Walls are built for a reason
The Seperation of Powers exists for a reason. Checks and balances exist for a reason. The three different, specialized branches of government exist for a reason; To make sure that no branch ever has too much power, too much authority over our lives. It is there to prevent corruption from spreading, and conflicts between the obligations of the branches from ever occuring. As usual, however, the executive branch is trying to blur this line that seperates democracy from fascism.
Military Tribunals are unconstitutional. They give the military the ability to not only enforce the law, but to interpret it as well. In military tribunals, select groups of soldiers are used as jury, not a group of peers as specifically required in the Bill of Rights. Talking to a friend who is in the military, and seeing the change in his thinking since he joined, it is obvious that the military teaches combatants to think differently then they did previously. It is impossible to get a fair, impartial trial from any group of soldiers when the topic itself is war and terrorism. This isn't an insult to them; it's just a fact. They've BEEN to Iraq, SEEN their friends die there. So when a military prosecutor marches someone out before them and claims they are responsible, it would be impossible for anyone to remain impartial as required.
Military Tribunals also give the power of interpretation of the law from the Judicial branch to the Executive. The military isn't qualified to hear trials, professional civilian judges are.
The real problem, and what will become precedent from this case if the military tribunals are overturned, is that the president is using this constant "war" state to justify whatever he wants. As Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Conner said,"A state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens". EXACTLY! The president cannot claim we are in a perpetual state of war, and use that to justify any action he wants.
The jusitification is the "War on Terror" right? That's absolutely ridiculous. Listen to the name itself; it's a war against a philosophy, an ideal, not another country. It's like if Bush said we were in a "War on Racism" to justify war powers and prosecute KKK members. We haven't declared war against any nation since 1939; calling his crusade against a small group of people we can't even find a "War" is so disrespectful to those who served in WW1, 2, and every other real war; They were fighting for an ideal against an organized enemy. The war against "Terror" is just an opinion. If they used the word "terrorist" as liberally as we do today in England circa 1776, I'm sure the rebelling american colonies would have been seen in the same light. Use of guerilla tactics and hit-and-runs against a superior army, being ruled over by a larger nation. I'm not condoning anything they've done, I'm just making the point that being a "Terrorist" and being a "Freedom Fighter" are often just different views of the same person.
The president alone does not have the power to wage war. That responsibility and power is far too great for any one man to have. The "Federalist Papers" were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay to explain to the American people the totality of the powers that were to be given to the proposed government. They wrote " The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union. The king of Great Britain and the governor of New York have at all times the entire command of all the militia within their several jurisdictions. In this article, therefore, the power of the President would be inferior to that of either the monarch or the governor. Secondly. The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, gall which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature." The president shall not have the power to declare war, only the strategic oversight when military actions are declared by CONGRESS. He also cannot use the military for extended periods of time without declaring war. All of this is basically what the constitution says, simplified. The president has had us in Iraq for how long now? The military action in Iraq is, therefore, unconstitutional.
So Here's a Thought... The creators of the constitution saw fit to seperate the powers of government. But recently, the president has been syphoning off authority from the other two branches of government under the facade of an undeclared war; creating military courts that apparently aren't bound by the constitution and are responsible only to the secretary of defense and the president, and sending our troops into long-term military conflicts without declaring war, thus bypassing a balance given to Congress. If we continue down this road, our foundation of democracy will crumble until the president has all the power, holds all the cards, and cannot be held in check by the other two branches. And what do we call it when one man is in complete control of a nation? It isn't democracy, people, and it is staring us straight in the eyes.
Military Tribunals are unconstitutional. They give the military the ability to not only enforce the law, but to interpret it as well. In military tribunals, select groups of soldiers are used as jury, not a group of peers as specifically required in the Bill of Rights. Talking to a friend who is in the military, and seeing the change in his thinking since he joined, it is obvious that the military teaches combatants to think differently then they did previously. It is impossible to get a fair, impartial trial from any group of soldiers when the topic itself is war and terrorism. This isn't an insult to them; it's just a fact. They've BEEN to Iraq, SEEN their friends die there. So when a military prosecutor marches someone out before them and claims they are responsible, it would be impossible for anyone to remain impartial as required.
Military Tribunals also give the power of interpretation of the law from the Judicial branch to the Executive. The military isn't qualified to hear trials, professional civilian judges are.
The real problem, and what will become precedent from this case if the military tribunals are overturned, is that the president is using this constant "war" state to justify whatever he wants. As Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Conner said,"A state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens". EXACTLY! The president cannot claim we are in a perpetual state of war, and use that to justify any action he wants.
The jusitification is the "War on Terror" right? That's absolutely ridiculous. Listen to the name itself; it's a war against a philosophy, an ideal, not another country. It's like if Bush said we were in a "War on Racism" to justify war powers and prosecute KKK members. We haven't declared war against any nation since 1939; calling his crusade against a small group of people we can't even find a "War" is so disrespectful to those who served in WW1, 2, and every other real war; They were fighting for an ideal against an organized enemy. The war against "Terror" is just an opinion. If they used the word "terrorist" as liberally as we do today in England circa 1776, I'm sure the rebelling american colonies would have been seen in the same light. Use of guerilla tactics and hit-and-runs against a superior army, being ruled over by a larger nation. I'm not condoning anything they've done, I'm just making the point that being a "Terrorist" and being a "Freedom Fighter" are often just different views of the same person.
The president alone does not have the power to wage war. That responsibility and power is far too great for any one man to have. The "Federalist Papers" were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay to explain to the American people the totality of the powers that were to be given to the proposed government. They wrote " The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union. The king of Great Britain and the governor of New York have at all times the entire command of all the militia within their several jurisdictions. In this article, therefore, the power of the President would be inferior to that of either the monarch or the governor. Secondly. The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, gall which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature." The president shall not have the power to declare war, only the strategic oversight when military actions are declared by CONGRESS. He also cannot use the military for extended periods of time without declaring war. All of this is basically what the constitution says, simplified. The president has had us in Iraq for how long now? The military action in Iraq is, therefore, unconstitutional.
So Here's a Thought... The creators of the constitution saw fit to seperate the powers of government. But recently, the president has been syphoning off authority from the other two branches of government under the facade of an undeclared war; creating military courts that apparently aren't bound by the constitution and are responsible only to the secretary of defense and the president, and sending our troops into long-term military conflicts without declaring war, thus bypassing a balance given to Congress. If we continue down this road, our foundation of democracy will crumble until the president has all the power, holds all the cards, and cannot be held in check by the other two branches. And what do we call it when one man is in complete control of a nation? It isn't democracy, people, and it is staring us straight in the eyes.
posted by Burn1nMyLight at 6:27 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home