8 posts tagged “liberty”

Just over 150 years ago, Abraham Lincoln warned us that "a house divided against itself cannot stand". While the image of national disunion, prophetic as it was, was what captured the national imagination, his actual message was not that the house would fall, not that the Union would crumble, but that

It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it... or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States...

His speech was a call to action, a warning that the Union was on a path that would lead to that which the North felt was inconceivable, the full legalization of slavery. It was a warning of the course the Republic was on, unless direct and strong action was taken to avert it. Sadly his speech was not strong enough to rally him the support needed to attain the Senate, let alone achieve his goal. Rather, it wasn't until the house actually began to fall, that states seceded, that a war was fought, that he achieved his goal and then paid its price.

I can easily imagine the horror he felt as his nation trod relentlessly towards slavery or disunion. I can imagine it because our house, our houses today are divided. The nation is divided, the Republican and Democratic parties are each divided, the proponents of civil liberties are divided. Polarization is rampant, and it endangers what we cherish.

A bit over 250 years ago Franklin wrote the following

As to the other two acts. The Massachusetts must suffer all the hazards and mischiefs of war, rather than admit the alteration of their charters and laws by parliament. "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety".

The last quote, which he published in slightly altered form a few years later, is reminiscent of his maxim of 270 years ago to "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

All of this is advice that is extremely timely. All of it came to mind as I read Glenn Greenwald and Keith Olbermann, two staunch and outspoken defenders of our civil liberties and tradition of the rule of law not men, bickering with each other, sparked by Senator Obama's abandonment of his pledge to fight against retroactive immunity and the expansion of presidential power, presumably to increase his chances of being elected. All this while we as a nation take step after inexorable step away from habeas corpus, away from posse comitatus, away from the separation of powers, away from the rule of law towards the rule of men, the ever strengthening unenumerated inherent power of the man who is the decider in unitary executive.

The time has come to put aside the bickering between Obama Democrats and PUMA "Clintonians" and put a stop to the Republican advancement of the authoritarian destruction of our civil liberties. The time has come for civil libertarians such as Greenwald and Olbermann to put aside the bickering between them. The time has come for Obama to refuse to sell liberty to purchase power. The time has come for virtue over greed. The time has come to realize that it is not immigrants, legal or illegal who are stealing our jobs, but corporations and wealthy CEOs that are shipping those jobs overseas. The time has come to realize that Islamic radicals cannot steal our freedom, only we can sell it out of fear and greed.

The time has come for Republicans to stop sacrificing every conservative principle, every liberty in the name of party loyalty. Authoritarian rule by a unified executive that can at a whim nationalize the National Guard, and employ the Armed Forces in the US in "other circumstances", augmenting that with mercenaries who operate outside both American law and that of the nation they are "helping", and law breaking public carriers immunized at the word of the unified executive--these are not conservative values. Crippling national debt is not fiscal conservatism whether it is brought on by a spendthrift congress or a Commander in Chief who refuses to budget or collect taxes for America's longest war.

The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that the Constitution valued habeas corpus even before it affirmed the Bill of Rights. And out of party loyalty, and fear of stateless terrorists, Republicans and Conservatives pilloried them for it. What conservative principle is served by fear mongering, of surrendering our most fundamental rights? None! The only reason that Liberals and Conservatives are fighting over this issue is because of what side the other is on.

A house divided against itself cannot stand. PUMA, Greenwald, Olbermann, Get A Grip! Sell not Liberty to purchase power. Obama, stand firm! Do not capitulate on principles for fear of being soft on terrorism. It is not "Strong on Terrorism" to give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety! It certainly isn't soft on terrorism to hold law breakers accountable--even if they were asked to break the law by the president.

We have allowed polarization to divide our country and our parties. We have allowed fear to cause us to sell out our principles and our liberties. Great Republics do not fall to small bands of fanatics. They fall when fear and divisiveness cause the people to surrender their rights and freedoms to the Leader, the Dictator, the Emperor. They fall when they allow their armies, their mercenaries, their spies, their police to be turned on them. They fall when they allow the government to keep a "little list" of people who cannot move freely, when they allow free speech to be confined to zones, when the leader's agents are immune from the law. They fall when the wealthy can buy the law.

Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, Hamilton, Lincoln, Eisenhower all have warned us repeatedly against fear, greed, manipulation, the combination of money and military power. People! Stop! Think! Stop hating the enemy. Stop fearing the bogeyman. Dear me. Obama and Clinton differ in the details. Greenwald and Olbermann are on the same side of all the issues. They're calling each other names over who should be blamed for what. It doesn't matter who is blamed! What matters is what we do! Anthony Kennedy is a Conservative for great Ghu's sake.

When did it become a great Conservative value to fear monger!? Scalia says that Americans will die if we follow habeas corpus? The McCain campaign thinks it would be good for Republican political aspirations if after 8 years of the Republican Bush administration a terrorist attack was successful!? Republicans are rooting for Al Qaeda? Huh? The failure of the Republicans to keep us safe means we need more years of them? What?

Stop! Take a breath. Let's take a quick survey: Small government, low taxes, balanced budgets, states rights, free market economics, original intent, strict constructionism. Aren't those conservative values? Where did they go? The Republicans are so afraid of dissent among the ranks that they are willing to sell conservative principles for party unity and loyalty and follow a Republican president wherever he will lead.

The Democrats have so sanctified and so demonized their own leaders that they are willing to follow the Republicans into the same unprincipled "rule by men, not laws" future. The Dems, and the advocates of civil liberties are so focused on casting blame that they will attack their own allies.

Fear and division.

A House divided against itself cannot stand.
Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power.
We have nothing to fear, but fear itself.

Please, get a grip.

Thank you. I'll be quiet now. We return you to the civil war, already in progress.

The Democrats are failing us, as the recent FISA Court vote clearly demonstrates. They are not protecting our Civil Liberties, they are cowering before the political threats of a "politically weak" president and worst of all they are allowing him to arrogate more and more power into the Presidency. We need to make them understand that we want political leaders who will stand up for the People, our Liberties and the Republic.

Glenn Greenwald has written (here, here, here, here, here, and here) and spoken (here and here) extensively recently about how the Democrat-led Congress meekly deferred to the President and hastily revised the FISA laws, greatly expanding the government's power to secretly and without judicial or Congressional review tap any telephone or email communications that can be  "reasonably believed" to be outside the US. Many others have taken up the cry and all of the Democratic Presidential hopefuls have distanced themselves from the action.

Most of the writing on this topic has spoken about the great harm done to our Civil Liberties, but as John Dean pointed out, in many ways, that is not the most important and dangerous aspect of the incident. Dean wrote in FindLaw's on-line journal, The Writ, an article entitled "The So-Called Protect America Act: Why Its Sweeping Amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Pose Not Only a Civil Liberties Threat, But a Greater Danger As Well". In it he wrote,

The most stunning aspect of the Democrats' capitulation is their abandoning of their institutional responsibility to hold the president accountable. The Protect America Act utterly fails to maintain any real check on the president's power to undertake electronic surveillance of literally millions of Americans. This is an invitation to abuse, especially for a president like the current incumbent.

Greenwald and numerous others have written of the FISA fiasco, that congress capitulated to the "weakest President" in recent history. Witness:

It is staggering, and truly disgusting, that even in August, 2007 -- almost six years removed from the 9/11 attacks and with the Bush presidency cemented as one of the weakest and most despised in American history -- that George W. Bush can "demand" that the Congress jump and re-write legislation at his will, vesting in him still greater surveillance power, by warning them, based solely on his say-so, that if they fail to comply with his demands, the next Terrorist attack will be their fault. And they jump and scamper and comply.

-- Glenn Greenwald in Salon.com

Once again, the weakest president in the history of this country walks away a WINNER!!! Winning BIG TIME!

-- PinkytheBrain in a comment in Crooks and Liars

I do not understand how "Total Capitulation", jumping at the demand of the politcally weakest President in history, and craven betrayal of principle makes the Democrats "appear stronger".

-- LJean a comment in Balkinization

But if 41 Democrats lack the courage to stand up to the weakest president in decades at a time when every indicator they trust—polls, focus groups, pundits—is saying no to this man, when will they find the strength to stand?

-- Arlene Goldbard

By "weakest", of course, they mean that the President has extremely little support among the People, and after all the People are the source of power in our country and under our constitution. And so, lacking popular support the President should be weak, but in two very great senses, he is not. And therein lies the rub.

First of all, as they point out, the Democrats routinely, repeatably and predictably capitulate and give him pretty much anything he asks for. And secondly, what he has asked for is Power, and they have given it to him. They heap it on him and when they don't he just takes it and they stand by.

This President, this "weak" President has the authority to federalize the National Guard and deploy the US military within the borders of the US when, and I quote the new text of the insurrection act "as a result of ..., or other condition ... the President determines that ... domestic violence has occurred .. and such violence ... obstructs the execution of the laws ... or impedes the course of justice". It used to be that he could do so only to put down violent rebellion and insurgency, or to repel invasion. Now, natural disaster, terrorism or the unspecified "other condition" is sufficient. He used to be able to order insurgents to disperse, now he can issue a proclamation ordering "insurgents or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws to disperse". If he thinks peaceful protesters "obstruct enforcement", he can use the military to disperse them, once he has invoked this act. No other President has had this power.

With the FISA rewrite, it is not the Court but Attorney General Alberto Gonzales who oversees warrantless wiretaps. The same Alberto Gonzales who could not answer an opinion question asked of him in Congressional hearings without taking it back to "his principal"; who believes that the President as the sole supervisor of the "unitary executive" makes all decisions.

No, in terms of legal power, granted him and abdicated to him by the Congress, and his reconstituted Supreme Court,  the current President has more pure executive and governmental power than any previous President. God help us if he were politically powerful as well.

So what are we to do about it? Well, we can turn out any Congressman who doesn't stand up to him. We can replace them with people who understand that their mandate is to protect our liberties, our constitutional government and the Republic. But what if there aren't enough. California has no Senator who voted against FISA. Only one did in Massachusetts. These are the supposed extreme liberal states. What if there aren't any Democrats with backbone in a senatorial or congressional primary? Well, I suppose you could vote for the John Bircher, or the Libertarian. But still, what if there aren't enough?

Well, at least, wrote people last weekend, none of the Democratic Presidential candidates voted for the FISA amendment.  Perhaps the answer is to vote for a strong Democratic President who will whip Congress into shape and... wait a minute... Isn't that proposing that we turn to a Strong Presidential candidate to protect the Republic by weakening the Presidency? Is there, perhaps, just perhaps, a teeny little issue hiding in there?

This, boys and girls, ladies and gentlemen, is not going to be easy. The reason that power corrupts is that good people are tempted to use it--just for now--when it falls into their hands, for good purposes, and there are always good purposes that need power. And so power is seldom surrendered. The time to stop this isn't in the next election, it is now!

The FISA bill was only a temporary stopgap, with a 6-month sunset clause. Speaker Pelosi has sent a letter saying that when Congress returns next month, they'll need to reexamine it. But President Bush has also said that it needs to be revisited. It is, he feels only a first step, and the whole change needs to be made. Congress has to grant him and the executive branch, which as the sole supervisor of the unitary executive, means him, more power, more immunity from oversight, more protection from prosecution for him and those who go along with him, inside or outside the law.

The time to act is now. Make sure your voice, your free voice for so long as it remains so, is heard. Demand that your congressmen stand up for the Republic and against the concentration of ever more power into the President's hands.

Vox Libertas
A Free Voice, that cries Freedom!

Sigh. It has been far too long since I wrote here, and my review of John Yoo's "The Powers of War and Peace" has sat incomplete too long. My apologies. It seems that life happens while you are busy making other plans. The Yoo review will, sadly, continue to be delayed. Reviewing and critiquing political and legal theory takes more concentrated research and thought time than I seem to be able to muster in a single lump of late. So, please forgive me if I fall back for a moment on a simpler task, and write about media fear-mongering and cultural ignorance.

I was reading this morning, a little piece over in Think Progressive regarding Fox News's fear mongering coverage of the Khalil Gibran International Academy (KGIA), a new school opening in Brooklyn that will teach the Arabic language (in a special 2 our session after normal school hours) and Arab culture. When I saw the article and the Fox video, I knew nothing about the KGIA, but it seemed a little surprising to to me to hear the phrases "Muslim school",  “Islam 101?” , “Funding Fatwa?,” and “Coming soon to a classroom near you, Al Qaeda!" used with regards to a school named after Khalil Gibran, a Lebonese Christian, excommunicated from his church and exiled from his Ottoman Turk-controlled homeland for his attacks on the corruption of the nobility and the church, so I did a little research.

On the one side I found a blog by Daniel Meeter, paster of the Old First Reformed Church, who along with Rabbi Andy Bachman had accepted the invitation of the school's designated principal, Debbie Almontaser to serve on tKGIA's advisory council, in which he described her as an American Patriot. On the other, I found an article by Daniel Pipes in the New York Sun entitled "A Madrassa Grows In Brooklyn", which described Ms. Almontaser as an extremist. This article and a whole series of articles at pipelinenews.org are echoed in blogs all over the Web.

As I said, I know nothing of the school or Ms. Almontaser, but was suspicious of claims that someone who invited a pastor and a rabbi onto the advisory council of a school named after an iconoclastic Christian was pushing a fundamentalist Islamist agenda.  After a couple of hours Googling and reading, it seems pretty clear that Fox News, Pipes, Pipline and the others are either engaged in fear mongering or are its victims.

Take, for instance, the following description of the Ms. Almontaser from a hyscience.com article entitled "The Dangerous Islamist Leftism Of Dhabah (Debbie) Almontaser And The Proposed Khalil Gibran School In Brooklyn":

According to Dhabah Almontaser, the principal designee of the proposed Khalil Gibran School in Brooklyn, the 9/11 Attacks America's Fault, and "terror is the last resource of a desperate and oppressed people" (as in oppressed by America). Almontaser's views and objectives are so bizarre that the school will be a government funded madrassah...

and contrast it with this slightly longer quote from the interview:

Terror is the last resource of a desperate and oppressed people, but that does not mean that it is acceptable. People who do terrorist acts have lost the sense of right and wrong, each individual committing such acts should be punished with the maximum extent of the law. Only Allah is entitled to take lives.

Just a little bit of a difference. She sound less of a "Dangerous Islamist" when she disapproves of terrorism and killing. When asked, "How do you think terror can be combated?" her reply was

- At least not by bombing a country into pieces! We did not bomb the hometown of Timothy McVeigh to combat terror when he exploded the Oklahoma bomb in 1995. Great Britain does not bomb North Ireland to fight down the IRA, and Spain does not kill hundreds of civilians in their search for ETA terrorists. So which right do we have to kill Afghan women and children, old and young in the search for Al Qaeda?

- Terror is combated by finding the terrorist cells, break them down and bring the responsible to justice. I am sure that our intelligence can find them. With the technology of today they survey what ever they want and are infiltrated in all kinds of communities.

At the time she said this, a little more than a year after 9/11, it was a point of view that would have been shocking or hard to swallow for a great many, but today as an ever-growing majority of Americans turn against the President's "War on Terror" it seems more mainstream.

On the other hand, her view on the causes of the 9/11 bombing are still not mainstream, and I can see how some, perhaps even many, would find them shocking or a little threatening. Asked "Why do you think terrorists attacked the USA?", she replied,

- A year ago I could not answer such a question. To me it was just impossible to comprehend how someone could do such terrible, totally sick atrocities. Many said they were not surprised that terrorists attacked the US. That hurt me deeply. Today I believe that the terrorist attacks can have been triggered by the way the USA breaks its promises with countries across the world, especially in the Middle East and the fact that it has not been a fair mediator with its foreign policy. It is not true that the people in the Middle East and Southeast Asia hate our lifestyle, our freedom and our democracy. What disturbs them is that we in order to secure our own well being, deprive them of the possibility of achieving the same high living standard and freedom of choice that we have in the western world.

[This is the point where she made the oft-quoted statement about terror being the last resource.]

This sort of candid criticism of American policy is the kind of thing that gets liberals and progressives accused of "hating America", and is an accusation that is hard for many of us to hear, but that makes it all the more important for us to listen to it and to understand where it comes from, rather than react with fear or anger. Rather than focusing solely on the extent that she holds her country responsible and not her faith or language, seeing it in a conext that starts and ends with a staunch disapproval of terror ("such totally sick atrocities... should be punished with the maximum extent of the law.") and on religious and ethical grounds in the context of her religion, can help us understand world culture and how it affects us all.

This brings me back to the thing that fist caught my ear, the fact that the Fox commentators and the critics in The New York Sun and the blogosphere all talk about the Khalil Gibran school and don't bother to mention that it was named after an anti-traditionalist Lebanese Christian, most likely because they don't even know. They fear and hate, but do not understand.

And that is not all that surprising. Gibran became quite popular in the late 60's but was generally viewed as a smaltzy poet, a source of pop aphorisms thanks to the popularity of The Prophet in both abridged and unabridged versions. In fact, though, he was really something of a radical and iconclast. Two of his works that I enjoyed while growing up were Spirits Rebellious, and Broken Wings. The first story in Spirits Rebellious, "Madame Rose Hanie" and Broken Wings address the same theme, a beautiful young woman in love with one man but in an arranged marriage with another older richer one. In Rose's case, Gibran argues explicitly that in leaving her rich husband to live with the poor one she loved, Madame Hanie was being faithful. Had she stayed, her motives and actions would be hardly different from that of a whore. Broken Wings is told from the perspective of the young man, whose beloved Selma dies in childbirth having stayed with her older husband. It was my favorite of his stories, even before I met and married my own Selma. How could I not appreciate:

In every young man's life there is a "Selma" who appears to him suddenly while in the spring of life and transforms his solitude into happy moments and fills the silence of his nights with music.

The final story in Spirits Rebellious, "Khalil, the Heretic", is of a young peasant man who stands up to a corrupt sheik and church. It's not a subtle story, but it is the one that got him exiled from his country and excommunicated from his church and the passion of its attack on church and state in the name of Jesus and the people helps one to understand his other works. (By the way, the title is not quite so self-referential as one might think, as Gibran's name was actually Gibran Khalil Gibran--Khalil Gibran was his father's name. His American publisher didn't think people would understand the double name.)

I bring up who and what Gibran was because, Anglo-Germanic Celt though I may be, his poetry, his faith, his art and his rebellion were all a part of my childhood, and it is perhaps due to that as well as all the other diverse influences that make me believe in this country and its E Pluribus Unum philosophy. The fear mongers would have us believe that the only part that matters is the "one", that foreigners should cast off their old languages and culture and become one, but that misses the great strength that there is in the "out of many". The great miracle of this country's founders was that Puritans, Anglicans, Catholics, Quakers, and Deists could all agree that their religion need not be the established one, that we could have many, or even chose none. Louisiana could join the Union with a legal code that owed more to French law than British Common Law. French-speaking enclaves could exist in New Orleans and northern New England, three Republics with Spanish traditions and histories and Spanish-speaking citizens could join the Union. We can be different and be Americans, love America.

A prayer offered by the title character of "Khalil, the Heretic" seems particularly appropriate to Vox Libertas.

Hear us, Oh Liberty;
Bring mercy, Oh Daughter of Athens;
Rescue us, Oh Sister of Rome;
Advise us, Oh Companion of Moses;
Help us, Oh Beloved of Mohammed;
Teach us, Oh Bride of Jesus;
Strengthen our hearts so we may live,
Or harden our enemies so we may perish
And live in peace eternally.

But, as ever, don't believe me. Read the works of Gibran. Read Debbie Almontaser's own words and think about them. Compare them to what is said about her. Learn something of the history of the Middle East, study from the Anglo/French, Turkish, Jewish and Arabic perspectives. See if you can synthesize a holistic view of that history from the varied versions.

Be a free voice, the voice of liberty, cry "Freedom!" till it rings.
Vox Libertas

John Yoo Review, part II

In part 1 of my review of John Yoo's book, The Powers of War and Peace, I criticized him for his flawed understanding of history, and of how things today differ from from the last century or two. In this article, my focus is more his reasoning and analysis of history. I think that the inescapable conclusion of this review is that even if we accept his premises and his reasoning we find that he provides arguments that directly contradict the doctrines and actions of the Bush administration.

In a day when a professor of government at Harvard University can write a serious piece in the Wall Street Journal arguing that the country needs and the US Constitution allows for "one-man rule" in preference to the Rule of Law, I believe it is particularly important to carefully read, analyze, and where necessary rebut writers like John Yoo and Harvey Mansfield who are providing the theoretical basis for the turn towards authoritarian rule.

In part 1, I suggested that Yoo's misrepresentation of history had several possible causes. Among them, one of the most likely was that he was serving a political agenda. In chapter's 2-5, we some evidence for that agenda—Yoo focuses very strongly on showing that the fact that the Legislature has the power to declare war does not mean that the President requires their permission to initiate military actions or hostilities, and that likewise making, breaking and interpreting treaties is an executive function. By so focusing on these points, however, he ignores several implications of his reasoning that weaken the justification for a strong unified executive that is free of legislative interference.

The first example of this appeared in the introduction. There, while considering the implications of Article II of the Constitution granting the Senate the power to ratify treaties, he wrote:

the Senate's participation in treatymaking and appointments reflects an effort to dilute the unitary nature of the executive branch, rather than to transform these function into legislative powers. When the Constitution, for example, grants the executive a power that is legislative in nature, such as the veto power, it does so in Article II. Participation of the Senate in treatymaking does not transform treaties into legislative acts, just as its role in appointments does not make the appointment of officers legislative in nature.

Because the distinction between executive and legislative powers is critical to his argument that the President enjoys the power to engage the nation in military conflicts and to negotiate treaties without the Congress's permission, he must draw sharp distinction between the unenumerated executive power that is vested in him from the power of the legislature. Thus, he views the Senate as acting, in this case, in a role analogous to the privy council in Britain or the Governor's Council in Massachusetts and the like. But in so doing he must ascribe to the founders the desire to dilute the "unitary executive" of which we hear so much.

Either the Senate is exercising legislative oversight in the making of treaties and appointments or the Senate is in these instances acting with executive power. In either case the notion of the President as the sole supervisor of a unitary executive is weakened. In the choice that Yoo has made in his analysis, we see the President's executive power tempered by the oversight and approval of a part of the federal executive that he does not supervise. Thus, when he argues in signing statements that the executive branch need not follow the laws as passed by the legislature, and does so as the sole supervisor of the executive branch, he does so in direct contradiction to Yoo's analysis.

If we make the other choice, that the Senate is part of the legislative branch and any powers granted to it are legislative in nature regardless of which Article they appear in, then we have clear instances where the President is subject to direct legislative oversight and approval, and when the President argues in his signing statements that the executive need not follow the dictates of the legislature in order to preserve the separation of powers, again we have counter examples. No matter which choice we take in this dilemma, Yoo has supplied us with a counter-argument for the independent and unitary executive that the neo-cons wish to claim.

Moving to the chapters that I had explicitly targeted with this part of my review, we come to another major contradiction of administration and neo-conservative theory, this time in the area of the declaration of war. A large portion of Yoo's book focuses on countering the arguments of "pro-congress" scholars who assert that it is illegal or unconstitutional for the President to engage in warfare without Congress's formal declaration of war. To do so, he argues that at the time of the writing of the Constitution it was clearly understood that a declaration of war neither initiated nor authorized military action. He writes in the section on British law at the time of the revolution:

First, it [the declaration of war] notified the enemy that a state of war existed between them. If a nation warned its enemy of future hostilities, its later actions would receive the protection of international law. A declaration announced that hostile actions by its soldiers were taken under national aegis, and thus did not constitute piracy or robbery.

p. 33

Second, declarations played a domestic legal role by informing citizens of an alteration in their legal rights and status.

p. 34

Thus, a declaration of war served the purpose of notifying the enemy, allies, neutrals, and one's own citizens of a change in the state of relations between one nation and another. In none of these situations did the declaration of war serve as a vehicle for domestically authorizing war.

p. 34

In the section on the colonial constitutions, he explains even more explicitly:

The declaration of war's main purpose lay not in authorizing military operations, but in triggering the governor's exercise of his domestic powers, such as the authorization to impose martial law.

p. 61

If we follow Yoo's reasoning, we may find that we must concede that the President does not need a declaration of war in order to commit the nation to armed conflict, but we must also find that without a declaration of war, the powers that the President has been claiming as Commander in Chief to authorize warrant-less wire taps, hold "enemy combatants" indefinitely, and so forth, are not permitted to him. Every time the President tells us "we are at war, and extraordinary measures are necessary", he is exceeding his authority, unless there is a declaration of war, according to Yoo's own analysis.

This line of reasoning finds it full conclusion in the following passage in the section where he analyzes the Constitution itself, which somehow the administration and the neo-cons don't seem to ever cite:

Textually, a declaration of war places the nation in a state of total war, which triggers enhanced powers on the part of the federal government

p. 151

A paragraph later, he expands on the type of enhanced powers that require a declaration of war.

Congress has recognized the distinction between declared total wars and nondeclared hostilities by providing the executive branch with expanded domestic powers—such as seizing foreign property, conducting warrantless surveillance, arresting enemy aliens, and taking control of transportation systems, to name a few—only when war is declared.

p. 151, (emphasis mine.)

Most remarkably, a few pages later, Yoo distinguishes the declaration of war from the "Authorization of the Use of Military Force" (AUMF) and other similar Congressional acts, when he writes:

With both Iraq and Afghanistan, a supporter of the Declare War Clause theory of war powers may well have felt the Constitution satisfied because of the two statutes authorizing hostilities—even though these scholars have never explained why authorizing statutes satisfy the requirement for a declaration of war.

p. 157

This is in very stark contrast with Yoo's own argument that "because the United States is at war with al Qaeda, the President possesses the constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief to engage in warrantless surveillance of enemy activity." By his very definitions, this authority only applies in a declared war.

Conclusions

And so, we find that the very theories that John Yoo uses to argue for the strengthening the powers of the President, contain within them very powerful arguments against the way that the the Bush administration has exercised his supposed authority. Yoo, himself argues that the founding fathers wish to dilute the unitary nature of the executive by granting executive powers to the Senate, acting as an independent executive council, approving appointments and treaties.

More significantly, Yoo writes explicitly that the use of extraordinary war-time powers, such as warrantless surveillance require a declaration of war, and that the authorization of of military action in Afghanistan and Iraq does not qualify as a declaration of war.

If one of President Bush's own theoreticians and Justice Department appointments, a man credited with providing the foundation for doctrine of the unitary executive and the view of the President as wielding unenumerated executive powers, tells us that the founding fathers wish to dilute the unitary executive and that warrantless wire-tapping requires a declaration of war, how can we avoid drawing the conclusion Bush has exceeded his authority, violated the law, and violated the Constitution?

As ever, don't believe me. Investigte for yourself. Read the Constitution. Borrow Yoo's book from the library. (I find it hard to recommend buying it.) Peruse The Founders Constitution, an excellent collections of historical documents related to the Constitution. Read the "John Yoo says surveillance illegal" in the Daily Kos, for another conflict between his reasoning and administration practice.

Be the Voice of Liberty!
Cry Freedom! Uphold the Rule of Law!
To Be Continued...

I have been reading The Powers of War and Peace: The Constitution and Foreign Affairs after 9/11 by John Yoo, and my reactions to it are strong and complex enough that I've decided to critique it here on on Vox Libertas. This page is the first in a planned series. I have not finished reading the book yet, and so the course of this series is not planned out, but so far, I see three major classes of difficulty with the book. They are:

1. His assumptions about history and the state of the world today are wrong.
2. His arguments are fallacious, often based on cherry-picking his evidence to suit some agenda or preconceptions.
3. Even if you buy in to his reasoning and conclusions, the actions of the Bush administration are often in conflict with the results. 

Flawed From the Start

Yoo, himself, points out that his views are in sharp contrast with the prevailing views on the Constitution:

This book proposes a constitutional theory of the foreign affairs powers that differs, at times sharply, from the conventional academic wisdom but that describes more accurately the actual practice of the three branches of government.

p. viii

Others have also noticed this difference, but have a different explanation. See, for instance, Andrew Napolitano's book, Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws. Where Judge Napolitano sees the government breaking the law and violating the Constitution, and warns that we are becoming a government of men, and not laws, Yoo urges us to revise our understanding of the Constitution in light of what may appear to be unlawful practice. This difference is crucial and perhaps critical, and so Yoo's revisionist reasoning should be examined closely.

Yoo recounts some of the last two or three decades of political theory in the area of treaties and war powers, and contrasts the historical context in which they were written with what he sees as our current circumstance.

At the time such leading scholarly works as those mentioned above were written, the nature of war continued to be thought of as occurring solely between nation-states. The Persian Gulf War had just witnessed an American-led coalition's defeat of Iraq's grab for Kuwait—a traditional war over territory fought by the regular armed forces of nation-states. Nation-states were presumed to be both rational and susceptible to various levels of coercion, with force often being used only as a last resort.

p. ix

Thus, he claims, the theories of the day were based on this view of current events.

The disappearance of the threat of a war that could directly harm American national security allowed policymakers and intellectuals the luxury to envision a future in which they could reduce the overall level of armed conflict.

p. ix

Please notice that while this is possible, it should be remembered that Yoo himself is proposing that current practice should serve as a basis for political theory, and that his predecessors in general did not claim to work this way.

The Myth of Post-9/11

In his preface Yoo presents a view of recent history that will be familiar to anyone who has heard the Bush administration and their neo-con theoreticians defend their policies and actions:

The World after September 11, 2001, however, is very different. It is no longer clear that the United States must seek to reduced the amount of warfare, and it certainly is no longer clear that the constitutional system ought to be fixed so as to make it difficult to use force. Rather than disappearing from the world, the threat of war may well be increasing. Threats now come from at least three primary sources: the easy availability of the knowledge and technology to create weapons of mass destruction (WMD); the emergence of rogue nations; and the rise of international terrorism of the kind represented by the al Qaeda terrorist organization.

pp. ix-x

At the heart of this passage is the argument that three new developments provide us with justification for extreme actions and a change of course. Specifically, he cites:

1. availability of knowledge and technology for WMD
2. emergence of "rogue" nations
3. rise of international terrorism

Weapons of Mass Destruction in the hands of dangerous radicals are the reason given for the invasion of Iraq, for isolating the "Axis of Evil", and for finding ourselves on the brink of adding a third war to our collection in the Middle East. I go regularly to pray at the grave site of other soldiers sent on a similar mission more than two centuries ago. You see, Concord, Massachusetts is the next town over and at the Old North Bridge there is a memorial to the British soldiers who died there in the Battle of Concord. It starts,

They came 3000 miles and died to keep the past upon its throne.

Before 2001, I'd only been there a couple of times, but since going there in remembrance of the modern Minute Men who died on Flight 93, I return regularly, so the story of the Battle of Concord may well be more familiar to me than to many of you, my readers. Let me recap.

The British had heard that the colonial militia had canons, long arms, shot and gunpowder stored in Concord, and between 700 and 800 troops were sent out under the command of Lt. Col. Francis Smith to retrieve these weapons to prevent them from being used by radical insurgents who objected to the occupation of nearby Boston by British troops. By the time they arrived in Concord there were few weapons to be found, but they burned a few gun carriages on the common near the meeting house. The militiamen gathered nearby saw the smoke and charged the British troops that were stationed near the North Bridge. They outnumbered the British more than 4-to-1, and the Red Coats took their first fatalities, the aforementioned soldiers whose memorial is there today.

The British withdrew, and were joined by a slightly smaller force, and though they now numbered about 1300, the militias grew even faster and the British routed and retreated to Boston. The militias gathering around the city turned into the Siege of Boston, which turned into the American War of Independence, which was the first of a number of secessionist wars that resulted in the collapse of the British Empire, the first power upon whom the sun never set.

The point of recounting that bit of history is that fear of dangerous weapons of war, and mass destruction is not new. Ah, but you say, cannons and gunpowder are not weapons of mass destruction of the calibre that we face today. That is true, but they were serious enough to threaten the largest cities of the day and cause sufficient destruction to threaten a city or a nation's economy.

And they were not the only WMDs. Think of the smallpox-infected blankets used in the Siege of Fort Pitt. Think of the terror of mustard gas in The Great War—WWI. Recall, if you will, that when we speak of Saddam using WMDs, mustard gas was what he used on the Kurds and the Iranians. The same WMD used by the Germans on Canadians 90 years ago.

Every era has its terror weapons, in the light of which all that came before always seem like child's play. Familiarity breeds contempt. New technology is scary.

The Emergence of Rogue Nations is no more a new thing than WMDs, or the dangers of new technology and knowledge. Take, for instance the so-called "Barbary States", home of the Turkish Corsairs or "Barbary Pirates", the area the Islamic world calls the Maghreb. From the Western perspective, this area has long been ruled by strongmen and pirates since the days of the Crusades, much of the time under the aegis of the Ottoman Empire, financed by tribute, ransom, slavery and plunder.

(Note that all of the European powers also commissioned privateers, and that the early economy of the United States was closely tied to slavery, and that the people of North Africa and the Middle East, like my celtic ancestors are a tribal people, basing their power structures on familial ties rather than territory and lines on maps.)

To the extent that the term "rogue nation" means anything it means outlaw nations that don't obey what we recognize as the civilized international law. Besides the Barbary States of the Maghreb which the US has fought since it gained its independence from England (see the "Shores of Tripoli" reference in the marine hymn), our early history with the French and "their" indians (not to be confused with "our indians" who harassed the French, and the demonized "wild indians" of the American West), is full of nations that fit that definition. And just as the indians learned to scalp their enemies from Europeans, it was after all, the US that helped build the Afghani Mujahideen up to fight the Russians.

No, the United States has dealt with deadly enemies whose culture was way outside of our notion of civilized international relationships since before the country was founded. Which brings us to the terrorist threat.

International Terrorism isn't a new development in the world, nor unfamiliar to Americans.

I've already mentioned the "French and Indian War", but conflict between the French and British colonies, was much longer lived than that one war. Both sides harassed the other through their surrogate allied native tribes. As mentioned above, one of the things the European powers taught their Indian clients was the taking of scalps to as proof for the awarding of bounties. Beyond scalping, fire and kidnapping were frequent tactics in the guerilla and terrorist struggle along the colonial boundaries.

As the conflict turned from British vs French to colonist/Americans vs Indians, the intentional depletion of game animals, disease infected blankets and the distribution of addictive drugs in the form of alcohol were added to the repertoire of terrorist tactics. Make no mistake about it, early American history involved terrorism and state-sponsored terrorism. Biological weapons and a drug trade in the hands of terrorists were all known, and practiced by the British, French, Native Americans and the United States.

Although Yoo doesn't explicitly mention "Ethnic Cleansing" among his list of modern ailments, it is worth considering that the New World knew it not only in the treatment of Native Americans, but also in the form of the expulsion of the Acadians from Nova Scotia to, among other places, New Orleans, where we know them as the "cajuns". And speaking of New Orleans, there was also piracy and privateering familiar to the denizens of New Orleans and those along the Anglo/Spanish frontiers.

Returning to terrorism, and moving on to the 19th century there was the wave of revolutions that swept through Europe in the 1840s. In America, we had Bloody Kansas leading up to the Civil War, and during it, the guerilla warfare of Quantrell and Bloody Bill Anderson, and Sherman's march to the sea, all of which could legitimately be described as terrorism, at least by those on the receiving end. Anarchist terrorism grew through the last decades of the 19th century and into the 20th, where, it was the spark that ignited World War I, with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria.

It makes great propaganda to talk about how "the whole world changed" after 9/11, but it does not accurately reflect history or the American experience. We may have had a few illusions dispelled, but WMDs, rogue nations, international and state-sponsored terrorism are all familiar, or should be, to Americans with any historical perspective.

And Flawed to Its Heart

This historical weakness, unfortunately, strikes to the very heart of Yoo's book because one of its main thrusts is to use history as a basis for his constitutional theory. For his theory to be sound, the understanding of history upon which it based must be sound.

Yoo's claims that everything has changed after 9/11 are, however, not historically sound, and that he makes them in the introduction to what is presented as a scholarly reconsideration of fundamental Constitutional issues, raises the question of where they come from. Some of the possibilities are:

• He is terribly misinformed.
• He has gotten swept up in the popular mythology.
• He is blinded by his own biases and preconceptions.
• He is cherry picking his facts to suit his theory.
• He is intentionally misleading us to sell his theory.

Any of these weaken the book. The later ones carry more blame, and given that he contributes substantially to the Bush Administration's theoretical basis for strengthening the centralized authority of the Presidency, give us good reason to be wary.

In the historical chapters that follow, Yoo appears to be cherry picking his history, to be seeking out those pieces that suit his theory, so perhaps that's what is happening here. Perhaps he is just blinded by his assumptions, biases and loyalty to the President.

Several of Yoo's claims make assumptions that he does little to prove,

These new threats to American national security, driven by changes in the international environment, should change the way we think about the relationship between the process and substance of the warmaking system....

If, however, the nature and level of threats are increasing and military force unfortunately remains the most effective means for responding to those threats, then it makes little sense to commit our political system to a single method for making war.

p. x, (emphasis mine.)

I have already provided numerous counter examples to his claimed new types of threats are emerging or increasing. The new claim that he interjects in these passages that military force is the most effective response to these threats, is also unsubstantiated, and should be questioned. It is, for instance, that US military forces has been entirely effective in Iraq.

As ever, don't believe me. Study history yourself. Check out The Powers of War and Peace from the library. If the book is too long for you, sample the memoranda he wrote as part of the Bush Administration. There are examples available at the DoJ and FindLaw. An interview with Yoo at the University of Chicago, includes both comments and quoted passages. The Harvard Law Review includes it in a broad review of 4 books. The Founders Constitution is an excellent collections of historical documents related to the Constitution.

Be the Voice of Liberty!
To Be Continued...

One of the key issues that triggered my current focus on political activism, my creating of this blog and my previous post "The Real Tragedy of 21st Century America", is that of habeas corpus, and the Military Commissions Act. This posting will try to explain what this is all about and why it troubles me. But, don't take my word for it. One of the themes of Vox Libertas is the importance of individual involvement. Read what I think, but make sure to get involved, formulate your own views and then work to insure that they get acted upon.

What is Habeas Corpus?

In Latin, "habeas corpus" means more or less "have the body" (or as Dorothy Sayers named her mystery story "Have His Carcass"). A writ of habeas corpus, is a demand by a court that a government agency produce a prisoner and demonstrate that the have proper grounds on which to hold him. It is called "The Great Writ", because it is the process by which Common Law countries insure the second freedom mentioned in the U.S. Declaration of Independence—Liberty—in its most fundamental form: the right not to be imprisoned arbitrarily.

Whereas the rights of free speech, religion, assembly and such are important enough to be in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, habeas corpus is important enough to be mentioned in the first article of the Constitution. Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution includes the following:

"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
"No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

What these two sentences guarantee us is:

1. the right to require the government to justify detaining or imprisoning us
2. the right  not to be outlawed without a trial
3. freedom from laws passed after the fact

Collectively, they protect us from the whim of those in power, and distinguish a government of laws from a government of men.

Our most recent problems with habeas corpus started after 9/11. In November 2001, President Bush issued a military order "Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism". This was the directive that called for the detention and trial by military commissions of aliens that the President determined were dangerous. This order was  controversial because it ignored or circumvented the US federal Courts and civilian law and due process, military Courts Martial and the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions, and denied the  detainees rights such as habeas corpus and speedy trial. In the end, the Supreme Court found that it was unconstitutional.

The case that brought this order to the Supreme Court is known as Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (not to be confused with Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, which is actually a case setting precedent for Hamdan v. Rumsfeld). Hamden petitioned the Washington DC US District Court for a writ of habeas corpus, which Judge James Robertson heard and decided in Hamden's favor. This decision was reversed by a three judge appeals court, including Judge John Roberts. The next day, the President nominated Roberts to the US Supreme Court, and so when SCOTUS heard the case, he recused himself. The court declared the order unconstitutional after first deciding that it had jurisdiction.

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 was passed in direct response to the Supreme Court's ruling.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of these events is the administration's reliance on the military orders of the Commander in Chief in conflict with the Constitution, civil and military laws and courts and international treaties in the name of emergency "war powers" in combination with an unprecedented new form of "war" that has no obvious end conditions and which the administration itself says could last decades or even generations.

The MCA and Habeas Corpus

In response to the Supreme court's decision, the Military Commissions Act was drawn up with much the same purpose as the military order that started this whole chain of events. Among other things, it allows a broader range of harsh interrogation methods that are permitted on, disallows the use of the Geneva Conventions by, and denies the right of habeas corpus to those found to be unlawful enemy combatants.

Several legislators, lawyers and other critics have suggested that while the MCA only explicitly denies habeas corpus to non-citizens, there is a catch 22 involved: If the government picks you up for being an unlawful enemy combatant or materially supporting a terrorist organization, and denies that you are a citizen, how do you challenge their jurisdiction and prove your citizenship? The normal mechanism would, of course, be a writ of habeas corpus, but you don't have access to that, given that they claim you are an alien unlawful enemy combatant.

Michael Dorf, a Professor of Law at Columbia provides a rather dispassionate criticism  of the MCA in FindLaw's on-line journal Writ. Keith Olbermann, in turn, made an impassioned indictment of it and the President as a Special Commentary on his show Countdown. Other criticisms can be found in the Wikipedia article on the MCA. The Wikipedia provides a good definition and history of habeas corpus, and FindLaw has the full text of the MCA.

After the election, with the Democrats taking control of the legislature, a number of Senators began to move to restore habeas corpus. Senator Dodd, later joined by Senator Leahy, introduced the "The Effective Terrorists Prosecution Act" (S.4060) on November 16, 2006, and Senators Specter and Leahy introduced the "Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2006" (S.4081) a few days later. [As with any US legislation the full text, in various versions can be found on the Library of Congress's Thomas Web page. Clicking on the bill's numbers above will take you there.]

"Creating New Rights for Terrorists"?

One of the arguments that you often hear in defense of the MCA is that it doesn't violate anyone's rights because foreign enemies never had habeas corpus rights. This, as it turns out, is not actually true. During the War of 1812, in the case of United States v. Thomas Williams. Chief Justice Marshall ordered the release of an alien enemy, Thomas Williams, on a writ of habeas corpus. Williams had been held under the Alien Enemies Act, which is the only one of the Alien and Sedition Acts that has never been repealed. Thus, it is quite clear that enemy aliens during a time of declared war do have the right of habeas corpus, and so dismissing the possibility that detainees, whose unlawful combatant status has not yet been determined by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal, also have the right is just not warranted.

Remember, questions of the constitutionality of a law or ruling cannot actually be answered unless the Supreme Court has ruled on the issue. Up until they have, it is only a matter of opinion. But, in this case we do have the decision of Chief Justice John Marshall on what is clearly a highly related matter.

It is particularly difficult to credit the claim that the bills to restore habeas corpus that have been submitted since the MCA was passed are creating new rights for terrorists. Here is the pertinent language from Senator Dodd's bill:

"SEC. 9. RESTORATION OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR INDIVIDUALS DETAINED BY THE UNITED STATES.    
(a) Restoration.--Subsection (e) of section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, as amended by section 7(a) of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-366), is repealed."

It's hard to see how repealing the change made by the MCA involves creation of a new right and not the restoration it claims to be.

[Update:
A "Constitutional Guarantee" of Habeas Corpus?

An exchange between Attorney General Gonzales and Arlen Specter during Senate hearings on January 18th is beginning to cause quite a controversy. As reported, the exchange went as follows:

Gonzales: “There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there’s a prohibition against taking it away,”

Specter: “Wait a minute... The Constitution says you can’t take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there’s a rebellion or invasion?”

Gonzales: “The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspended” except in cases of rebellion or invasion.”

As it turns out, the Attorney General may be correct. (See, for instance the posting defending his claim in the liberal Daily Kos blog.) If he is, then it is even more important that the Great Writ be restored by the legislature, and regardless of whether he is right or wrong, it must be chilling to see the Attorney General questioning the right of habeas corpus, and subordinating it to the President's emergency war powers, especially in the context of an indefinite, and perhaps perpetual "War on Terror".

More than ever, it is critical that We, the People, become the voice of liberty, and insist that our legislators defend the Constitution and our rights, or replace them with someone who will.]

JimB.

We often hear the 9/11 attacks, especially on the World Trade Center described as a tragedy, and for the families and friends of those killed, it was tragic. My heart ached watching the events unfold that day, and I can only imagine the impact that it had on folks whose family members were on those planes and in those buildings.

In another sense, though, it was not a "tragedy" in the classical sense of the term. Tragedy is a form of drama in which the great are brought to ruin through the workings of their own actions and folly, and while America is one of the world's and history's great powers, the attack of 9/11 was not our downfall, nor really brought on by our own actions or hubris.  And in fact, on that day Americans demonstrated to the world some of our finest qualities.

The FDNY, police and other first responders reacted professionally and heroically. Many doctors and ordinary citizens seeing their fellows in difficulty, ran towards the danger to help. On flight 93, a group of common citizens gathered together, took a vote and decided to fight back, which we can only believe resulted in the downing of flight 93 before it could be used as a weapon against another target. Those passengers, like the Minutemen in Concord, represent the Militia of the United States, and they did what citizens of almost no other country in the history of the world do in the face of an emergency—vote and then defend themselves. The employees of Cantor Fitzgerald, carried on after suffering 2/3s casualties and reopened the bond market, again after a vote. Military organizations that take 2/3 losses seldom carry on as well. Brokers don't expect to take any losses. Thousands and thousands of people walked calmly out of the city across the bridges, without the panic we expect and see in fiction. No, America was heroic and did not fall that day.

But the events of that day are being used in the years following to bring upon a true American tragedy, the fall of the world's greatest democratic republic due to her own foolishness and actions. In the years following the heroism and victories of 9/11, we have perpetrated terrorism on ourselves, frightening—terrifying—ourselves with the specter of foreign and alien terrorists as if they could actually destroy the greatest nation on earth. And we have been destroying that nation by surrendering our most valued possessions, our freedom and the rule of law, in the name of security. And if we let this continue, the great will fall as a result of our own actions, our own flaws, our own foolishness—classic tragedy in the true sense of the word.

Three weeks after 9/11, I wrote a web page venting my anger at the portrayal of 9//11 as an American defeat (see "9-11: America Victorious"). Now, I find that I am even angrier, angry that we are working so hard to turn victory into defeat, defeat in the name of "victory" in a tragic war, defeat in revenge for a supposed "defeat" that was actually a victory, defeat caused by surrender, surrendering liberty for temporary security.

This blog is intended to not only vent that anger, but to help correct the misperceptions, the doublespeak, the lies and to fend off this entirely senseless tragedy. Join me. Cry 'Freedom". Be the Voice of Liberty.

JimB.

Whether you read it as "The Voice of Freedom" or "Cry Freedom" (which makes me want to call out "Cry 'Freedom!' and let slip the Rule of Law!"), Vox Libertas is my new blog dedicated to the issue of protecting our Republic and the freedom and principles upon which it is based.

The road to this blog started back in September when the Military Commissions Act was passed, restricting the right of habeas corpus on the same day that I found out my job was one of the many being "downsized". As I reflected on the two events, I realized that I was far more concerned about habeas corpus than my own career, which made me rethink a lot of things about my life, politics, activism and the state of our Republic. Since then, I've been doing a lot of reading, researching and networking, all with eye towards doing something about rolling back some of the damage that has been done to our country and its principles.

For the last couple of months, I've only been writing here for my friends and family. Now, I intend to start writing publicly and more regularly. I hope that you will join me here, commenting and contributing. Even more, I hope you'll take some sort of action. Register to vote, if you haven't. Get your friends and family to register. Support candidates. Write your senators and representatives. Attend public hearings and town meetings. Study history, our Constitution and the daily news. Talk with friends and family.

JimB.