Saturday, January 27, 2007

Who's your daddy?

It sure as hell an't Bush, nor is he my commander and chief. Lets make this a clear as water, he is commander of the Army and Navy, the military. Not the civilian population, he makes no decider[is there really such a word?] discussions for the public only the military with approval from congress. He stated "the pessimist will be defined", well define this pessimist you dumb shit .... and keep your harassing C-130's to doing the peoples business. Do you want them to know your spending their tax dollars to buzz dissident voices by flying low above their homes in the middle of nights. Do you f***ing know there are about 1000 or more of my neighbors you are putting at risk that actually believe your lies and support your efforts. Leave these innocent people alone, you do not intimidate me. Your efforts are fruitless, a waste and I am only gaining believers. Do you really want that now Mr. Bush? F***'n idiots.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/27/opinion/27wills.html

At Ease, Mr. President

Gary Wills, New York Times, 27 January 2007

[Excerpt]

The president is not the commander in chief of civilians. He is not even commander in chief of National Guard troops unless and until they are federalized. The Constitution is clear on this: "The president shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States."

When Abraham Lincoln took actions based on military considerations, he gave himself the proper title, "commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." That title is rarely — more like never — heard today. It is just "commander in chief," or even "commander in chief of the United States." This reflects the increasing militarization of our politics. The citizenry at large is now thought of as under military discipline. In wartime, it is true, people submit to the national leadership more than in peacetime. The executive branch takes actions in secret, unaccountable to the electorate, to hide its moves from the enemy and protect national secrets. Constitutional shortcuts are taken "for the duration." But those impositions are removed when normal life returns.

But we have not seen normal life in 66 years. The wartime discipline imposed in 1941 has never been lifted, and "the duration" has become the norm. World War II melded into the cold war, with greater secrecy than ever — more classified information, tougher security clearances. And now the cold war has modulated into the war on terrorism.

There has never been an executive branch more fetishistic about secrecy than the Bush-Cheney one. The secrecy has been used to throw a veil over detentions, "renditions," suspension of the Geneva Conventions and of habeas corpus, torture and warrantless wiretaps. We hear again the refrain so common in the other wars — If you knew what we know, you would see how justified all our actions are.

But we can never know what they know. We do not have sufficient clearance.

The glorification of the president as a war leader is registered in numerous and substantial executive aggrandizements; but it is symbolized in other ways that, while small in themselves, dispose the citizenry to accept those aggrandizements. We are reminded, for instance, of the expanded commander in chief status every time a modern president gets off the White House helicopter and returns the salute of marines.

That is an innovation that was begun by Ronald Reagan. Dwight Eisenhower, a real general, knew that the salute is for the uniform, and as president he was not wearing one. An exchange of salutes was out of order. (George Bush came as close as he could to wearing a uniform while president when he landed on the telegenic aircraft carrier in an Air Force flight jacket).

We used to take pride in civilian leadership of the military under the Constitution, a principle that George Washington embraced when he avoided military symbols at Mount Vernon. We are not led — or were not in the past — by caudillos.

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan's prescient last book, "Secrecy," traced the ever-faster-growing secrecy of our government and said that it strikes at the very essence of democracy — accountability of representatives to the people. How can the people hold their representatives to account if they are denied knowledge of what they are doing? Wartime and war analogies are embraced because these justify the secrecy. The representative is accountable to citizens. Soldiers are accountable to their officer. The dynamics are different, and to blend them is to undermine the basic principles of our Constitution.

Wonder declaring a no fly zone over my home.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Comments are moderated so be good, speller, I'm not

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home