It's a gray day, and the Mariners didn't make the playoffs, so some may be feeling a little down. It is kind of the editorial writers at the PI and the Times to try to cheer us up.
D. Parvaz (who has been getting a little attention here recently) has a most interesting idea on how armies should be run. Napoleon is probably looking up from hell and wondering why he didn't think of that. (And, I believe, Parvaz has an incomplete understanding of just what Lieutenant Watada did wrong. Incidentally, I have wondered ever since this case started whether he joined the service just to be able to force this trial.)
The editorial writers at the Times tried even harder to make us laugh. They have an editorial commending Patty "not a rocket scientist" Murray as "Sen. Patty Tenacity". May I remind them that tenacity is not always a good quality? For example, France's most famous detective is certainly tenacious — but not necessarily a model for public servants.
Years ago, I accused the Seattle papers of covering for Senator Murray, of writing endorsements of her that they must have known were misleading. Now it appears that at least one editorial writer at the Times has come to believe their own endorsements.
That reminds me of the man who started a rumor that there was oil in hell. A few people left for hell, which encouraged others to go, and then still more. And then crowds started lining up to search for oil in hell. Finally, the man who had started the rumor decided that with so many people believing it, there might be something to the rumor, and left for hell himself.
Posted by Jim Miller at October 06, 2007 02:32 PM | Email ThisBut that's what happens when the AL West goes up against the majors.
Posted by: John Bailo on October 6, 2007 08:15 PMAnyway, this is a really, really, stupid question: How, then, can a soldier say no to an illegal war?
He cannot. The legality of a war is not determinable by a soldier or anyone else in the military, including a court martial. An ORDER can be determined illegal by a soldier, but not a WAR.
What's really, really stupid about this is that this is the LAST thing an antiwar liberal would want, if they thought about what it meant. This would require a court martial to put its judgment of war over that of the Congress and the President.
Read it again.
This would mean, literally, a military coup.
Our Constitution very carefully put the military under the civilian authority, because we wisely fear an unfettered military, in control of itself. And now we have antiwar liberals saying that the military should supercede the civilian authority. I can think of few things stupider than this.
No military court, ever, can allow such a defense, unless the civilian officials first declare the war illegal. Only then can the military court consider the war to be illegal.
Posted by: pudge on October 7, 2007 01:09 AMWhen you join the military you take an oath. That oath is NOT to the commander in chief. It is "...to preserve protect and defend the Constitution of the U.S." The whole idea was, if the CIC decides to do something unconstitutional, the military, with it's famous and laudable sense of honor, would refuse to comply, thus heading off tyrranny. It is another check and balance on power.
So, if you have taken such an oath, and your government does something that you believe to be unconstitutional, what is your duty? Your duty is to your oath. Watada believes (and I think correctly) that the Use of Force Authorization was an unconstitutional abdication of Congress' power to declare war. It was usurpation of the executive branch to use this unconstitutional power.
I think Watada is a constitutional hero.
The coup we are preventing here, is at the very top. It is a coup when the President violates his own oath of office "to pp&d the C of the USA."
Ultimately, the Constitution must be defended by "We the People." We EACH must defend the Constitution, or it will be trampled on by those in power who refuse to be limited by it.
Juries are another such example. Any jury can nullify any law by refusing to convict because of an unjust law. Here is another example of a check and balance provided by individuals, not military tribunals or justices or courts of law.
The problem is that there are too few people like Watada these days, and this is why we are losing our liberties.
By the way, the Republican Presidential candidate who has recieved the most contributions from members of the military is Ron Paul, who is by far the most insistent on following the Constitution and living up to his oath. Ron Paul wants to bring 'em home as well. Tells ya somethin', doesn't it? There are many in the military who must admire Watada.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on October 7, 2007 02:08 PMYou are conflating two different things. Fine, Watada thinks the war is unconstitutional. So he should refuse to go. But it is a very different thing to say to a soldier he should (or can) refuse to go, and to say to the military as a whole that it can do so. It cannot. It must not. The literal result of what you are asking for is a military overthrow of the Constitutionally elected government of the United States.
Even if it were true that this war is illegal -- and I am thoroughly convinced it is not -- it still does not justify what you are calling for.
At the very least, we both must admit that honest people come to this question and arrive at different sides: some think the war is illegal, and some do not. By what right can the military place its (hypothetical) judgment that the war is illegal over that of Congress and the President, who say it is not? We elected these people, they went to war, and we elected them again. The people supported this war (enough of them to re-elect Bush), and you will put YOUR judgment over theirs so much that you would violently overthrow the government they chose?
Frankly, I firmly believe you do not care about the Constitution at all in this case, which I know is a harsh thing to say to you, in particular. But it's true. If you did, then you would be at least as concerned with process as you are with result. But your claims here are the equivalent of burning the Constitution in order to save it. And that's unacceptable.
Posted by: pudge on October 7, 2007 05:57 PM