(no subject)
Jan. 24th, 2007 09:12 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
saint_monkeyIt interests me that the president last night felt obliged to mention that the "War on Terror" would be generational.1
When I read the administration's strange use of signing statements,2 it seems that often they object to provisions that limit the president's ability to act in a time of war, essentially saying that as commander and chief, he can do as he likes. To me, the actions of this administration serve one master more than any other, and that is to expand the authority of the chief executive.
But what does this mean in the context of a "War" that has no end, and is clearly viewed by this administration as a multi-generational event? He clearly feels that he can ignore the laws passed by Congress, and apply binding constitutional interpretation as if he were the Supreme Court. In his mind, when we are at war, there is only one authority, the president. Given this, what promise do we have from him, that he will abide by the will of the people? Congress, and the supreme court, working with the president, guided us through world war two, through vietnam, maybe not with the most stellar results, but America is still here. The president doesn't seem to trust the duly elected appointees of the people, (or even his own appointed ministers, for that matter.) He wants us to hand him the keys and hide our heads. In his mind, when we are at war, when you vote for president, you actually vote for dictator.
And what about this war? We've declared war on a "feeling." Like happiness, or malaise. There is a reason that the UN and the Law of Armed Conflict sets out an enemy as a member of an army, as someone in a uniform, and it isn't so that we can avoid granting them appeal or representation if we capture them, that reason is to intentionally limit the scope of the conflict to those that identify themselves as our enemies, and so that we can be assured that when our enemy is defeated, the war will end. The UN and the Pentagon know that war is terrible, and should have limits. This is why the rules limit the scope of combat. The president does not seem to know this. Terror is a concept. Concepts are dangerous, but they don't wear uniforms, ideologies aren't heads of state. Terror is a label that can be applied without regard to borders, it can be pursued in any direction. They may try and say that the new threat is a different threat, and war must be waged in a new way, but they are wrong. Concepts have no limits, but they do have subscribers. The civil war was about slavery, world war II, facism, Vietnam and the cold war, communism, but we didn't fight those ideologies, we fought countries that subscribed to them, and when those enemies dissolved, those wars ended, even though those concepts are still around. I can reach no conclusion except that this war has no end by design, and the import of that design is to distract us with war, and to hold onto near absolute power while doing it.
I don't know, maybe he thinks that he has us "snowed?" No matter what he does, if he coats it in "the war on terror," we'll buy it? Maybe that's why his speech contained the interesting twist of "design(ing) and establish(ing) a volunteer Civilian Reserve Corps?" After all, a lot more soldiers can be infantrymen if civilians do the logistics work. (Everything that Halliburton can't do anyhow.) All he needs to do is wrap that in the flag, slap a Ford logo on it and have Alan Jackson write a song about it, and all us good little sheep will stand to do our patriotic duty. What? You aren't doing your part for flag and country? Aren't you a real American? What will happen next, you think, when we need more infantry? A country steeped in volunteer civic-militarianism for a few years might not be so adverse to a draft.
Anyhow, that's what I'm thinking about.
P.S. I just read in sfgate (and onaj's journal,) that Alberto Gonzales thinks that the Constitution doesn't guarantee habeas corpus because it only defines it by saying that "no one can take it away."3 It also defines many other rights this way, as "no one shall abridge the right to..." Other troublesome things like the freedom to assemble, and to free speech. I'm guessing those are up for grabs too. Sleep tight.
P.P.S.: Here is a pretty interesting GQ interview with Senator Chuck Hagel (R) on the administration's reluctance to even entertain a congressional resolution to impose force on Iraq, stating that they already had all the power that they needed to do so: http://men.style.com/gq/features/landing?id=content_5326
When I read the administration's strange use of signing statements,2 it seems that often they object to provisions that limit the president's ability to act in a time of war, essentially saying that as commander and chief, he can do as he likes. To me, the actions of this administration serve one master more than any other, and that is to expand the authority of the chief executive.
But what does this mean in the context of a "War" that has no end, and is clearly viewed by this administration as a multi-generational event? He clearly feels that he can ignore the laws passed by Congress, and apply binding constitutional interpretation as if he were the Supreme Court. In his mind, when we are at war, there is only one authority, the president. Given this, what promise do we have from him, that he will abide by the will of the people? Congress, and the supreme court, working with the president, guided us through world war two, through vietnam, maybe not with the most stellar results, but America is still here. The president doesn't seem to trust the duly elected appointees of the people, (or even his own appointed ministers, for that matter.) He wants us to hand him the keys and hide our heads. In his mind, when we are at war, when you vote for president, you actually vote for dictator.
And what about this war? We've declared war on a "feeling." Like happiness, or malaise. There is a reason that the UN and the Law of Armed Conflict sets out an enemy as a member of an army, as someone in a uniform, and it isn't so that we can avoid granting them appeal or representation if we capture them, that reason is to intentionally limit the scope of the conflict to those that identify themselves as our enemies, and so that we can be assured that when our enemy is defeated, the war will end. The UN and the Pentagon know that war is terrible, and should have limits. This is why the rules limit the scope of combat. The president does not seem to know this. Terror is a concept. Concepts are dangerous, but they don't wear uniforms, ideologies aren't heads of state. Terror is a label that can be applied without regard to borders, it can be pursued in any direction. They may try and say that the new threat is a different threat, and war must be waged in a new way, but they are wrong. Concepts have no limits, but they do have subscribers. The civil war was about slavery, world war II, facism, Vietnam and the cold war, communism, but we didn't fight those ideologies, we fought countries that subscribed to them, and when those enemies dissolved, those wars ended, even though those concepts are still around. I can reach no conclusion except that this war has no end by design, and the import of that design is to distract us with war, and to hold onto near absolute power while doing it.
I don't know, maybe he thinks that he has us "snowed?" No matter what he does, if he coats it in "the war on terror," we'll buy it? Maybe that's why his speech contained the interesting twist of "design(ing) and establish(ing) a volunteer Civilian Reserve Corps?" After all, a lot more soldiers can be infantrymen if civilians do the logistics work. (Everything that Halliburton can't do anyhow.) All he needs to do is wrap that in the flag, slap a Ford logo on it and have Alan Jackson write a song about it, and all us good little sheep will stand to do our patriotic duty. What? You aren't doing your part for flag and country? Aren't you a real American? What will happen next, you think, when we need more infantry? A country steeped in volunteer civic-militarianism for a few years might not be so adverse to a draft.
Anyhow, that's what I'm thinking about.
P.S. I just read in sfgate (and on
aj's journal,) that Alberto Gonzales thinks that the Constitution doesn't guarantee habeas corpus because it only defines it by saying that "no one can take it away."3 It also defines many other rights this way, as "no one shall abridge the right to..." Other troublesome things like the freedom to assemble, and to free speech. I'm guessing those are up for grabs too. Sleep tight.P.P.S.: Here is a pretty interesting GQ interview with Senator Chuck Hagel (R) on the administration's reluctance to even entertain a congressional resolution to impose force on Iraq, stating that they already had all the power that they needed to do so: http://men.style.com/gq/features/landing?id=content_5326
