Monday, May 03, 2004

Kofi Annan -- ignoble object of unearned worship. Kofi Annan has perfected the Holy Man style of public performance. He speaks very quietly, in that exquisitely enunciated African accent, and people just take if for granted that he is a Good Man and a Good Thing. But Per Ahlmark (linked to by Instapundit) shows him to be a less than perfect human being. He describes the inaction and treachery of the UN, as lead by Annan, in first promising, and then failing, to... [Samizdata.net] Here's an unintentionally ironic post from a bunch of Crusaders attacking a realtively harmless person for being the "ignoble object of unearned worship" (a characterization I agree with). Their making the vastly more dangerous George Bush the ignoble object of their own unearned worship goes unremarked on. 10:39:50 AM    comment () # Russell D. Longcore at The Libertarian Enterprise - Dupes, Chumps, and Traitors - posits that service in a foreign war, any foreign war, by a sworn member of the U.S. armed forces, is unconstitutional, hence treasonous. [tle] I've already read and heard what a patriot Tillman was. I submit that Tillman was an ignorant, uneducated chump who died for nothing. But, he wasn't alone. All of the rest of the soldiers deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan are chumps, too. Notice that, above all, the oath swears to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. He swears true faith and allegiance to the Constitution, not the Commander in Chief. Only after that affirmation does the oath to obey orders of the president and superior officers appear in the body of the oath. A soldier who obeys an order that violates the Constitution commits treason against the Constitution. An officer who issues a direct order that violates the Constitution issues an unlawful order, and the order should be ignored. I submit to you that a soldier that understands the depth of his oath cannot lawfully and constitutionally follow the orders to deploy to an undeclared war anywhere in the world. Soldiers who truly understood their oath would refuse to obey orders to do so, even if it meant prosecution under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Can you imagine what would have happened if tens of thousands of our military personnel would have refused to obey orders to deploy to Iraq or Afghanistan, using as their defense the oath they swore to support and defend the Constitution? [End the War on Freedom] Unfortunately all those soldiers have no idea what their oath means, or what the Constitution says. The public schools have done their job well. 10:20:18 AM    comment () # L. Neil Smith at The Libertarian Enterprise - You Go First: The Peace Amendment - note to old men who would send young men to die: "You go first!" The Peace Amendment would implement this nicely. [tle] Beyond anything else it may be remembered for a thousand years from now, the 20th century was a century of war--unprecedentedly widespread and brutal--brought about by a century of the most swollen and powerful governments this battered world's six or eight thousand years of bloodsoaked history have ever witnessed. If we are determined to prevent another century of war, it's time to take more seriously this idea that for millennia has only been half-dream and half-joke. It is time to ratify the Peace Amendment. Here's how it would work: the first clause would repeal the War Powers Act and any other law, regulation, or directive that allows a president to send troops overseas (or do very much of anything else militarily) without a formal declaration of war passed by majority of congress. Maybe even a super-majority. The second clause would reinstate the 1878 Posse Comitatus in full, forbidding the government to use the military to enforce its will anywhere within the United States. Perhaps this idea belongs in another piece of legislation, but my belief is that politicians feel an irresistible urge every waking minute to use the military to beat somebody up and kill them. Prevent them from doing it overseas, and things could get worse here, unless we prevent that with the same stroke. The third clause is the meat of the amendment. Having voted to declare war, every Congressman who voted "aye" will immediately get up from his seat and march right out the door, where he will be handed a uniform and a weapon and be conveyed directly to the front, defined as that area of military activity that is producing the highest number of casualties. No excuses. Practicing politicians will be denied Conscientious Objectorhood. As long as they voted to subject yet another generation of Americans to war, their age, sex, prior service, or state of health won't keep our valiant congressional warriors from going with the "boys". If they can't march, they'll be given knobby tires for their wheelchairs. In the case of another 20th century-style undeclared war, where all Congress does is contribute our money and our children to the conflagration and give the President the go-ahead, everybody goes, whether they voted affirmative or not. Voting "no" is not enough. They should have gotten up and walked out, in protest of the rape of the Constitution. The fourth clause winds it up. Immediately upon notification that the Congress has declared war, the President will put on a uniform of his own, pick up his rifle, and march into the sunset as a common soldier. The Vice President replacing him will do the same thing in 30 days if the war isn't over. War is hell for everyone else, but heaven for politicians. If we desire to survive the 21st century, that has to change. [End the War on Freedom] I think it's a great idea, but it will never happen. Both factions of the Boot On Your Neck Party are firm believers in starting wars and sticking American soldiers in harm's way, so there's no chance that any member of Congress (except Ron Paul) would ever vote for this. On the other hand, it would be nice if Ron Paul did propose it in the House of Representatives, and made a big deal about it for the media. The Democratic faction of the Boot On Your Neck Party would certainly vote against it, but in doing so they'd be forced to give up their facade of opposition to the conquest of Iraq. 9:45:06 AM    comment ()

© Copyright 2006 Ken Hagler. Last update: 2/15/2006; 2:01:15 PM.