Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Unanimous Conformity in the Senate
For the warfare state, it doesn't get any better than 99 to 0.
Every living senator voted Wednesday to approve Gen. David Petraeus as the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan.
Call it the unanimity of lemmings -- except the senators and their families aren't the ones who'll keep plunging into the sea.
No, the killing and suffering and dying will be left to others: American soldiers who, for the most part, had scant economic opportunities in civilian life. And Afghans trapped between terrible poverty and escalating violence.
The senatorial conformity, of course, won't lack for rationales. It rarely does.
An easy default position is that the president has the right to select his top military officers. (Then why is Senate confirmation required?) Or: This is a pivotal time for the war in Afghanistan. (All the more reason for senators to take responsibility instead of serving as a rubber stamp for the White House.)
In today's Senate, the conformity is so thick that it's almost enough to make you nostalgic for the Senate of four and a half decades ago. At least there were a couple of clear dissenters from the outset -- first and foremost, Wayne Morse of Oregon and Ernest Gruening of Alaska, who in August 1964 voted against the Gulf of Tonkin resolution that "authorized" the horrors of the U.S. war on Vietnam.
Within a couple of years, appreciable dissent was coming from William Fulbright, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as well as Frank Church and George McGovern. Then Eugene McCarthy, Robert Kennedy and other senators.
The process of getting off the war train was pitifully slow, in view of the wholesale deadly ferocity of the Vietnam War -- and in view of the fact that Congress, like the U.S. news media, lagged so far behind the clarity of opposition emerging from many millions of Americans. Whatever good happened on Capitol Hill was a direct result of the anti-war movement and more generalized public sentiment against continuing the war.
In the Senate of 2010, the baseline of conscience and courage is at an abysmally low level.
When the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin, said he's "deeply concerned" about the course of the Afghan war, his tactical objections dodged the fundamentals of the escalating conflagration. And so, Levin dutifully declared that Petraeus will "bring highly experienced leadership and a profound understanding of the president's strategy in Afghanistan."
Chiming in was Sen. John McCain, who lauded the general as "one of the finest military leaders our country has ever produced." McCain has long been appreciative of Petraeus' record, including his services as a military spinmeister for President George W. Bush's Iraq war policies midway through the decade.
In 2007, a notable ad from MoveOn.org described Petraeus as "a military man constantly at war with the facts." There's no reason to believe that Petraeus is more candid these days. At any rate, the policy from the White House is what really matters, not the proclivities of any particular general.
Like mice who won't try to bell the chief-executive cat, senators complain but keep on purring. That explains their unanimous vote for a general pledging to stay the course in Afghanistan.
Every few months, I take another look at footage of Sen. Morse, directly challenging the war president, a man of his own party. It's inspiring -- yet painful to watch, because of the sharp contrast with today's mealy-mouthed senators.
A growing number of House members are lining up against the Afghanistan war, although they're far short of a majority. Meanwhile, the Senate is a bastion of bluster. The overarching congressional problem is a pattern of doing what the war machinery requires -- most importantly, voting to pay for the war. Until that stops, the war won't.
52 Comments so far
Show AllWhy would any of these cretins want to vote against their own financial security? The Military-Corporate-Congressional Complex has been chugging along for decades, and thanks to the likes of Cheney et al, is picking up speed.
The SCOTUS recently voted to ensure this juggernaut can continue fueling itself with billions from the corpora-fascists, and there's no sign that enough of our 'elected representatives' in Congress have strong enough spines to reject the cash. We are so-screwed!!
"strong enough" spines? Most have no such thing in their bodies at all.
As Tip O'Neil said famously "you dance with who brung 'ya." ALL congress-scum are corporate whores. Period. End of story. They dance with who brung 'em, i.e., put them in their positions through "campaign contributions" (eg. bribes).
The U.S. is not a democracy. Sadly, the vast majority of the American sheeple do not realize this, despite this fact sitting in plain view.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis, "It Cant Happen Here", 1935
Already here...been here since Reagan.
I wonder if they voted using Yeas or Nays, or did they cast their votes by holding up their right arms at a 30 degree angle, as in a Hitler style solute...
The United States senate is one of the most corrupt legislative bodies in the industrialized world and is a reactionary force in American politics. There has always been almost unanimous bipartisan support for the American Empire abroad using military invasions based on lies and trumped up incidents when necessary. There have always been a few oddballs against the overseas empire but they are few and far between.
If you are comparing the amount of dirty money and number of people negatively impacted, the US Senate is not just the most corrupt legislative body in the industrialized world, it is the most corrupt legislative body in the whole world.
"Like mice who won't try to bell the chief-executive cat, senators complain but keep on purring."
Purring mice, hmmmm.
"In 2007, a notable ad from MoveOn.org described Petraeus as "a military man constantly at war with the facts." There's no reason to believe that Petraeus is more candid these days."
There's no reason to believe you, unless you bother to provide more info than just "moveon said so".
Maybe Norm should have let his editor hold on to this on over lunch or something.
Even Bernie Sanders, Russ Feingold and Al Franken voted for Petraeus? Is there no one in the Senate who is serious about ending this tragedy?
What the US forces in Afghanstan really needed was a general who could direct that most difficult tactical operation of all: a successful retreat.
On matters of war and empire, the bi-partisan consensus rules. "Progressives" comply with the wishes of the warmasters, as do conservatives and midlle of the roaders.
Even in the House, McGovern is not leading a revolt against war funding. He is only calling for a timetable for withdrawal.
It appears that few if in the congress have the spine and the inclination to buck the Penatagon.
We live in a militarist empire.
It is a political and neoconservative think tank strategy to have every state in the union having some part in the military industrial congressional complex war production and there isn't a senator alive willing to loose that bit of industrial crap and his seat in congress on an 'approval confirmation'. It hopefully will be different on a vote to further fund the war, but I have my doubts.
I fully agree, but no "spine" is required to do the bidding of the interests who put them in power. Since it takes 10s of millions of dollars to buy a seat in the Senate, one does not bite the hand that feeds.
JOE: Totally true. I term the phenomenon MARS RULES. The amount of $ sent to the military, weapons development, covert ops, etc is PROOF that this entity governs the U.S. It eats live babies and spits out blood and guts, and to this beast goes the lion's share of our nation's collective blood, sweat, tears, and funds/treasures. What a deal with the devil.
It matters little which general they "approve."
They keep funding this atrocity, and that's what counts.
Thanks for saying this, waiguoren, and so succinctly.
Norman Solomon has made an essay out of the Betrayus thing, but the fact that the Congress, with its Democratic majorities, approved more funding for the wars is the main point.
One may argue the merits of one general over another (that Rolling Stone reporter actually extolled Betrayus over McAssassination, for instance). However, we still are faced with U.S. wars of aggression and occupations that are perpetually funded by our so-called representatives.
Norm is kind of missing the bigger point. The wars cannot be won. It doesn't matter who's in charge because there is no objective to the wars except continuing to funnel money to "defense" contractors.
-TIA
Everyone keeps forgtting that our elected officials all know sometihng we dont know, and it has everything to do with the sacrifice of many to benifit the hand ful of the few,
and that is , we dont know how big thier swiss bank accounts have grown and will continue to grow with every new passage of bilions to this fake war on terrorism.
Never have so few criminals held so many hostage in fear and finance.
I am bornfreemen, my name is joe spagnuolo,I live in bradenton florida, and have been stalked and tormented by community watch stazi for three years 24/7, that dont like my viewpoints, I will never be silent and now I will write using my name, I have over 400 posts on this web site as bornfreemen, over the 3 years, i am not afraid , and am removing my anonimity.
live free or die americans, fight the system , truth to power, speak out against treason and stazi control
Anyone that would use MoveOn to validate their opinion has a problem straight up. Pitiful bunch at best.
Just for curiosity, does anyone think not voting for Petraeus would have made any difference? And if you could have derailed his appointment, what would you do then?
"Just for curiosity, does anyone think not voting for Petraeus would have made any difference?"
Yes and here's the proof.
http://www.alternet.org/world/147377
"And if you could have derailed his appointment, what would you do then?"
Be a hero by calling for appointing a general who would call for hastening the withdrawal of troops and mercenaries from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Only Obama can withdraw our troops. I can't see that any General makes a difference to that,(new thought just arrived thanks to your nudge) except Obama is now Petraeus's prisoner. You have a point now that I think of it, he can't cross Petraeus, he is trapped politically.
Good point DM!
Obama is Petreaus's prisoner? I don't know about that. He could discharge Petreaus at any time but Petreaus is too good for Obama to resist. Maybe the general will be different but I just don't see it.
This is a much better General in every way as far as that goes, but Obama cannot fire this guy and he is going to have to give him Carte Blanche, which I'm sure he did or Petreaus would not have agreed to take the job. Remember he fired a guy to put his hand picked putz in charge, he can't do it again, there isn't anyone else.
Obama's going to have to walk walk back that July 2011 date and declare that any withdrawal of U.S. troops will be “conditions-based” or in other words if we aren't winning (HA!) we aren't coming home.
Of course Obama can fire him. He's the president, and he has that power, constitutionally. That Obama supports the fascists, and may be one himself, is besides the point of what he CAN do, if he wants to. The problem is the people have once again voted for one of the fascist establishment -- much like Charlie Brown always tries to kicj the football. It's important to understand what the real problem and situation is.
I'm speaking of political reality. And the fact is, Obama cannot afford to fire another General. The ability or power to do something is not the same as being able to do it.
Obama and Petreaus are both celebrities so it would logically make sense for Obama to keep him lest he be exposed as a hypocrite. When I worked for Army and Navy, his name was too popular to ignore. Maybe Wes Clarke could replace Petreaus?
That was great!!
Whenever there is a vote like this, demonstrating the utter and pathetic unanimity of the warfare state, I can't help but wonder why it is that we don't have a single senator who shares the antiwar sentiments of people like Norman Solomon, or Noam Chomsky, or Chalmers Johnson. Is it because it is functionally impossible to elect an anti-imperialist progressive to the senate, or is there something fundamentally corrupting about the institution itself? Why can't we elect a single one in this country?
I guess I know the answer -- it's a combination, I suppose, of the campaign finance system, combined with the winner-take-all two-party system, combined with intense pressure to conform, combined with an instinct to take the safe vote over the rebellious, principled, symbolic vote.
Still though, it is always pretty stunning to see a vote like this. Talk about a rubberstamp parliament...
Norman Solomon makes great points about Wayne Morse, and we should also remember Mark Hatfield whom Morse help win an election to be a senator from Oregon in 1966 two years after Morse had voted against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution to authorize Lyndon B Johnson to go to war in Vietnam. By doing so Morse put Hatfield, of the GOP and the other major party but also a dove in senate over Bob Duncan, his party's candidate who was backing LBJ all the way on Vietnam insisting in his campaign that if "We didn't fight them (those terrible "Communists") in the elephant grass of Vietnam, we'd be fighting them in the wire grass of Oregon." This was right out of the old domino theory, and in that time it almost worked with Hatfield winning by just over two points with a lot of anti war Democrats crossing over to back Hatfield in that election. Hatfield had been actually the only governor at a national governors conference in 1966 to oppose LBJ's policy in Vietnam and had come under heavy fire for doing so. I can remember that so well, and I felt the exhilaration when Hatfield won by that two percent and the backing of anti war liberal Democrats.
Those were the days in the 1960s with the anti war movement getting its feet on the ground and with GOP support from the likes of Hatfield and to a lesser extent of Charles Percey (spelling) in Illinois. But the anti war movement finally got moving. We have to do that again, and we have to do it with again with a Democratic president in the White House.
Damn how history repeats! Where are you now George Santayana?
AD
Norman Solomon makes great points about Wayne Morse, and we should also remember Mark Hatfield whom Morse help win an election to be a senator from Oregon in 1966 two years after Morse had voted against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution to authorize Lyndon B Johnson to go to war in Vietnam. By doing so Morse put Hatfield, of the GOP and the other major party but also a dove in senate over Bob Duncan, his party's candidate who was backing LBJ all the way on Vietnam insisting in his campaign that if "We didn't fight them (those terrible "Communists") in the elephant grass of Vietnam, we'd be fighting them in the wire grass of Oregon." This was right out of the old domino theory, and in that time it almost worked with Hatfield winning by just over two points with a lot of anti war Democrats crossing over to back Hatfield in that election. Hatfield had been actually the only governor at a national governors conference in 1966 to oppose LBJ's policy in Vietnam and had come under heavy fire for doing so. I can remember that so well, and I felt the exhilaration when Hatfield won by that two percent and the backing of anti war liberal Democrats.
Those were the days in the 1960s with the anti war movement getting its feet on the ground and with GOP support from the likes of Hatfield and to a lesser extent of Charles Percey (spelling) in Illinois. But the anti war movement finally got moving. We have to do that again, and we have to do it with again with a Democratic president in the White House.
Damn how history repeats! Where are you now George Santayana?
"The president is the administrator of the people's foreign policy" as Morse said, but we must remember this as Rick in "Casablanca" no president since the Second World War who got this country into a war ever called for a declaration of war. That says so much about how little respect presidents have had for the US Constitution which Morse as a law professor at the University of Oregon was an expert on. Now we have a president who was a law professor at Harvard who has made his business to trash that same constitution in so many ways that simply put say W's third term.
But as Ralph Waldo Emerson once said "Hope springs eternal in the human breast." as Martin Luther King Jr said "The moral arc of universe is long, but it bends towards justice." Finally Dr King spoke for our consciences when he said "Somehow this madness must cease."
They are not "our" Senate. The millionaires club, a more accurate description, has just flipped us the bird......again.
There are no democracies where the government consistently votes minority opinion (mini-minority?). Governments that operate in that manner are called dictatorships.
A few dictating to many, policies that benefit the few at the expense of everyone else.
when it comes to blowing little girls into red mist, petraeus is certainly my choice
Thalidomide and Bornfreemen,
I agree with every word posted. So many of us had seen this coming for many years. Whenever I would attempt to "enlighten" others, they shook their heads saying I was Paranoid, damn right I'd say. These PTB's (powers that be) that play us like a game of chess, are not human, more like humanoid creations out of a science fiction horror page sucking every drop of sweat and money earned from us and still suck the blood from our veins in the name of taxes. Remember reading about serfdom in medieval Europe, look around it's us living under the US Company Store called American Freedom. Where are all of us that have no means of working due to being physically disabled going to go; we're being given a fast ticket to the grave.
We live in the MOST corrupt country in this world. Yes there are other corrupt governments, we put them there gave them all the rules and promises of riches and power. We are all replaceable, why the hell aren't the ones making these rules replaceable, is it because our government is just an illusion?
These rich repugnantcans and dumbocrats have to go along with their puppeteers.
I've said it before, I really believe that the prez was given a "do what we say, or else there may be accidental accidents, get my drift?"
So friends what do we do, we can blah blah over and over but the machine keeps getting bigger and stocking WMD's to use on
us, our children our water, food and spirit.
We walk the talk and they kill the squawk.
I protested during the Vietnam slaughter, I saw heads getting smashed in, children taken away and put in foster homes because we resisted the United Corporate States of America.
But the weapons are invisible, one zap you're history. You say they can't take us all down? Look at what they have done across the globe, the numbers of "civilian casualties".
So please someone out there enlighten me to what we can do when the masses are a bunch of mind-controlled idiots believing every word their TV gods tell them.
On ending, I still believe in hope, and also the bad ones will pay for what they have done to our children and our home, planet Earth.
Heads up, Norman Solomon:
On October 7, 1963, while his friend John F. Kennedy was still in the Oval Office, Senator Gruening of Alaska rose and said:
==We have been and are heavily engaged in Vietnam to the extent of 12,000 "advisers". They are supposedly "technicians", but of course they are troops, and it is sheer hypocrisy to pretend they are anything else. It is only costing us a million dollars a day, but far more serious, it has cost us the lives of 100 American young men.==
It took a deep sense of responsibility to 1) question a friend who, kindly, came to Alaska to campaign for him, and 2) to question the leader of his own political party about his foreign policy. But Ernest Gruening never lacked the courage of conviction - as LBJ would learn.
On 22 November 1963 Lyndon B Johnson was sworn in as the US President. For the first three months he made no significant statements concerning Vietnam. So on 10 March 1964, Ernest Gruening rose to his feet in the Senate and voiced these opinions.
- - - that no vital American interest was at stake in Southeast Asia, and that despite our massive military and economic aid, the situation there was deteriorating. Pointing out that we had already spent over $2.5 billion in Vietnam, I said, ==I consider the life of one American boy worth more than this putrid mess. I consider every additional life that is sacrificed in this forlorn venture a tragedy. Someday . . . if this sacrificing is continued it will be denounced as a crime==.
On August 7, 1964, Senator Gruening joined Senator Wayne Morse in voting "No" to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, knowing that his vote would probably end his political career.
"Many Battles" by Ernest Gruening.
==Many people asked me right after the Senate vote, and later at various times, why I had voted against the resolution. I had no other alternative. I was convinced of the folly of our military involvement in Southeast Asia, and having declared my opposition to it nearly five months earlier and having reiterated it subsequently, I could only view the Tonkin Gulf Resolution as a blank check to the President to escalate and widen that involvement. Moreover, the text of the resolution, apart from misrepresentation of what happened in the Tonkin Gulf, embodied three falsities that aggravated the whole deception.==
In 1968, Dr. Ernest Gruening published a book called "Vietnam Folly". Although he counseled youth to have the courage to JUST SAY NO to Vietnam, Gruening dedicated his marvelous book "to the courageous men and women of the ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES IN VIETNAM - theirs not to reason why . . . "
While I admire Wayne Morse, Gruening remains my HERO, along with Hubert Humphrey.
Trylon
As a Vietnam veteran I was with Gruening up until the penultimate paragraph when he dedicated his book to those military personnel serving in Vietnam and then added-theirs not to reason why. As the powerful documentary Sir! No Sir! pointed out, those in the military should most certainly think and reason why they are fighting and if they come to the conclusion that their war is unjust that they have not only a duty but an obligation to say NO to the U.S. war machine. As former Green Beret Donald Duncan noted in the film:
"I was doing it right but I wasn't doing right".
That is what those military personnel, including myself, should have said to themselves back then and it most certainly is what those in the military should be saying to themselves today and that is saying NO to U.S. military aggression in the Middle East.
The time to make that decision is BEFORE they join Erroll. These guys today are NOT drafted. If there is any question in their minds, don't join. Its that simple.
Mightymite
No, no and a thousand times no. How do explain the fact that the IVAW is speaking out against the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq? Or, as David Cortright points out in his classic work Soldiers in Revolt: GI Resistance During the Vietnam War, that the majority of those military personnel who spoke out against that idiotic conflict were not composed of draftees but rather of enlistees. Another book which is right on point is Mission Rejected: U.S. Soldiers Who Say NO to Iraq by Peter Laufer.
You simply cannot get away from the fact that the soldiers of today have a mind and that their brains should tell them, yes, even after they have joined, that the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq are illegal and immoral. I strongly suggest that you read Cortright's book as well as Mission Rejected and/or see the documentary Sir! No Sir! which proves that those military personnel, both enlisted and those who were drafted, could and should speak out even after they are in the military. An even more topical example is that of Lt. Ehren Watada whom the military tried to prosecute because he would not deploy to Iraq. A judge eventually threw out the military's case when they attempted to retry Watada after the judge on his original trial declared a mistrial even over the objections of the defendant because the judge, in all likelihood, was terrified because Watada was about to testify about the illegality of the Iraq War.
All soldiers, as various articles in the UCMJ clearly state, have not only a duty but an obligation not to obey illegal orders. And the members of the IVAW and the VVAW are shining examples which backs up that assertion.
All soldiers have always had a brain. Sir, No Sir was about a time when we had a draft and your point was more than appropriate.
Today, every member of any service is a volunteer. If you have any reservations, don't join. Once you volunteer, then you serve.
"All soldiers, as various articles in the UCMJ clearly state, have not only a duty but an obligation not to obey illegal orders"
Thats absolutely correct. Problem is there is nothing illegal about those orders to deploy. The Iraq and Afganistan wars are a terrible waste and a horrible circumstance, but in no way is it illegal. No amount of sophristy can make it so. The Congress gave the President the power and the cowardly chicken hawks in the Bush administration used it. But it was then and now, legal. Now moral is quite another story.
No one can find any place where our law was violated in this sorry episode, disgraced by Congress and cowards that refused to serve themselves, but no laws were broken.
Lt. Watada volunteered, no one forced him to serve and its a bit late to find moral objections to war after you do volunteer. And volunteerring is the difference.
I find no ill will at all to a man that was drafted saying "no thanks" and hooking it to the nearest exit.
One finds it difficult to know where to begin in refuting what you have said. What you have said is exactly what one would expect to hear a neoconservative say. You claim that "there is nothing illegal about those orders to deploy." You must have somehow skipped over the part where I wrote that during Lt. Watada's court martial the judge suddenly decided to declare a mistrial over the objections of the defendant's attorney, which is practically unheard of, and that decision was in all likelihood based upon the fact that Watada was supposed to be the first to testify after those in the courtroom had returned from lunch. As I had mentioned, Judge Head was extremely worried that Watada was going to explain why the Iraq War was illegal and which was the basis for him not to deploy to Iraq. Judge Head was not about to allow Watada to say anything like that in open court.
As Professor Lawrence Mosqueda of The Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wa. accurately points out in an article that he written for CounterPunch back in February of 2003:
"The Uniform Code of Military Justice [UCMJ] 809.ART.90 [20], makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the 'lawful command of his superior officer', 891.ART.91 (2), the 'lawful order of a warrant officer', 892.ART.92 (1) the 'lawful general order', 892.ART.92 (2) 'lawful order'. In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ."
You may recall that the excuse that German officers and officials were merely obeying orders did not turn out too well for them as many of them ended up being hanged for their offenses at Nuremberg, Germany.
Please tell us the exact date that Congress, which is the only branch of government that can do this, declared war upon that Third World country called Iraq. I have a strong suspicion that you cannot do that. Please tell us what imminent danger the United States was in from an under developed country like Iraq from the most powerful country on earth. As Watada pointed out to veterans like myself at the Veterans for Peace banquet in 2006 in Seattle, Wa., the invasion of Iraq was all based upon lies. Can you please inform us when all those weapons of mass destruction that Iraq allegedly possessed had been found? You cannot answer that question, of course, because they were never found and will never be found. Again, the entire premise of invading Iraq was that they allegedly had all these WMD. But as I have explained, there were no WMD and which means, therefore, that the reason why all 1.3 million Iraqis died was based upon a lie. It also means that soldiers like Watada had every right to refuse deployment to Iraq as well as that bogus "war" in Afghanistan and no amount of flag waving on your part can alter those facts.
Your argument that once a person enlists then it is too late for anything to be done is also totally bogus. Did you skip over the part where I mentioned that the majority of those who had made up the GI rebellion during the Vietnam conflict were not draftees but rather those who enlisted in that idiotic conflict? As the film Sir! No Sir! explains, the crew of the USS Kitty Hawk and the USS Constellation signed petitions saying that they were not going to be part of being on a ship that was carrying munitions to Vietnam. In case you are not aware, those in the navy, unlike the army, are NOT drafted. They volunteered to join the navy back then just as those in the navy today must volunteer. You will probably find this shocking but those who had ENLISTED back then decided that they wanted to speak out against U.S. militarism. And to their great credit they did. Why in the world should someone in the military not be able to change his mind after he has discovered that he had been lied to by his government? That is an argument that a warmonger would make. Many like Watada joined the military soon after the attacks of 9/11/01 in a burst of emotion because they thought that it was the right thing to do. But they did the thing that the military most fears and that is by reading and researching they began to THINK and realize that they were lied to by their government. I suggest that you check with any attorney in this country and that every one of them will tell you that a contract is not valid and no longer binding when one of the participants lies by making false promises such as when a naive young person signs on the dotted line because of reasons that the enlistee later finds out are bogus.
The best way for a war or an occupation to come to an end is, as the Vietnam conflict clearly demonstrated, for it to happen from within.
American military personnel-say NO to illegal war and American imperialism.
I will simply point out that Congress authorized the President to take military action in Iraq and Afghanistan at his discretion. Historical precedent confirms this method of military action.
While you are correct that only Congress can declare war, the President on his own authority can intervene (militarily without declaration of war) in cases where he deems it a case of National security.
I'm sorry you see these facts as "neocon" or "right wing" but I care only for the truth. In fact you seem to have projected that I'm in favor of these wars or that they were justified. Nothing could be further from the truth.
No one was afraid of anything Watada had to say at anytime.
That the invasion and occupation was based on lies is not in question. Even all but the most die hard right wingers admit that at last.
"Your argument that once a person enlists then it is too late for anything to be done is also totally bogus."
Here you missed what I said. I didn't say nothing could be done. Nor did I say that a soldier shouldn't speak out or sign a petition or wear a peace symbol on his helmet. What I said was that its too late to decide not to serve.
Your contract example is absurd. It wouldn't stand in any court as thiose that tried it found out back then.
The final problem is that there is nothing illegal about this war and if there were I'm sure the ACLU and many others would have challanged it. Thats all I really said. Its legal without any doubt. And if you volunteer you serve.
"American military personnel-say NO to illegal war"
Thats a given. I'm sure we would both prefer that no young person had to see the horror of combat as we did in any case. Given the choice, never would be too soon.
Peace
You claim that " no one was afraid of anything Watada had to say at anytime." It becomes apparent by that statement that you were not paying very close attention to what happened during his mistrial. Focus, because as I attempted to point out, apparently to no avail, during Watada's trial, the court recessed in order to break for lunch. The next witness for the defense was going to be Watada. Judge Head knew that Watada was going to bring up the illegality of the Iraq War which is why he decided to call for a mistrial bizarrely claiming that Watada did not somehow understand a document that he had signed. The military attempted to retry Watada but the appelate courts said that would involve double jeopardy and blocked the military from doing so.
You say that the President can intervene on his own authority "in cases where he deems it a case of National security." Your statement, of course, makes absolutely no sense at all because, as I again tried to previously state, an under developed country like Iraq certainly was no threat to the strongest military power on earth especially given the fact that none of those fearsome WMD were ever found in those countries which means that the U.S. lied about Iraq somehow being a "threat" to the United States and which then means that those in the military certainly have a right to say that they will no longer be a part of America's illegal military actions in the Middle East.
Despite your bizarre contention, those in the military, as the VVAW and theIVAW make perfectly clear, "it's too late to decide not too serve" is totally false. Thankfully those in the VVAW and the IVAW have proved you wrong.
For someone who claims to value the truth, and especially someone who hypocritically ends his comment with the word peace, you seem to be doing your best at obfuscation. As Prof. Mosqueda has noted:
"Under the Nuremberg Principles, you have an obligation NOT to follow the orders of leaders who are preparing crimes against peace and crimes against humanity. We are all bound by what U.S. Chief Prosecutor Robert K. Jackson declared in 1948: '[T]he very essence of the [Nuremberg] Charter is that individuals have intentional duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual state.' [A]nyone with knowledge of illegal activity and an opportunity to do something about it is a potential criminal under international law unless the person takes affirmative measures to prevent commission of the crimes."
In November of 2002, 315 law professors had signed a statement entitled "A US War Against Iraq Will Violate US and International Law and Set a Dangerous Precedent Violence That Will Endanger the American People."
You continue to claim that "there is nothing illegal about this war" and that if there were the "ACLU and many others would have challenged it. It's legal without any doubt." On the contrary, there is a great deal of doubt about the supposed legality of the Iraq War [despite no declaration from Congress as Congress, according to Article 1 Section 8, is the only legislative body that can legally bring the U.S. into war]. Despite what you claim, you certainly do sound like a neoconservative as only a neoconservative would argue so vociferously that the U.S. somehow had a right to invade a Third World country that was never in a position to harm the United States.
This point is driven home even more cogently by people such as Michael Ratner, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights, New York, and Jules Lobel, Professor of Law at the University of Pittsburgh in a report entitled "The United Nations Charter and the Use of Force Against Iraq" which, among things, stated:
"Under the UN charter, there are only two circumstances in which the use of force is permissible: in collective or individual self-defense against an actual or imminent armed attack: and when the Security Council has directed or authorized use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security. Neither of those circumstances now exists. Absent one of them, U.S. use of force against Iraq is unlawful."
As Prof. Mosqueda stresses:
"The authors were specifically referring to Article 51 of the UN Charter on the right to self-defense. Nothing that Iraq has done would call that provision into effect. The report also states that":
'There is no basis in international law for dramatically expanding the concept of self-defense, as advocated in the Bush administration's Sept. 2002 National Security Strategy to authorize preemptive-really preventive- strikes against states based on potential threats arising from possession or development of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons and links to terrorism. Such an expansion would destabilize the present system of UN Charter restraints on the use of force. Further, there is no claim or publicly disclosed evidence that Iraqis supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.'
Prof, Mosqueda goes on to add that:
"The Bush administration's reliance on the need for 'regime change' in Iraq as a basis for use of force is barred by Article 2 [4] of the UN Charter, which prohibits 'the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.' Thus, the rationales being given to the world, the American public, and the armed forces are illegal on their face."
As should be immediately evident by the examples by law experts, Chief Prosecutor at Nuremberg and future Supreme Court Justice Robert K. Jackson and the UN Charter, the invasion of Iraq, a Third World country, was most certainly illegal.
Any rational, intelligent person would have to agree that it is simply absurd, ludicrous, unbelievable, untenable, implausible, inconceivable, as well as preposterous, for anyone to believe that the United States was somehow justified in attacking an under developed country like Iraq.
Mightymight (Thomas More et al) can simply not graps the concept that it does NOT MATTER whether the President of the USA deems a war legal. He is not the one that can make that ruling.
The Nazis passed laws to make EVERYTHING they were doing legal. Nuremberg cleary stated it was IMMATERIAL whether the wars and actions of the Nazis was LEGAL under German law. They indicated clearly that German Soldiers had the DUTY to refuse those orders as they were deemed illegal under international law.
It also makes no difference whether someone is drafted or volunteers for military service when trying to determine a given order illegal. An illgeal order does not become legal by the virtue of a person having volunteered.
Volunteers have the duty morally and legaly to refuse illegal orders and whether an order legal or illegal is NOT determined by the person giving the orders. That is simply absurd.
You're right about what the president can and can't do but war presidents do everything to ignore Congress if it isn't his way and if he can't ignore, he'll armtwist. Congress isn't clean either so it's tough for most Americans to figure out who has what authority to do what.
ERROLL: Great response to the resident knee-jerk pro-militarism CD poster. He sees a black white universe, you either sign on the dotted line, or don't... as if such items as a bankrupt economy sending young people into the military's waiting arms is not a factor; as if the LIES recruiters tell is not a factor; as if "the war on terrorism" constitutes a legal/actual war as opposed to a faux means to surveil citizens on any and every continent, and pre-emptively arrest any who stand in the way of empire (or rule by global corporations, the same ones bound and determined to eviscerate our quality of life in substantial, and life-threatening ways).
This same poster, if my intuition is operating on par, has a similar "with us or against us" stance on all those "illegal" aliens being rounded up in border towns, especially in the wild, wild West of Arizona.
SiouxRose
Thank you for your kind words. I find it less than credible that a person who claims to want peace would be somehow against the idea of American soldiers saying NO to needless and unnecessary American aggression.
Either you two can't read or you are simply blind.
"I find it less than credible that a person who claims to want peace would be somehow against the idea of American soldiers saying NO to needless and unnecessary American aggression."
WHERE exactly do you find I said that? Oops, I didn't.
You two only hear and see what you want to, only believe what you want to, project onto me what you want me to say. Rhetoric isn't argument or facts.
I'm disdgusted.
"WHERE exactly do you find that I said that?" Please don't play games as you did, when you claimed that it is somehow "too late" for those who "decide not to serve". You also say that our are disdgusted [sic] whereas I, for one, am disgusted at your neocon talking points which claim that soldiers are supposed to continue serving in U.S. wars of aggression even though the reasons for those acts of aggression, as I have repeatedly demonstrated, are based upon lies. Why should they have to "serve" if that service means serving an organization that is used to brutalize and terrorize and kill and bomb people for absolutely no justifiable reason whatsoever, in an occupation, as I have meticulously pointed out, that is based on lies? Like the neocons, you simply refuse to admit that those soldiers have an option and that option is to refuse to be part of the U.S. war machine.
How unusually non perceptive of you SR. Look up the meaning of "volunteer"...and I never knee jerk except when provoked by stupidity.
If anything you are expressing the "with us or against us stance". Aside from which, I'm surprised you can't see the truth being stated here. If you claim this is an illegal war then you simply join a chorus of wishful thinking. I have no interest in any more of the fantasy intellectualism applied to facts.
Thinking that everyone is a "victim" is not progressive. Thinking you can provide everything for everyone with no cost is not progressive. Thinking that you can ride free is not progressive.
I see many shades of gray which apparently many here don't which they have proved over and over. Sing our song, its the only correct one. You are correct however in the fact that when you give your word you honor it in my opinion and I have no respect for those that don't. A man makes his choice beforehand, not after.
You express a narrow and very parochial view of reality if I may say so. I'm surprised at you. Don't believe all the propaganda you hear.
I think it would be a good idea to read his autobiography, "Many Battles" before judging him. Ernest Gruening was a remarkable human being.
At Appomattox, his father stood braced at attention eyes straight ahead when the sword of Lee was surrendered to Grant. Gruening served in uniform in The Great War. It is little known that Gruening lost a son to suicide. His choice of words for the dedication of "Vietnam Folly" could have been better, but his education included poetry. The phrase is borrowed from Tennyson's "Charge of the Light Brigade" in which 600 men charge into "a valley of Death" with cannon to the right of them, cannon to the left of them - theirs not to reason why. It concerned a suicidal military maneuver, not participation in a war not of their choosing.
Trylon
You seem to be complaining that I am judging Ernest Gruening too harshly. As I had stated in my previous comment I was with you regarding your comments until toward the end of what you had written. I thought that should have been clear in indicating that I certainly believe that Gruening and Morse did the right thing by not voting for the Tonkin Gulf resolution.
I am fully aware of Tennyson's "Charge of the Light Brigade" and that they were sent basically on a suicide mission in the Crimea. Many soldiers in other wars [though not declared by Congress] were also given similar orders and went along with the program. But not all of them meekly did what they were told. Allow me to make a suggestion to you as you, like the commenter known as mightymite, seem to be unaware of the GI movement that took place during the Vietnam conflict. If you were to see the film Sir! No Sir! you would see a journalist who had been in Vietnam recount the story of a company of American soldiers who also were basically sent on a suicide mission in Vietnam as they realized that they would be facing an overwhelmingly superior force out in the jungle. The soldiers soon came to realize that their situation was hopeless and refused to carry out their mission. Nixon heard about this piece of insubordination [gasp! refusal to obey orders by our troops!] by these soldiers and ordered another company to take their place. You probably will find this shocking but that company, to their great credit, also refused those same orders!
As I tried to explain earlier, I believe, the soldiers in the military today should not view themselves as being robots. They should finally realize that they have a mind and that their brains should then tell them that, as you correctly note, since they are participating in an occupation not of their own choosing, then, according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, they have not only a right but also an obligation not to obey their illegal orders. But as I said, there are some soldiers in the military today, such as those who belong to the Iraq Veterans Against the War [IVAW] who choose not to participate in that illegal occupation. Some of them also include those who have said NO the occupation of Afghanistan.
We will soon be celebrating another holiday, July 4, which contains another military theme, Other such holidays include Memorial Day and Veterans' Day. All of these days are intended to basically "honor" soldiers who have participated in America's wars. What one does not see, and is quite unlikely to ever see, are parades and statues being built and medals given out to those soldiers who have had the courage and integrity and bravery and moral fortitude to rise up and to take a stand against American militarism and U.S. imperialism. There are very few Americans, for example, who have even heard of Hugh Thompson. 25 year-old Thompson risked his life by telling his two man crew to fire upon American soldiers if they were to fire upon him when he was going into that drainage ditch in a village called My Lai in Vietnam in March of 1968 to see if any of the elderly Vietnamese and the children were still alive. The American soldiers from Charlie Company initially had shot those Vietnamese people and then pulled them into the ditch. After Thompson's helicopter had taken off his crew chief Glenn Andreotta reported to Thompson that an American sergeant was, like the Nazi Gestapo, now shooting people in the ditch. When Thompson's helicopter landed again he then told his 18-year-old door gunner Lawrence Colburn that if the Americans began shooting at the villagers, "open up on 'em-blow 'em away."
Thompson rescued at least a dozen Vietnamese from that abattoir. One of the more poignant scenes was when Thompson waded through the bodies of those who had been executed to see if anyone was still living. Incredibly he managed to find a small child of about three, covered in blood and slime, still living as his family had covered him as the Americans began shooting. Just as amazing is the fact that there wasn't a scratch on him. Hugh Thompson wept at the carnage he had seen as his helicopter crew flew the helicopter the four miles to the nearest hospital at Quang Ngai. For those who are interested at what happened at My Lai and how the media covered the massacre up and how almost no one was held accountable then I strongly recommend Four Hours in My Lai by Michael Bilton and Kevin Sim which should be required reading, as former Vietnam veteran Tim O'Brien states, "for every young man or woman who contemplates military service, for every politician or general or admiral who rattles a saber or waves a flag."
Hugh Thompson certainly wondered about the reason why Americans were executing innocent Vietnamese civilians and acted with great courage at stopping more Vietnamese from being slaughtered by the Americans. In a testament to how backward this county is Thompson was vilified by his congressman from Georgia and the lapdog for the Pentagon, Mendell Rivers, when he returned to this country as well as also receiving death threats. One sees parades being given for veterans and medals of honor handed to soldiers for merely obeying orders while people like Thompson and his crew and the members of the VVAW remained mired in obscurity apparently because they had the temerity to think and to challenge and to reason-why?-and then decided to act on that reason by challenging the military apparatus of the United States.
ERROLL: Your post expresses a most magnificent and magnanimous humanity. I salute you. Thank you for very enightened (and enlightening) comments.
Erroll (below)
Not that it matters much, but I read the Bilton & Sim book about My Lai when it came out in 1992. About that time I came into possession of a used copy of "The New Soldier" with Navy Lt. John Kerry on the cover. Years later I used this as a source (with photographers credited) for a VVAW Dewey Canyon III web page, now duplicated across the Internet sans such credits.
I have also used websites to compare and contrast the courts martial of Lt. Calley at My Lai and Capt. Howard B. Levy, MD, 1967. Nixon pardoned Rusty. Physician Howard Levy did hard time in Leavenworth for refusing to obey an order, to whit train Special Forces in the use of drugs for interrogation of POWs. Worse, he was charged with "conduct unbecoming" and, in appeal, the stupid US Supreme Court ruled that your immediate military superior was entitled to make the judgment call without challenge. You might have been discovered, say, picking your nose.
The only part of the USA "mainland" attacked in WW2 was Alaska, of which Ernest Gruening was then Governor. History overlooks Ernest Gruening and - as did the author of this article - footnotes him. Not while I'm alive to correct that !
Trylon
A great and most relevant clip by Solomon of Congressman Morse asking a very basic question of why we should be backing a president when he proposes an unconstitutional act. The Democrats have absolutely no excuse. They are the majority party in both houses of congress and yet they continually vote to continue the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. As Valatius noted, even liberals such as Sanders, Feingold and Franken voted to confirm Petraeus. It should not be too surprising if this pusillanimous trio, along with most Democrats, also vote to keep the occupations afloat in the Middle East.
Cowards and warmongers, nearly the whole lot of them.