Had occasion, while doing some major puttering, to listen to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on C-SPAN today, as they grilled Condi. There is something about that woman I've never quite been able to put my finger on that gives me the heeby jeebies. If you get a chance to watch, be sure to observe her while Barbara Boxer is talking; if looks could kill. And be sure at that point to hear out the entire context of Boxer's now erroneously maligned comment (see Joe's post below).
What I found most offensive about Condi's duplicity, in addition to her assertion that it is "unlikely" the military would give the President an estimate on casualties for this operation (isn't this standard operating procedure for military operations, casualty estimates??), was that she tried to convince Feingold that Iraq isn't necessarily related to increases in al-Qaeda or the return of the Taliban in Afghanistan or the emboldened North Korean threats, or that Iraq hasn't distracted our attention or resources from these major threats to world peace. Just astonishing how she can utter such unmitigated BS while appearing articulate and actually intelligent. And don't get me started on her honey-coated bile about the new Iraq oil laws. Not even Sununu was buying it.
The good news is that Rice was given an almost relentless interrogation across the entire commitee membership. This has been widely reported, and most of you have seen the most compelling clips, of Rice trying to spin the escalation into a mere "augmentation," of Hagel giving her infinite grief for it, and Biden tying things up in closing by focusing on the two recurring themes throughout the session: Is the President planning to attack Iran, and does he really believe he can do this without Congressional approval? Biden delivered the ultimate ultimatum: If he does, then there will be a Constitutional confrontation.
This is very very good news, especially from the man who tried just last week to claim that there is little Congress can do, by the purse or otherwise, about the President's plans to send in more troops.
So I just thought I'd take this opportunity to remind everyone what the Constitution actually has to say about who can do what when with the military.
Article I, Section 8:Compare and contrast the amount of power given over the military to Congress and to the President. The Congress has power over raising, supporting, and maintaining forces, their appropriations, the rules governing and regulating them, calling forth the militia and every other aspect of its conduct, and the declaration of war.
The Congress shall have the power....
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
....
Article II, Section 2:
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;....
The President is Commander in Chief when the military is called into service by the Congress. In other words, he decides what actions the various services will take once Congress has declared war, but that is about it. Congress holds all the other cards in this game. In fact, it's a bit like a board game where the President can shuffle the cards and move the pieces, but Congress not only makes the board and the cards and the pieces, they decide when and if the game is even played.
How could Biden possibly claim that Congress can do nothing with regard to the military? Where do Bush and Cheney get off thinking they can use this one line in Article II - a line that is listed in a paragraph with a host of other unrelated directives, like giving pardons and soliciting opinions of executive department officers - gives them the power to leap beyond the law.
Because, make no mistake, it is becoming increasingly and unequivocally clear that this is their agenda, leaping beyond the law. Which is, make no mistake, our gravest threat.
13 comments:
Suppose Congress wanted to arrest someone within the Bush administration for treason. They could call in "the Militia." But what, exactly, does that man these days?
I meant, what exactly does that MEAN these days?
As for the militia, we've had a standing army for quite some time. I am probably wrong on this, though it fits my biases as to how damaging the civil war was to this nation, but I would guess since Reconstruction.
The current situation is what the founders were concerned about when they warned of the dangers of a standing army.
By constitutional crises he means that the president and the Congress will be in an open struggle for power - a situation that will shape or deform the structure of power for a long time to come.
We can only hope that the upper eschelon of the military knows where its loyalty lies, not with a man but a nation's people, through its representatives.
Bush/Cheney has been running this country as if they were dictators the past 6 years so they haven't and won't obey the Constitution and Bill of Rights because they are ruling as dictators and they give orders as needed so it doesn't matter what the whiners in Congress or Senate say anymore, especially those liberal Dems. We stopped being the USA once the citizens allowed the Presidential elections to be stolen in 2000 and again in 2004.
Did anyone catch bush on 60 minutes tonight?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/13/60minutes/main2358754.shtml
He was explaining why he is continuing to "stay the course" in Iraq and why he's going to put more troops into Iraq even though it's not popular.
He blames the militia's firepower to Iran providing arms so he used his appearance to explain that Iran and Syria are behind why the US has been having so many problems in Iraq.
Worse, he tells 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley over a 2 day interview at Camp David that he has already signed off on additional troops and this is a done deal.
He speaks as if there were no Congress/Senate to be bothered with.
per an earlier comment posted on the post below, Bush/Cheney is steering the military into a full war with Iran which will give him the necessary justification to declare martial law.
We have a few more months of enjoying our "way of life" before we get the rug pulled out from underneath us.
Only wiser heads in the military could prevail and stop our fatal rendevous but much depends on who hasn't resigned yet. if you know anyone in the military or intelligence services please be sure to let them know what a total disaster the US going to war with iran would be.
Everytime I hear George Bush say " rule of law" I want to puke. He has single handedly destroyed the rule of law by trying to impose it in Iraq. He is NOT THE law. The military needs to try to remember that despite some idiot running around saying he is 'commander in chief and the decider" that they took a vow to the CONSTITUTION. And folks, this country will not work without that document surviving . That document is THE rule of Law..... and Bush oughta go read it instead of continuing to belittle it and abuse it. It's almost time to show Bush the door isn't it?
I dunno, doctor. When Condi talks about augmentation, most of us guys perk up in agreement. We just like that word, I guess.
Great post. Especially the part about swearing to uphold the Constitution. It gives me fits every time Bush say that his job is to "protect the American people" and no MSM yes-men call him on that delusion.
By the way, tomorrow is Fitzmas! And a happy new year!
Such an escalation of war into Iran would certainly require many more troops than the numbers we've seen released. That would indicate the probability of a draft. Would such a draft be of men only, or would we include women? It's an important point to mill over if you're a president with two daughters of just the right age.
.R.S.E.
A country gets the government it deserves. Karma on a national scale.
you know, the distinction made in Article I between the army and navy on the one hand, and the militia on the other, raises interesting points about the 2nd amendment i had not previously considered. any constitutional lawyers out there?
the militia, as described in Article I, seems to be distinctly separated from the military branches. a good reason for this is echoed in the emphasis placed on keeping the military out of the nation and only existing for the purpose of defending us against foreign invasion or threat.
the militia is clearly different. Article I defines it for the purpose of supressing insurrections and tending to the security and safety of the homeland, and that each state is in control of that. hence its evolution into the national guard.
so does the 2nd amendment rest its reasoning for the right to keep and bear arms on the need for the militia to be sort of homegrown, if you will? and therefore, like a volunteer fire brigade, we're all needed for that purpose? or is it to protect us from any abuses by the militia, such that we can defend ourselves?
i have to say, i've long felt the 2nd amendment is the most confusing point of the entire document and should be rewritten to accommodate modern complications.
on the other terrific points raised here, yeah, i'm perfectly aware of just how brazenly these idiots ignore the constitution they swore to uphold. DO READ GLENN GREENWALD'S PIECE i linked to at the very end this post. defiance of the constitution seems to be their decided agenda.
and this is likely what will take them down. though i know they will attempt martial law, the mood in the country may make it impossible. there are too many out there who get it, and many of them are in the military. those new numbers showing a growing majority of our servicemen do not support this war suggests they would have a hard time following such orders.
and where would they get enough troops to round us up? they can't do it with all their forces in iraq; what makes them think they could do it here? it's insane. when hitler took over the way he did, he had sweeping support in germany at the time.
bush had that at one time, but no more. and if they think they can recover that support by staging yet another gulf of tonkin or pearl harbor, i believe they have deluded their last hubris moment. there are just way too many in this country who would simply not believe the gubmint story trying to justify an invasion of iran, especially if it is nuclear.
in fact, i believe that this will be their last fatal calculation. watching cheney attempt yet again to sell what has now gone from noble support of bush to acrid bile for the american public, i would not put it past him. but more importantly, i simply do NOT believe there is enough support anywhere for them to pull it off. hell, even norm coleman for cryin' out loud has turned coat! if bush keeps this crap up, we'll have more than enough votes in both houses to impeach.
i believe someone inside the administration who is watching them prepare for this and knows what they are up to will expose them, and soon. when it becomes clear just how far they are willing to go, they will be betrayed. let's just hope this person or these persons don't wait too long before acting.
and let's hope that we don't lose our minds in the ensuing gratitude and make whoever went along with all this for all this time and waited until so much damage has been done before acting, let's not make this person into a hero. he'll need to be held accountable, too.
and by the way, anon856, congress does not have the power to arrest anyone. they simply make the laws. arrests are the domain of the executive branch. the congress can impeach and convict the president for treason, and then the executive branch would be obliged to take it from there. if the impeachment involves a 'high crime,' then wherever that jurisdiction might be - federal or state or local, whichever, or even international - would file charges and it would go from there.
but since you mention it, the congress does have the power to call forth the militia (national guard) to execute the laws of the union. that could be an interesting way to implement this 'constitutional confrontation,' eh? surely this fact has been debated by constitutional lawyers. anyone?
Your 8:09 comment has terrific insight and clarity, doctor. It struck me as I read it that should Bush be impeached and convicted, he would almost certainly refuse to leave, precipitating the constitutional crisis to which you refer.
I am no expert, but I don't believe any branch of government except the Executive Branch has control of any armed force to physically assault or hold anyone else for violations at the Constitutional level. However, if push came to shove, I suspect that House and Senate leaders could push through impeachment and removal of office procedures through Congress in record time (perhaps in a couple hours time) if forced to, and if there is a clear consensus among Congressional members that an emergency situtation compelled their prompt action. Once the president and VP are legally removed from office, the armed forces would legally be required to report to the Speaker of the House who would assume the presidency. Given the present situation in our military, there is no reason to believe that our armed forces would not follow Constitutional protocol rather than be illegally loyal to the deposed president instead. Bush and Cheney are hard-pressed to find many truly loyal supporters among the military.
ewastud, i agree. congress has no executive powers. but impeachment would take the reins away from the chimp and his master, placing them in the hands of the 'frisco granny.
this may be the scenario we see unfold. new mexico's legislature is considering an impeachment vote, and if it passes there, it will be presented before the House. this is for BOTH bush and cheney. this might well be the best way for this to occur, actually, taking the heat off the speaker in her obviously conflicted role.
if bush does attack iraq, i have to bet this will happen. cheney is clearly banking on some new pearl harbor event to shock the public back in line behind the prez, but i don't think it will work this time. the citizenry is too savvy and way to cynical about this administration and its history to swallow that one again.
can't help but hear that refrain again...
fool me once, shame on me; fool me twice.....
WON'T GET FOOLED AGAIN!
though i have no doubt bush was NOT channeling lincoln at that time, isn't it the loveliest irony that he has so solidly proven lincoln's wisdom? (apologies to pete townshend, on w's behalf)
Post a Comment