It is well past time for the Democrats to DECLARE WAR on the War on Terror
Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 01:53:20 AM PDT
Tonight it struck me -- while listening to Alberto Gonzalez describe how especially in a time of war the President has all these powers to urinate all over the Constitution of the United States of America --
It is time for the Democratic Party to DECLARE WAR on the Global War on Terror
From this day forward, the phrase "war on terror" should only be used in this context:
1. The War on Terror(tm) does not have clearly defined objectives or a criteria of "winning."
2. The War on Terror(tm) lumps literally a half dozen political movements together, only the least sophisticated person would think that explains anything.
3. The War on Terror(tm) has already been used as an excuse for FLAGRANTLY VIOLATING THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
4. The War on Terror(tm), as so many have pointed out, is a war against a tactic.
5. Terrorism, as a tactic, is best fought by good police work -- with warrants! It is best fought by understanding the political causes of the many terrorist movements and defusing those causes.
We must call off the "war on terror" before there is little left to fight for.
So here we are with the President of the USA having committed the impeachable offense of violating his oath of office (and having violated our laws and international laws).
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8 The Congress shall have Power: To declare War
Our founding fathers realized that war was a dangerous weapon to give to the President and that enemies were the great enabler of the worst despots.
Alexander Hamilton: 'The Congress shall have the power to declare war'; the plain meaning of which is, that it is the peculiar and exclusive duty of Congress, when the nation is at peace, to change that state into a state of war.
James Wilson: This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large.
James Madison: Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes. And armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended. Its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war...and in the degeneracy of manners and morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
That's my favorite quote of any of the founding fathers, and it sounds like a news report describing the last six years. We are in a state of continual warfare. Indeed, the war is so poorly defined that there would be no way to tell if we'd won it! [Where is Colin Powell when you need him to explain about that?]
Is it over when Osama bin Lunatic is captured dead or alive?
Is it over when we've killed Zarqawi? Not so much.
Precisely how many terrorists do we have to round up in order for it to be over? What number of terrorist acts per Friedman would the rate of terrorist acts have to be for it to be over?
In the interests of clarity, it should be noted that the terrorist acts per Friedman have been going up the last 12 Friedmans corresponding to Bush's 12 Friedmans in office, which makes this war so far like a negative amortization loan -- the more you fight it the more you have to keep fighting:
Is it over if we kill Zarqawi and Osama bin Lunatic and then another Timothy McVeigh blows up a building in the heartland? Or do home grown terrorists not count? (Rhetorical question... because we've got plenty of home grown terrorists, including the one in the Oval Office and the one in the Bunker...)
We've been told we're at war with "Islamic Fascists". Which makes no sense at all. Fascism used to mean belligerent nationalism, centralization of authority under a dictator, and stringent socioeconomic controls. The people who attacked America on 9/11/2001 don't come from one nation, are often described as being part of a loosely connected web of organizations, and don't have any socioeconomic control over anything. That's not fascism! It was fanaticism, to be sure, but it isn't fascism.
We're told by the entire Liebermen for Lieberman party that we are fighting an enemy as dangerous as Hitler or Stalin. Which is true, if you ignore the fact that our still-to-be-named enemies are missing Hitler's and Stalin's enormous and industrially advanced economies and their armies with millions and millions of soldiers, their air forces, etc, etc. If you think a couple thousand sullen and suicidal Gen X and Gen Y Saudis/Egyptians/etc are as dangerous as the Wehrmacht, the SS and the Red Army -- then yeah, the Liebermen for Lieberman Party is right on the money there!
Hitler's Blitzkrieg, 50000 Panzer Tanks
Unnamed terrorists, Alberto VO5 Bottle
So we're left with really no definition of who we're fighting. It's whoever Bush says it is, and tomorrow that may change, especially if one of his wars manages to recruit a few tens of thousands more fanatics against us.
By declaring war on a tactic, without even defining clearly who it is we're at war with, we cannot ever tell if we've won. Which means the war never ends. Which means our freedom cannot be preserved, according to James Madison. And the evidence is all around you that he was right!
The War on Terror(tm) MUST END. NOW. The Republic literally is at stake.
It should be replaced with something else:
1. We will fight terrorists with intelligence and police work, and we will always use warrants.
2. We will cooperate with allies and if necessary we will offer carrots to nations that are not our allies in exchange for help in preventing acts of terrorism and bringing terrorists to justice.
3. We will sit at the table with every nation -- not calling out "they're the axis of evil!" -- and we will bargain and compromise in good faith over honest political disagreements.
4. We will spend some of the money that would have been used in more of Bush's wars to better guard our ports and other public facilities. We will spend some of the money that would have been used to kill people to increase our development aid and to start a program of debt forgiveness for countries that make home-grown progress in democracy and human rights.
Because that's what the free and the wise would do, while they still had some freedom and some wisdom.
Permalink | 18 comments