by Kerry Thomas
June 27, 2008
John Nichols, associate editor
of The Capital Times in Madison, seems to think that Comgresswoman Tammy Baldwin is somehow
supporting the Constitution by adding her name to the list of “Progressive”
House members who support Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich's Articles of Impeachment
against President George W. Bush.
According to Nichols, “George
Bush has violated his own oath of office….Bush's high crimes and misdemeanors
merit impeachment.“ Nichols writes that
Kucinich's Articles of Impeachment “detail a litany of abuses ranging from the
dispatching of U.S. troops to fight undeclared wars to warrantless wiretapping
to the sanctioning of torture and the radical abuses of authority associated
with the administration's campaign to discredit critics such as former
Ambassador Joe Wilson.”
It’s almost embarrassing that an
editor of a big city newspaper has such a fundamental lack of understanding of
the U.S. Constitution. But, then again,
it’s a Madison newspaper, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.
Nichols praises Baldwin for her
“determination to follow the dictates of the Constitution.” Nichols writes of Baldwin’s “depth of
commitment to the Constitution.”
I’d like to remind John Nichols,
Tammy Baldwin, Dennis Kucinich, et al, that the Constituti, in
Article I, Section 8, vests the power to declare war with the Congress. In Article II, Section 2, that same
Constitution also says “The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of
the United States, and of the militia of the several states.”
Once Congress issues a
declaration of war, or authorizes the use of military force, it is the
exclusive authority of the President (no matter who that person is) to
promukgate that war, to it’s conclusion.
Without going through the full historical timeline
that lead to the use of U.S. military forces in Iraq (going
all the way back to the 1991 Gulf War), I’ll simply remind Nichols, Baldwin, et
al, of H.J. Res 114, Congress’ “Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.“
This resolution, despite Baldwin’s opposition, was signed
into law on October 16, 2002, and authorized the President “to use
the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate” in order to “defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq” and “enforce all relevant United
Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.”
Nichols, Baldwin, et al are also
upset about allegations of torture of enemy prisoners of war by U.S. military
personnel. They are upset that these
enemy prisoners’ “rights” may have been violated.
I remind them that these enemy
prisoners do not belong to a formal national military organization covered by
Geneva Convention protections. They
wear no formal uniform to distingush them from civillian personnel. For all intents and purposes, these enemy
prisoners should be rightly treated in the same way as spies, who can be shot
on sight.
And even if you afford these
enemy prisoners the recognition of soldiers, it’s war. They want to kill our soldiers. They want to kill us. You and me.
Torture, while distasteful, is a tool in the arsenal of the
military. The Commander-In-Chief must
use all available tools to safeguard the nation. “Torture” of enemy prisoners by the military is not an
impeachable offense that the Commander-In-Chief can be held to account for.
Notwithstanding the ever changing definitions of what
constitutes "torture" I would not presume to lecture to our armed
forces a particular methodology for battling the enemy. This is not a theoretical exercise in a
university debating society. It's war. In war, you do what you must
to win.
I would not be so arrogant as to lecture the military who safeguard
my freedoms that they must fight this war with one hand tied around their
balls. If an enemy prisoner, especially an enemy prisoner who is not
covered by the Geneva protocols, who does not abide by the same rules of
engagement, whose only goal is to go meet Allah, has information that will
save the lives of my fellow soldiers, my family, my fellow countrymen, I say to
those who safeguard my freedoms use whatever means necessary to obtain that
information.
As for “the administration's
campaign to discredit critics such as former Ambassador Joe Wilson” is that
really something worthy of impeachment?
If so, any time any politician criticizes an opponent, maybe they should
be impeached? (As for the specifics of
the whole Joe Wilson-Valeie Plame-Robert Novak episode, see “White House Did Not Leak
To Novak”)
I won’t go through the whole Joe
Wilson epoisode here, except to say that Wilson and his willing cohorts were
leveling charges, and “the administration” was simply putting forth the facts
of the case in response.
Article II, Section 4 of the
Constitution states that “The President, Vice President and all civil officers
of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and
conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Just because you disagree with
the policies promulgated by the President, unless the President has committed
treason, bribery, or other crimes, they cannot be impeachd. At least, if you act in accordance with the
Constitution.
Nichols also writes “While it
may be true that the republic has been endangered, that the rule of law has
been undermined, that the essential underpinning of the American
experiment…hangs in the balance….”
I’ll agree that the Republic is
under assault and is endangered. I’ll
agree that the rule of law is being undermined. I’ll agree that the underpinnings of the American experiment in
self-governance hangs in the balance.
The threat comes from people
like Tammy Baldwin, Dennis Kucinich, and the Congressional Progressive
Caucus. They don’t like to be called
liberals. To them, liberals are too
conservative.
These people are flat out
Socialists, who, given the opportunity, would impose the tennants
of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels on us all.
Nichols makes a point of
mentioning that Baldwin represents a city named for the father of the
Constitution. James Madison knew that
the uncheckd power of government inevitably leads to oppression of the
populace.
James Madison once wrote “Knowledge
will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors,
must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives. A popular government
without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to
a farce or a tragedy or perhaps both.”
The Constitution was written so
as to limit the power of government, not to be the Big Brother institution
we’ve allowed it to morph into. It would be
refreshing if the people who claim to champion the Constitution would take the time
to sit down and actually read the document from time to time.