to get them to support an all-out war against a nationalist movement that was attempting to supplant (through political means) an unpopular puppet government established by France and the United States.
This time around, it's different... we're waging war without declaring war not so that we can claim a moral high ground, but in order to avoid some of the consequences of waging war. Hell, we're even calling it 'war' when we speak about it. Just not in the legal sense, y'understand.
A predicate thesis of terrorism is that a nation can never fight terrorism, precisely because it is not a nation, does not have targets and therefore is untouchable. Similar arguments are often made to suggest the internet is not regulable.
Neither thesis is true. At the end of the day, a terrorist must be somewhere, and that somewhere is going to be subject to some national jurisdiction. The jiu jitsu is what our president did -- we are at war with the terrorists AND THOSE NATIONS THAT HARBOR OR FEED THEM. We then war, traditionally, with nations or authorities that harbor terrorism, and thereby deprive the terrorists of places from which to launch their evils.
We aren't at war with Afghanistan, by the way, but with the occupying authority -- the Taliban -- which is recognized by almost no nation on earth.
My wife is a professional translator (though not in German). She commented numerous times on what constitutes a good translation and about the art of translating in general.
A literal translation is almost never the correct translation. The most difficult things to translate are poetry and prose. In these, you must often completely change the sentence to get the true feeling, especially when slang is used. Slang almost never has similar phrase in the target lanquage, but the target language may have a slang expression that captures the true feeling intended by the original author.
Finally, she has nothing but contempt for machine translations.
-- Will program for bandwidth
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Debs in Debs v. U.S., 249 U.S. 211. It dealt somewhat with your first question, but the Supreme Court insists that everyone who argues before it be a party to the case. Since declarations of war are a power of the Senate, acting as if such a declaration existed when in fact it did not would be a matter of executive encroachment on the Senate; i.e., the Senate would have to sue the President in order for the Supreme Court's requirement of standing to be fulfilled. Of course, this would be more a matter of checks and balances than judicial action.
Executive encroachment of civil liberties frequently goes to trial, but the government usually wins.
~~~~~~
under-paid karma whore
I agree with one thing, there are big benefits at stake, and England, Germany and France very much like to be part of the game. Italy being the sulking outsider.
,Bondsteel, Cheney, Carlyse, Bush , Caspian oil, Unocal, Macedonia, KLA, NLA, MPRI, KPC, OSCE,William Walker, Afghanistan, heroin, drugs, Oliver North, Vinnell Corporation, Dyncorp, soros.
:)
Here is my homework :
The Caspian oil basin is a very important one.
Cheney , as CEO of Halliburton in 1998:"I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian". Estimates have only been rising since.
but actually the whole of central asia is involved. I read that Wolfowitz is very much in favor of grabbing all of it and stripping Russia bare.
A big problem with the caspian and central asian resources is getting them out through a safe way. There are in several possible corridors.
- Iran is shortest, but boycotted in every possible way.
- The corridor to Turkey is difficult to secure.
- China is more than 2000 miles.
- The corridor to kosovo is an interesting issue, because the US has been very active in the Balkan conflicts, using NATO as a front, and secured the pipeline(see fort Bondsteel) and the public did not even notice what was going on. Macedonia is needed too in the plan, and underway. The US strategy in the Balkan deserves a lot of attention.
For one thing, the unrestrained free traffic of Afghan heroin through Kosovo increases financing of opposition in Russian border states like Chechnya.
- The Afghanistan-Pakistan corridor is best known for the Unocal line in construction, which has been interrupted in Afghanistan since i think 1998(that was the year they asked government for help).
But Afghanistan is also a starting point for moving north. Russian sources are afraid(well, to be honest , i only found one) that the US will try to drive a mass of refugees north, use it to destabilise the region and create an alibi to intervene with NATO. British and US diplomacy already requested Pakistan to keep the borders closed(I think, can't remember the source right now). I guess they did not need much pressing.
For this you need weak humanitarian aid inside Afghanistan.
The only mobile troops of Russia are being pinned down in Chechnya, and Bin Laden does not seem to have control there. Hoe much reason will US need to move north?
As is well known, not everyone thinks international approval is necessary.
If you feel like a very long google session, each time take 2 or 3 words at random from:
Halliburton, Brown and Root, AMBO
That bang you just heard is from a surveillance server that just blew up
The web, real educational at times. And addictive too
Germany today has a constitution, legal system, and political system that was carefully crafted to protect the human rights and freedoms of the individual and to protect the people from government tyranny. This is thanks in part to the US. Unfortunately, domestically, the US system of government falls far short of that. That's perhaps not surprising, given that the US Constitution was crafted hundreds of years ago, without benefit of knowledge of 20th century technology and totalitarianism. And failure of the US system of government to protect individual rights and free speech isn't theoretical, the US system has had spectacular failures in McCarthyism, slavery, racism, antisemitism, and dealings with American Indians, to name just a few.
You're not going to find many places in Europe that are sympathetic to Osama bin Laden either.
Advising restraint, asking for publication of envidence, and exploring negotiation is not the same as sympathy for terrorism. Europeans strongly condemn the attacks on the WTC, but that doesn't mean that they generally believe the current course of action by the US is right or effective.
In fact, it is the US again that is today making deals with terrorists and repressive regimes (Pakistan, China, etc.) in order to satisfy domestic political pressures--to give the masses the revenge they are asking for. As long as US foreign policy consists of one opportunistic deal with terrorists and dictators after another, often motivated by simple economic interests, the US will continue to face huge foreign policy problems. If the US actually started promoting self-determination and democracy across the world, the problem of terrorism would disappear by itself.
In different words, the one who's sticking his head in the sand is you. Get your head out of the sand, open your eyes, go travel around the world, and learn about its people and their problems, as well as both the good and the bad aspects of American life.
Um, I know the CIA is not chartered to operate within US territory, but I've never heard the armed forces are under the same ban. Sort of makes all those bases and airfields silly, doesn't it?
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
So, the idea that I'm a citizen and my President has unconstitutionally declared war -- exposing me to war taxes, suspension of liberties, and, conceivably, death in a foreign land -- does not give me "standing" in this issue?
You gotta love the Court.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Since the Feds refused to follow the constitution in peace time, all discussions like this serve to do is prepare the populus for the precise degree to which the Feds will abuse them during the period they unlawfully call "war".
Seastead this.
No, because any war taxes would have to be constitutionally approved by the Congress, as would any authorization of addition powers or general induction. The emergency powers that the President can invoke have already been approved by Congress upon declaration, by the President, of a state of emergency; a state of war need not be declared.
~~~~~~
under-paid karma whore
Read the original article here
Date: September 27, 2001
Published on Saturday, September 22, 2001 Bush's Orwellian Address Happy New Year: It's 1984 by Jacob Levich
Seventeen years later than expected, 1984 has arrived. In his address to Congress Thursday, George Busheffectively declared permanent war -- war without temporal or geographic limits; war without clear goals; war against a vaguely defined and constantly shifting enemy. Today it's Al-Qaida; tomorrow it may be Afghanistan; next year, it could be Iraq or Cuba or Chechnya. No one who was forced to read 1984 in high school could fail to hear a faint bell tinkling. In George Orwell's dreary classic, the totalitarian state of Oceania is perpetually at war with either Eurasia or Eastasia. Although the enemy changes periodically, the war is permanent; its true purpose is to control dissent and sustain dictatorship by nurturing popular fear and hatred.
The permanent war undergirds every aspect of Big Brother's authoritarian program, excusing censorship, propaganda, secret police, and privation. In other words, it's terribly convenient.
And conveniently terrible. Bush's alarming speech pointed to a shadowy enemy that lurks in more 60 countries, including the US. He announced a policy of using maximum force against any individuals or nations he designates as our enemies, without color of international law, due process, or democratic debate.
He explicitly warned that much of the war will be conducted in secret. He rejected negotiation as a tool of diplomacy. He announced starkly that any country that doesn't knuckle under to US demands will be regarded as an enemy. He heralded the creation of a powerful new cabinet-level police agency called the "Office of Homeland Security." Orwell couldn't have named it better.
By turns folksy ("Ya know what?") and chillingly bellicose ("Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists"), Bush stepped comfortably into the role of Big Brother, who needs to be loved as well as feared. Meanwhile, his administration acted swiftly to realize the governing principles of Oceania:
WAR IS PEACE. A reckless war that will likely bring about a deadly cycle of retaliation is being sold to us as the means to guarantee our safety. Meanwhile, we've been instructed to accept the permanent war as a fact of daily life. As the inevitable slaughter of innocents unfolds overseas, we are to "live our lives and hug our children."
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. "Freedom itself is under attack," Bush said, and he's right. Americans are about to lose many of their most cherished liberties in a frenzy of paranoid legislation. The government proposes to tap our phones, read our email and seize our credit card records without court order. It seeks authority to detain and deport immigrants without cause or trial. It proposes to use foreign agents to spy on American citizens. To save freedom, the warmongers intend to destroy it.
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH. America's "new war" against terrorism will be fought with unprecedented secrecy, including heavy press restrictions not seen for years, the Pentagon has advised. Meanwhile, the sorry history of American imperialism -- collaboration with terrorists, bloody proxy wars against civilians, forcible replacement of democratic governments with corrupt dictatorships -- is strictly off-limits to mainstream media. Lest it weaken our resolve, we are not to be allowed to understand the reasons underlying the horrifying crimes of September 11.
The defining speech of Bush's presidency points toward an Orwellian future of endless war, expedient lies, and ubiquitous social control. But unlike 1984's doomed protagonist, we've still got plenty of space to maneuver and plenty of ways to resist.
It's time to speak and to act. It falls on us now to take to the streets, bearing a clear message for the warmongers: We don't love Big Brother.
Jacob Levich (jlevich@earthlink.net) is an writer, editor, and activist living in Queens, New York.
Which is why there hasn't been a declaration of war in 50 years.
I'll take a stab at it...
The corporations gain - a flagging economy, then war - wow, sudden need for all of those products.
But do I think that reps of all of the multinationals got into this big room and hashed this plan out themselves in secret? Sounds like a squabble when the Taliban comes together for a meeting (tribal heads, etc).
No - probably not. I like your idea, though - not sure how true it is or not, but very plausible - I wondered the same thing the day of the attack (ie, did it come from within?)...
I can see something else, though - what if the heads of the major competing airlines to those who were big that got "used" staged this, perhaps in cooperation with whoever was likely to get the contract to rebuild/reconstruct the towers (or recondition - maybe they didn't even expect them to fall)? Sounds nutty, doesn't it? Or maybe it was heads of Boeing - being as they manufacture tons of military hardware, as well as civilian aircraft (which might need mods/changes/new systems for "safer" travel in these "times")? Actually, that last one...
Here's to hoping I don't "disappear"...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon