War! Huh! Good god! You all!
I am often disgusted by the way Americans butcher the English language. Sure, it's a living language and it's bound to evolve over time, but people seem encouraged, now, to mutillate the language in the interest of fashion or to further some otherwise-unstated agenda. Some folks are simply not content with having a house; they want a hizzouse. It's not a hizzouse, it's a house. You didn't get a mortage on a hizzouse. The deed doesn't list a hizzouse. You certainly didn't get a hizzouse-owner's insurance policy. This is a comparatively benign example of people missing the point of language.
Language is about communicating ideas. In human culture, there are many kinds of ideas, but they really break down into two major groups: fictional and factual. Fictional ideas are not necessarily communicated with intent to deceive for the purpose of financial or political gain. The novel "Jaws", for example, is a work of fiction. It is marketed as such, and anyone who believes otherwise about it is a fool.
Here is how communication through language works: I have an idea. I want you to have this idea, too, so I use a language to illustrate and illuminate this idea of mine, and if I've done it well and properly, we will both share the same idea. This idea could be factual or fictional. It really doesn't matter, provided either I inform you as to its grounding in reality (at least to the best of my knowledge) or you posess sufficuent knowledge or understanding to make such a determination on your own.
If, on the other hand, I want you to have an idea, an idea which I do not hold as factual, but I wish you to hold it as factual, and I communicate this idea to you using language, in such a way as to cause you to believe I am making factual statements, when, in fact I am not... That is lying.
Here is a concrete example:
Constitutionally, the US Congress is the only body within the United States with the power to declare War on behalf of the United States (US Constitution, Article I, section 8). That is, the United States of America is not in a State of War unless the Congress explicitly declares that a State of War exists between the United States of America and at least one other power. The last time the US Congress actually declared the United States of America to be in a State of War was against Romania, on June 5, 1942. Every use of military force since the end of World War II has been carried out (ostensibly) through the exercise of the President's Article II "War Powers" (and, since 1973, "consistent with" the War Powers Resolution {Public Law 93-148}).
Here's the rub, though: Although Article II of the Constitution does not explicitly limit the President's powers as Commander In Chief to times of actual Declared War, it does say 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" What, exactly does "actual Service of the United States" mean? The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution has something interesting to say: A Grand Jury Indictment is required to prosecute Capital or otherwise infamous crimes "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War..." Other than this, Amendment III, and the Article I, Section 8 grant to Congress of the power to declare War, the Constitution is remarkably silent on the topic. It does seem fairly clear to me, though, that Congress has the power to Declare War and the President, in time of (actual Service, a.k.a. .. ) War (as declared by Congress) is the Commander In Chief of the Army and the Navy.
So, with all this under our belts, Let's take a fresh look at George W. Bush and his "War on Terra" (That's how HE says it! I'm not making this stuff up!).
George W. Bush has claimed that we are in a war, and, as such, he is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, and, as such, he is free to engage in any surveilance, arrest, detention, interrogation, deportation, rendition, abridgement of Civil Liberties, invasion, imprisonment, execution, application of military force or any other action he sees fit, without Congressional oversight, without Judicial endorsement and without the knowledge of the Citizens of these Unites States. He does all this in the interest of preserving Liberty and Justice.
Right off the bat, "in a war". In his 2006 State of the Union Address, President Bush stated: "Our own generation is in a long war against a determined enemy", without stating who that enemy is. Are we in a War? Has Congress Declared the United States to be in a State of War? Not that I've heard. We are in a conflict.
What is the difference? A nation is at War when it and all of its constituents have commited themselves fully to inflicting a clearly-defined defeat upon a clearly-definded enemy. A Nation is at War when it reorganizes its industry, commerce and even its society to unite in service of the War Effort. This unified National Commitment is codified in a Delaration of War by Congress. One interesting consequence of Declaring War is that once War is Declared, the declaring Nation is bound by the Law of Nations, which, among other things, governs how Wars are conducted.
A conflict is when we send some troops over there, somewhere, to use up some ammo and kill some brown people, but... in a simple conflict, we, as a Nation, are not committed to Defeating an Enemy. Ususally, it's a "peace-keeping" effort, or the troops are there as "advisors" or under the guise of some other hoky policy sleight of hand. The Law of Nations seems to be strangely impotent in this arena, and, as a consequence, Abu Gharib, Guantanimo and other abominations are, aparently, conveniently out of reach from prosecution.
In our current conflict, We, as a Nation, have engaged in Acts of War (lest we forget, we have invaded 2 sovereign nations, toppled their governments and installed pro-American regimes with sympathies toward American oil interests) and, some would argue, have committed War Crimes (Abu Gharib... how many counts of human rights abuse, POW mistreatment, torture, et cetera can you find in this picture? And Abu Gharib is just one of the "indiscressions" that managed to percolate into public view.), but Congress has not Declared the United States to be at War with any other power or entity.
The Bush Administration wears Article II of the Constitution like a fig leaf as it tramples the Bill of Rights. Article II makes no provisions for the neutering of Amendments I, III, IV, V, VI, VIII and IX to the Constitution. Amendments III and IV are the only ones in the Bill of Rights which make any explicit mention of War, with very narrowly limited War-time exceptions to the rights granted. The only Bill of Rights Amendment the Bush Administration hasn't even come close to perturbing is Amendment II. I wonder why that could be.....?
So, State of War? Nope. Article II powers? Doubtful if War is not Declared by Congress, methinks.
Impeachment? Gosh, I hope so! Conviction? I think if any President in the last thirty years has earned a heaping helping of prison time, it's George W. Bush.
George W. Bush (and his Administration as a whole) has been communicating ideas for a long time. I am confident that, if "The Truth" is ever completely revealed about the GW Bush presidency, we will know that the bulk of the foundation of his presidency and his policies was fictional, not factual. I believe that George W. Bush has lied to Congress (...and we're not talking about "I ... did not ... have ... sexual relations ... with that woman." here... This is serious business. Thousands of people have died and hundreds of billions of Taxpayers' Dollars have been spent based on Bush's proclamations. This is no marital infidelity. This is much, much, MUCH worse.), lied to the American Public and lied to the Allies of the United States to win popular support for an "Eternal War", which, ultimately, only benefits producers of armaments and fuel and their supporters.
...And the worst part of all this, as far as I can tell, is that the bulk of the American public doesn't know and doesn't care, as long as they can have their hizzouse.
Shizzle.
...and just as an aside: By most polls, Bush's approval rating is still in the 30% range. That means that after all the stuff that's gone down up to this point (domestic spying, Valerie Plame, ENRON, Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff, USA PATRIOT Act, Judicial Appointments, Faith Based Initiative, No Child Left Behind, Endless taxcuts for the wealthy in the face of balooning debt, two simultaneously unnecessary "wars", massive entitlement cuts, unfunded mandates, hundreds of thousands of "high quality manufacturing jobs" lost as American companies shift manufacturing overseas and on and on and on), three people in an elevator load of ten think Dubya's steering a course to prosperity. Eek.
Language is about communicating ideas. In human culture, there are many kinds of ideas, but they really break down into two major groups: fictional and factual. Fictional ideas are not necessarily communicated with intent to deceive for the purpose of financial or political gain. The novel "Jaws", for example, is a work of fiction. It is marketed as such, and anyone who believes otherwise about it is a fool.
Here is how communication through language works: I have an idea. I want you to have this idea, too, so I use a language to illustrate and illuminate this idea of mine, and if I've done it well and properly, we will both share the same idea. This idea could be factual or fictional. It really doesn't matter, provided either I inform you as to its grounding in reality (at least to the best of my knowledge) or you posess sufficuent knowledge or understanding to make such a determination on your own.
If, on the other hand, I want you to have an idea, an idea which I do not hold as factual, but I wish you to hold it as factual, and I communicate this idea to you using language, in such a way as to cause you to believe I am making factual statements, when, in fact I am not... That is lying.
Here is a concrete example:
Constitutionally, the US Congress is the only body within the United States with the power to declare War on behalf of the United States (US Constitution, Article I, section 8). That is, the United States of America is not in a State of War unless the Congress explicitly declares that a State of War exists between the United States of America and at least one other power. The last time the US Congress actually declared the United States of America to be in a State of War was against Romania, on June 5, 1942. Every use of military force since the end of World War II has been carried out (ostensibly) through the exercise of the President's Article II "War Powers" (and, since 1973, "consistent with" the War Powers Resolution {Public Law 93-148}).
Here's the rub, though: Although Article II of the Constitution does not explicitly limit the President's powers as Commander In Chief to times of actual Declared War, it does say 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" What, exactly does "actual Service of the United States" mean? The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution has something interesting to say: A Grand Jury Indictment is required to prosecute Capital or otherwise infamous crimes "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War..." Other than this, Amendment III, and the Article I, Section 8 grant to Congress of the power to declare War, the Constitution is remarkably silent on the topic. It does seem fairly clear to me, though, that Congress has the power to Declare War and the President, in time of (actual Service, a.k.a. .. ) War (as declared by Congress) is the Commander In Chief of the Army and the Navy.
So, with all this under our belts, Let's take a fresh look at George W. Bush and his "War on Terra" (That's how HE says it! I'm not making this stuff up!).
George W. Bush has claimed that we are in a war, and, as such, he is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, and, as such, he is free to engage in any surveilance, arrest, detention, interrogation, deportation, rendition, abridgement of Civil Liberties, invasion, imprisonment, execution, application of military force or any other action he sees fit, without Congressional oversight, without Judicial endorsement and without the knowledge of the Citizens of these Unites States. He does all this in the interest of preserving Liberty and Justice.
Right off the bat, "in a war". In his 2006 State of the Union Address, President Bush stated: "Our own generation is in a long war against a determined enemy", without stating who that enemy is. Are we in a War? Has Congress Declared the United States to be in a State of War? Not that I've heard. We are in a conflict.
What is the difference? A nation is at War when it and all of its constituents have commited themselves fully to inflicting a clearly-defined defeat upon a clearly-definded enemy. A Nation is at War when it reorganizes its industry, commerce and even its society to unite in service of the War Effort. This unified National Commitment is codified in a Delaration of War by Congress. One interesting consequence of Declaring War is that once War is Declared, the declaring Nation is bound by the Law of Nations, which, among other things, governs how Wars are conducted.
A conflict is when we send some troops over there, somewhere, to use up some ammo and kill some brown people, but... in a simple conflict, we, as a Nation, are not committed to Defeating an Enemy. Ususally, it's a "peace-keeping" effort, or the troops are there as "advisors" or under the guise of some other hoky policy sleight of hand. The Law of Nations seems to be strangely impotent in this arena, and, as a consequence, Abu Gharib, Guantanimo and other abominations are, aparently, conveniently out of reach from prosecution.
In our current conflict, We, as a Nation, have engaged in Acts of War (lest we forget, we have invaded 2 sovereign nations, toppled their governments and installed pro-American regimes with sympathies toward American oil interests) and, some would argue, have committed War Crimes (Abu Gharib... how many counts of human rights abuse, POW mistreatment, torture, et cetera can you find in this picture? And Abu Gharib is just one of the "indiscressions" that managed to percolate into public view.), but Congress has not Declared the United States to be at War with any other power or entity.
The Bush Administration wears Article II of the Constitution like a fig leaf as it tramples the Bill of Rights. Article II makes no provisions for the neutering of Amendments I, III, IV, V, VI, VIII and IX to the Constitution. Amendments III and IV are the only ones in the Bill of Rights which make any explicit mention of War, with very narrowly limited War-time exceptions to the rights granted. The only Bill of Rights Amendment the Bush Administration hasn't even come close to perturbing is Amendment II. I wonder why that could be.....?
So, State of War? Nope. Article II powers? Doubtful if War is not Declared by Congress, methinks.
Impeachment? Gosh, I hope so! Conviction? I think if any President in the last thirty years has earned a heaping helping of prison time, it's George W. Bush.
George W. Bush (and his Administration as a whole) has been communicating ideas for a long time. I am confident that, if "The Truth" is ever completely revealed about the GW Bush presidency, we will know that the bulk of the foundation of his presidency and his policies was fictional, not factual. I believe that George W. Bush has lied to Congress (...and we're not talking about "I ... did not ... have ... sexual relations ... with that woman." here... This is serious business. Thousands of people have died and hundreds of billions of Taxpayers' Dollars have been spent based on Bush's proclamations. This is no marital infidelity. This is much, much, MUCH worse.), lied to the American Public and lied to the Allies of the United States to win popular support for an "Eternal War", which, ultimately, only benefits producers of armaments and fuel and their supporters.
...And the worst part of all this, as far as I can tell, is that the bulk of the American public doesn't know and doesn't care, as long as they can have their hizzouse.
Shizzle.
...and just as an aside: By most polls, Bush's approval rating is still in the 30% range. That means that after all the stuff that's gone down up to this point (domestic spying, Valerie Plame, ENRON, Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff, USA PATRIOT Act, Judicial Appointments, Faith Based Initiative, No Child Left Behind, Endless taxcuts for the wealthy in the face of balooning debt, two simultaneously unnecessary "wars", massive entitlement cuts, unfunded mandates, hundreds of thousands of "high quality manufacturing jobs" lost as American companies shift manufacturing overseas and on and on and on), three people in an elevator load of ten think Dubya's steering a course to prosperity. Eek.
posted by UrsusPacificus at 6:24 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home