Balkinization   |
Balkinization
Balkinization Symposiums: A Continuing List                                                                E-mail: Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu David Luban david.luban at gmail.com Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, and OLC The Anti-Torture Memos (arranged by topic) Recent Posts Memorial Day Musings
|
Monday, May 28, 2007
Memorial Day Musings
Sandy Levinson
There are so many potential topics to write about on this Memorial Day. One of them is the subject of an excellent piece in Monday’s New York Times, by David Carr on the decreasing news coverage of the War (because of expense and danger), coupled with ever more authoritarian rules adopted by the military—one suspects at the behest of the civilian leadership in the Pentagon—with regard to pictures of the war that might, were they published in daily newspapers and shown on television, bring home the costs of this war to the people we profess to care about, both American and Iraqi. And even as George W. Bush pays yet another ostentatious visit to Arlington National Cemetery, he has obdurately refused to attend the funeral of a single fallen soldier over the past four years of his war (and, of course, the military continues to prohibit any photography of flag-draped coffins arriving in Dover, Delaware).
Comments:
Thank you for acknowledging {rof. Basevich's loss, and the link to his article.
The media have touted the outcome regarding the latest appropriations bill as a "victory" for Bushit. And the "left" have pilloried the Democrats for having "caved". Nothing is said about the fuller bill, which included -- and Bushit signed it -- among other things an increase in the minimum wage. Which included, in sum, a forcing of Bushit to compromise -- a first, and no small accomplishment. So the bashing of Democrats continues (hopefully less so, as I challenge, and others begin to challenge, the disingenuous grounds for doing so) even in the most ludicrous of terms. The Democrats haven't sufficient votes to, as example, to get the question of impeachment to the floor of the House, let alone get a vote on the issue itself. That is the reality because Republicans are insufficiently disenchanted with Bushit, and not yet close enough to the 2008 elections to be sufficiently worried about their own individual skins. So who gets bashed by the "left" for the Republican recalcitrance? The Democrats. Perhaps the worst were (and still) the demand that Pelosi be also impeached for taking impeachment "off the table". So bereft of facts even the "left": Third in line for the presidency is the Speaker of the House. The Speaker of the House is Pelosi. Thus the last to be calling for impeachment is Pelsoi. Nor does her taking the issue "off the table" make the law; she is not a dictator; other Democrats in the House, including Murtha, have said it is on the table. There seems to be a general malaise, a general sense of helplessness, and apparently a rhetorically violent effort to overcome that by the "left": explain the above and the current political realities, and the "response" is yet again demand for impeachment (the present reality that there aren't enough votes to do it ignored). Are we stuck with the status quo? Only if we believe so. Only if we believe so. I recall reading the first report, in June, 1972, of the Watergate break-in. At the time I was a regualr at a particularr bar, in which I was for impeachment (had been since 1968), and all others were staunchly pro-Nixon. A solid year later, everyone in the bar was solidly for impeachment. Time, patience, persuasion. That was in spite of the "mainstream"/"official" media. The media today isn't actually much different than it was then; neither is the population -- largely feeling helpless because lacking "instruction" in how such as impeachment is done, and how to have an impact. Different is that the crimes of Bushit, et al., though actually the last chapter of Watergate, are lightyears beyond Nixon in magnitude and severity. Not different as concerns the media -- but not so much as concerns "We the people" -- is the denial, "It can't happen here." Then, the media, and most of "We the people," were believed, "It can't happen here" while it was in fact happening. Today that view is largely limited to the media, and hard core Bushit supporters. Then there's the paradox: "We the people" have greater access, and greater opportunity to be heard, because of the Internet. But, alas, there is no one place around which to coalese; the impact is dispersed and diluted. It is happening here. But we are not stuck with the status quo, unless we adopt and or reinforce a sense of helplessness. The task is to determine what to do, and how to get that done.
A few more musings are in order...
From the so called "excellent piece" from the NYT: Many of the journalists who are in Iraq have been backed into fortified corners, rarely venturing out to see what soldiers confront. And the remaining journalists who are embedded with the troops in Iraq — the number dropped to 92 in May from 126 in April — are risking more and more for less and less. Since last year, the military’s embedding rules require that journalists obtain a signed consent from a wounded soldier before the image can be published. Images that put a face on the dead, that make them identifiable, are simply prohibited... “They are basically asking me to stand in front of a unit before I go out with them and say that in the event that they are wounded, I would like their consent,” he said. “We are already viewed by some as bloodsucking vultures, and making that kind of announcement would make you an immediate bad luck charm.” Amazing. The NYT is actually whining that it is not worthwhile for reporters to actually do their jobs by getting out of their hotels, embed with the troops and report on what the troops are doing in the field. Rather, these "heroes" (sic) inadvertently disclosed their only interest in reporting from Iraq - show as much US (not enemy) blood as possible. And this amazing piece of work calling himself a reporter actually wonders why the troops think he is a "bloodsucking vulture" when the only thing in which he is interested is publishing photos of them as they are bleeding. Then the NYT has the unmitigated gall to run this blood thirsty whine on the day set aside to honor the fallen for their achievements, not merely because he or she died. “They are not letting us cover the reality of war,” he added. BS. The only thing preventing you from leaving your hotel room, embedding with the troops and actually reporting on what the troops are doing and the massive losses they are inflicting on the enemy is your partisan self censorship. This old grunt has a few choice words for the NYT and their fellow "bloodsucking vultures," but I will restrain myself given this venue. At least Professor Bacevich did not denigrate his son's service and reduce his sacrifice to a prop for his anti war crusade ala Cindy Sheehan. However, Bacevich is lying to himself if he thinks that his public and very vocal opposition to his son's mission did not provide aid and comfort to the enemy which his son fought. Imagine, if you will, the effect on al Qaeda terrorists and our troops if bin Laden followed Professor Bacevich's lead. While the First Amendment may protect Bacevich's speech seeking to undermine popular and government support for his son's mission, such protection does not make his actions right nevertheless promote those actions to a "duty." Let us pause for a moment and honor the troops who liberated Iraq and Afghanistan and are engaging and defeating this nation's enemies in what is in reality the central front of the enemy's war on the United States.
"The November 2006 midterm elections signified an unambiguous repudiation of the policies that landed us in our present predicament."
It did? Darn, I missed the line on the ballot which asked me about the war; I thought I was voting about political corruption and porkbarreling. And let me tell you, I'm not the slightest bit impressed by how quickly Democrats have been caving on the pork front. I can understand the temptation to pretend that a complex election was just about the issue you happen to care most about, but it's rarely the case, and wasn't last fall.
It did? Darn, I missed the line on the ballot which asked me about the war; I thought I was voting about political corruption and porkbarreling. And let me tell you, I'm not the slightest bit impressed by how quickly Democrats have been caving on the pork front.
I can understand the temptation to pretend that a complex election was just about the issue you happen to care most about, but it's rarely the case, and wasn't last fall. I rarely cite Wikipedia, but in this case it's quick and the conclusion is both obvious and documented: "It is generally agreed that the single most important issue during the 2006 election was the war in Iraq, and more specifically President Bush's handling of it. Indeed, public opinion polling conducted during the days just before the election and the weeks just after it showed that the war in Iraq was considered the most important election issue by the largest segment of the public.[23] Exit polling showed that relatively large majorities of voters both fell into the category of disapproving of the war or expressing the desire to withdraw troops in some type of capacity. Both brackets broke extremely heavily for Democrats.[24] The issue of the war seemed to play a large part in the nationalization of the election, a departure from previous midterm elections, which tended to be about local, district-centric issues.[25] The effect of this was a general nationwide advantage for Democrats, who were not seen as being as tied to the war as Republicans, led by George Bush, were." Link. Footnotes are hyperlinked in the original.
I respect his courage and honest beliefs, but this equalization of everyone is dubious.
Are we to say those who voted against the 10/03 resolution and funding (both times, a majority of the House D. delegation, and some key names overall) are equal to Bush and other true believers? I don't think so. This doesn't mean blame can go all around. It just is not equal blame. Anyway, the "dictatorship" is self-induced. I'm unsure if in other "dictatorships" the legislative branch has real power to restrict funding and so forth. I continue to think that this ironically partially gives Republicans a sort of pass, the "system" being the problem, not the choice of a third or so of the Republican caucus (esp. in the Senate) to fail true conservative traditions honored by the tragic figure honored here. BTW, "unambigously" might be much, but the war was a key issue. Not the only ... incompetence, corruption, and the need of some check on the executive did factor in as well. Thus, the war is not the only thing on the people's minds, factoring in decisions.
"I respect his courage and honest beliefs, but this equalization of everyone is dubious.
"Are we to say those who voted against the 10/03 resolution and funding (both times, a majority of the House D. delegation, and some key names overall) are equal to Bush and other true believers? I don't think so. "This doesn't mean blame can go all around. . . . . "I continue to think that this ironically partially gives Republicans a sort of pass, the "system" being the problem, not the choice of a third or so of the Republican caucus (esp. in the Senate) to fail true conservative traditions honored by the tragic figure honored here. "# posted by Joe : 10:30 PM" Bacevich is a former Lieutenant or Lieutenant Colonel, and Viet Nam veteran, so it is respectworthy in itself that he is intellectually honest (unlike so many of his military colleagues). I do agree that blaming the system seems to miss the point: it's the malefactors who are responsible. And one can't blame the Democrats equally, at least in the current Congress, as many weren't there, and they haven't yet the votes they need to accomplish the goals demanded of themselves. Though bashing the Democrats is the "thing" at present, the foot-draggers are the Republicans. And: Bacevich was and is right about the Iraq "war". And is a grieving, despairing father: the idea that he failed his son. He obviously didn't, of course; but respect the feelings of a parent who lost a child. And read a few pages of the comments on the article for others' views, a few of which by Bush supporters are outright hateful and disgusting.
"While the First Amendment may protect Bacevich's speech seeking to undermine popular and government support for his son's mission, such protection does not make his actions right nevertheless promote those actions to a "duty.""
I believe it was Brandeis who said: "Democracy is responsibility." Yes: In a democracy, every right implies a duty. One of those duties is to criticize one's gov't when it is wrong. You defile that reality by putting loyalty to party and faction before Constitution and country. That "popular support" you mention amounts to 28 per cent. In hopes you get the picture, I'll point out to you that 28 per cent is the minority view. "Let us pause for a moment and honor the troops who liberated Iraq and Afghanistan and are engaging and defeating this nation's enemies in what is in reality the central front of the enemy's war on the United States." Let us pause for at least a moment and actually think, and acknowledge the reality: Saddam Hussein was one of the foremost exterminators of "terrorists" in the Middle East -- a job he performed, in part, for the West, by mutual agreement. That's why there were no terrorists in Iraq until after he was overthrown, except for two -- Chalabi and Zarqawi -- who, with the assist of the CIA, were trying to overthrow him. As well, Hussein was essentially an atheist, which was why religioextremist Osama bin Ladin was loudly and repeatedly on the record as wanting Hussein overthrown, and his gov't replaced with one along the lines of the Iranian theocracy. In short: the only link between Hussein and bin Ladin was that they were mutual enemies. What has Bushit accomplished by overthrowing Hussein -- aside from fulfilling bin Ladin's intent? He has established "sharia" law with its constituton, and empowered the Shi'a -- which Shi'a have since signed a mutual defense treaty with the theological gov't in Iran. It's Bushit who is the "appeaser," not those you and he smear. I'd also point out in detail how torture is a war crime, regardless what called, but that would doubtless be over your head, as it concerns the rule of law over the rule of lie. "# posted by Bart DePalma : 8:06 PM" Like you, Prof. Bacevich is a conservative (though his is actually genuine). Unlike you (and Bushit's gang), he is a veteran (Viet Nam) -- a retired Lt. Col -- who actually has put his courage where his mouth is. And unlike you, and Bushit, he doesn't exploit the troops as political prop for political and ideological gain. You, like Bushit, sully their sacrifice by mewling about that in effort to justify your crackpot depictions of the Middle East and the "enemy". The vast majority of "insurgents" in Iraq are Iraqi citizens who will not tolerate foreign occupation. The vast majority of Americans oppose the continuing, illegal occupation of Iraq; and no amount of smears and name-callings by the pusilanimous 28 per cent of ferile chickenhawks who support the Bushit criminal enterprise will vindicate your sleazy efforts to prove your patriotism by putting party before country, wrapping yourself in the flag, and insulting that majority and their exercise of the First Amendment right simply because the dishonest, such as you, disapprove of the content of their speech. I've been dealing with your sort of gung-ho-with-others'-lives armchair general since at latest 1968; the defining characterological stripe is always the same: hypocrisy painted yellow. Your sympathy for a father who is grieving the loss of a son is non-existent. That is as unsurprising as your smearing him, and your contrary "tribute" to those who have died for the country, too often for false reasons defended by your "America can do no wrong" ilk.
JNagarya said...
"While the First Amendment may protect Bacevich's speech seeking to undermine popular and government support for his son's mission, such protection does not make his actions right nevertheless promote those actions to a "duty."" I believe it was Brandeis who said: "Democracy is responsibility." Yes: In a democracy, every right implies a duty. One of those duties is to criticize one's gov't when it is wrong. You defile that reality by putting loyalty to party and faction before Constitution and country. You have a duty in a democracy to constructively criticize the government's performance of its duties. However, Professor Bacevich was not suggesting how the government can better win the war in which his son fought, but rather was calling for the government to intentionally lose that war and make his son's sacrifice in vain. Freedoms like the freedom of speech come with moral, if not legal, responsibilities.
"It is true, of course, that there are enough Democrats, were they completely united, to refuse to pass any military funding bill at all, but...that is morally untenable insofar as it would indeed leave Americans stuck in Iraq without essential logistical support.
Hang on. Why do you think that? There is a strategy that has been much discussed on the blogs, originated as far as I know by Armando at Talkleft that goes like this: 1) The Dems in Congress announce right now that they are cutting off funds at some future date, say March 2008. 2) They pound home this fact constantly between now and March 2008. 3) In the meantime they fund short term measures. 4) Then in March 2008, they simply don't pass any more funding, as announced long in advance. They can send bills to Bush that fund redeployment and if he chooses not pass any of them or if he doesn't find some other way to keep the troops supplied, then clearly it is George Bush who is leaving the troops unsupplied.
The idea that refusing to fund the war beyond a certain date several months in the future exposes our troops to the risk of being stuck in Iraq without logistical support is only plausible if you assume the president is a sociopath.
In other words, it's fairly plausible.
Bart DePalma said:
Professor Bacevich was not suggesting how the government can better win the war in which his son fought, but rather was calling for the government to intentionally lose that war and make his son's sacrifice in vain. What Bart seems to be missing is that the son's death is already in vain, and that Professor Bacevich is asking that no further lives be sacrificed to that vanity of the President and our political leaders. Assuming that others who wish to withdraw from the slaughter that our invasion and occupation of Iraq wish "America" to lose, and that our soldiers are sacrificing themselves for a just and noble cause, is his bugbear, not that of the vast majority of Americans.
BDP:However, Professor Bacevich was not suggesting how the government can better win the war in which his son fought, but rather was calling for the government to intentionally lose that war and make his son's sacrifice in vain.
You miss the point completely, Bart. Clearly, even if Professor Bacevich did suggest how the government could win the war, that suggestion would impose upon the President's plenary powers under Article II of the Constitution. Last time I checked, Bacevich is not the Commander-in-Chief, so any suggestion he makes is entirely irrelevant. Why should anyone care what a professor thinks about the war if he has no authority to put his plans into action? He's not even a principal Officer of an executive Department, so why do you think he should offer up any opinion at all? President Bush said, "I will not withdraw, even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me." He also said that "we must fight the terrorists where they live so that we don't have to fight them where we live." Any plan proposed by a non-President that goes against this fundamental strategy is just so much hot air.
I'd like to hear from the side of the discussion that thinks the war isn't in vain as to why Iraq is exempt from the 1 to 40 ratio found in the past needed when occupying a country to establish enough order for a stable government to take hold and last.
That ratio works out to about 650,000 troops in Iraq. How is Iraq so different, that it should take so tiny and anemic an occupation force to establish stability?
It is true, of course, that there are enough Democrats, were they completely united, to refuse to pass any military funding bill at all, but...that is morally untenable insofar as it would indeed leave Americans stuck in Iraq without essential logistical support.
All the Dems have to do is pass a 6 month funding bill with sufficient money to withdraw from Iraq and announce that the money is being allocated for withdrawal there will be no more funding after the 6 months is up. Under such a bill, the President is the one who will bear the onus of stranding the troops. The Dems did not collapse because it is impossible to draft a withdrawal bill. Rather, they are afraid that they will be correctly blamed for surrendering in Iraq and losing the war.
Garth said...
Bart seems to have forgotten Mark Twain's sage advice: "Loyalty to your country always. Loyalty to your government when it deserves it." Excluding those with an authority fetish, Bush has lost this loyalty. This has nothing to do with loyalty to any particular elected government and everything about loyalty to the troops which we sent into battle. If you think the government was mistaken when the President and Congress overwhelmingly decided to send the troops into combat or that the government screwed up the prosecution of the war, that is what elections are meant to remedy. It is not unpatriotic to throw the government out if you do not agree with their decisions. However, after we have made the decision to go to war, sent troops in harm's way and those troops start paying the cost in blood, we owe the troops our unqualified support. Once the die is cast and the blood price paid, the ONLY moral outcome is to do everything in our power to win the war.
Bart DePalma:
Once the die is cast and the blood price paid, the ONLY moral outcome is to do everything in our power to win the war. Actually, no. If the war is immoral in its aims and its outcome, the ONLY moral action is to stop the war and withdraw. Continuing in an immoral action because of a loss of life on the side of the actor is no defense.
Fraud Guy said...
Bart DePalma: Once the die is cast and the blood price paid, the ONLY moral outcome is to do everything in our power to win the war. Actually, no. If the war is immoral in its aims and its outcome, the ONLY moral action is to stop the war and withdraw. A war which liberates 50 million people from murderous police states, brings the mass murderers to justice, and engages and decimates terrorist networks who have killed thousands of Americans is about as moral as a war can get. Do you care to make a case otherwise and argue on behalf of the mass murderers, returning their people to their police states and the al Qeada they were supporting?
Gee, Bart, since you asked so nicely:
Iraq-- The initial claims that were proposed for the invasion of have been shown to be false-- 1. Saddam was behind or in collusion with the planners of 9/11. 2. That Saddam had or was producing WMD (other than the ones we gave him, that is). It is highly likely that the planners of the war knew these items to be false, and continued in their efforts anyway. This is immorality in provoking a war. (the takedown of the brutal dictator was an afterthought only dragged up reluctantly to a primary purpose up after the first two reasons were convincingly shown to be false after the invasion). Once the invasion was launched, the invading forces failed to take actions to not only secure valuable national and cultural resources, but also, because of deliberately inadequate planning (insufficient forces to secure the population and borders, refusing to use resources dedicated to country rebuilding from the State Department to implement a rational rebuilding plan) caused unneccessary harm to civilians in the country. This is a moral failure in protecting the civilians that we were liberating from a brutal dictator. The occupiers have continually failed to secure standards of living that the civilian population enjoyed prior to the invasion, including utilities, health care, and safe and secure living, and has allowed various international human rights abuses (notably Abu Grahib). Whether you care to accept it or not, the Lancet study has conclusively shown that there has been a significant rise in civilian mortality in Iraq since the invasion. There have additionally been a significant numbers of displaced Iraqis, both within the country as well as those pushed outside of its borders. This is also a moral failure in securing the lives and living conditions of the conquered--sorry, liberated--population. The occupying state has focused on building permanent military bases, securing long term oil contracts for favored companies (plans of which were apparently drawn up pre-invasion). There is significant indication that the occupation has been managed to financially benefit the occupiers and those who have been contracted to provide repairs and services that have failed to significantly materialize. This may be more of an ethical than moral failure, but it is not a positive result of the invasion and occupation. Regarding engaging and decimating terrorist networks--are you serious? Since 2003, statements from the Adminstration, including the President, have repeatedly said that finding Osama Bin Laden, the mastermind behind 9/11 (the most serious blot on the Bush Presidency) is not important. He is likely hiding in Pakistan, our putative ally, which has since cut a deal to allow the tribal leaders who have control of the area where OBL is hiding to be semi-autonomous. Since the focus moved from fighting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda into the unneccessary war in Iraq, the Taliban has been able to reestablish itself in Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda has also been able to move into Iraq, where it never had been present under Saddam. The idea that we are fighting them there so that we don't have to fight them here didn't even come from the Administration, but from Bill Maher, who wants his idea back. We are also giving the terrorists a hands on, urban training environment that allows them to practice methods that they can use against the world. The Iraqi democracy is doing so well, it may collapse back into a police state; at one point, it appeared that we were going to bring our favorite Iraqi exiles into power before that group was trounced when we started fooling around with the bringing democracy idea. I agree, Saddam was a muderous thug, as were his sons, and they had brutally repressed their nation's citizens (at one point, with the help of members of the Bush administration during previous tours in our Federal government). If we went in to Iraq and Afghanistan with the intents that you state (which IIRC we never stated until after we had secured those countries), then we had every MORAL obligation to make sure that we did so in a manner to not increase the suffering of the populations of those countries. We in fact took steps which effectively guaranteed that civilians would suffer more under our occupation than under the previous regimes. (For example, choosing unexperienced administrators for the coalition government based on partisan loyalty while forgoing advice from experienced foreign policy experts from the State Department). Historically, the onus of protecting civilians in occupied countries has fallen on invading powers. Our country, for the basest of reasons, has failed in its moral, ethical, and legal responsibilities. If we had not invaded, it is very likely that the populations of these countries would be better off than they currently are. Bart, you can try to claim otherwise, but would have to search high and low for any proof that would carry any weight.
"Brad" mewls --
"You have a duty in a democracy to constructively criticize the government's performance of its duties." False -- but consistent with your anti-Americanism. Neither you nor the _elective, representative_ gov't has the authority to define "constructive" for everyone else and "We the people"; the general limits of that which is contrustive are instead adumbrated in law. "A system of laws, and not of men" -- John Adams. I've discovered, in dusty colonial law under its Puritan religiotyranny, why Massachusetts is accused by the "might makes right" crowd of being "Liberal": that gov't authorized torture, yes -- but only _AFTER_ the person to be tortured was found guilty on sufficient evidence. Your sociopathic hero Bushit has made that process more efficient by translating it into your and his false definition of "conservative [compassion]": he imposes the torture in order to "develop" the evidence, then uses that evidence to find the defendant guilty. And that is not only exactly opposite democratic due process; it is also destructive of both rule of and respect for law. We torture "them"; we give "them" excuse to torture us. "However, Professor Bacevich was not suggesting how the government can better win the war in which his son fought, but rather was calling for the government to intentionally lose that war and make his son's sacrifice in vain." I'd suggest you pull your head out of your arse, but I think it's abundantly clear you wouldn't begin to know how to do that. No effort to successfully occupy and "stabilize" "Iraq" has ever succeeded, because the "Iraqis" have the exact same "tenor" as any other sovereign people on the planet, including the Vietnamese, and the US: they will not cease their violent resistance to the occupiers until the occupation ends. One cannot win a war against a people within that people's own sovereign country. Those who knew the history of Iraq before Bushit even began his lie-based rush to war knew that especially about Iraq. That means, child, Bushit's illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq was doomed before it began. Was lost before the invasion. One cannot win against a sovereign people that simply refuses to be occupied by foreign powers. Again: unlike you, Prof. Bacevich has worn a uniform, and has seen war. He, unlike you, was career military -- Lt. Col. He, unlike you, knows the meaning of love of country -- and, obviously, when it is misplaced; or when it is anti-Americanism masquerading as love of country. "Freedoms like the freedom of speech come with moral, if not legal, responsibilities." You'll have to back up the claim that there is subjective moral responsibility which attaches to freedom of speech which can be defined in the law, contrary to the fact that the US is home to various systems and claims to "morality". Otherwise, were you in fact a lawyer, as you claim, you'd well know that there are legal responsibilities which attach to freedom of speech; defamation is one example. But criticism of the gov't is not one of them; it is a duty. And anti-American pro-thuggery chickenhawks such as you are not one to be defining "constructive" anything for anyone, in view at very least of your defense of the destructive act of torture. In fact, while Bushit was accusing Saddam Hussein of being a torturer, and for that reason needed to be overthrown, Bushit himself was having torture imposed on human beings who hadn't been adjudicated anything -- let alone guilty. And, the torture conducted under new management by the US under Bushit at Abu Ghraib -- it was well known locally before we heard about it; and it was inevitable that we would -- voluntarily handed Osama bin Ladin a moral victory by validating his allegations against the US. That, too, further undermined US national security by creating even more enemies of the US -- directly contrary to the foremost responsibility of the president: protecting national security. "# posted by Bart DePalma : 9:49 AM" J. Nagarya
"I owe it to the troops to exercise my first amendment right against this illegal war of agression.
"This is not about allegiance to the troops Herr DePalma. "Nor am I under any compulsion to respect my leaders or their leaders on their behalf. "Even they must continue to earn MY respect. "# posted by Garth : 7:50 PM" Nor can any law require "supporting the troops". I hold to the duty to not follow illegal orders. (Is there a price for that? Yes. But isn't the military the place of all places to show one's courage?) I do not support a military which is to _serve_ the country, under oath to support and defend the Constitutiona and alws -- not this or that public official -- that advances an illegal invasion and occupation. It's long past time we stopped being selective about which parts of an illegality we support.
"Historically, the onus of protecting civilians in occupied countries has fallen on invading powers. Our country, for the basest of reasons, has failed in its moral, ethical, and legal responsibilities. If we had not invaded, it is very likely that the populations of these countries would be better off than they currently are. Bart, you can try to claim otherwise, but would have to search high and low for any proof that would carry any weight.
"# posted by Fraud Guy : 1:24 AM" It is also a requirement under international law that the occupying power must protect such as cultural artifacts -- not only the Oil Ministry. And such as the people in the occupied country. The only question at this point is whether the Bushit criminal enterprise blew it in Iraq as result of incompetence, or succeeded in Iraq by doing exactly what they wanted: permanent chaos.
Bart writes:
Rather, they are afraid that they will be correctly blamed for surrendering in Iraq and losing the war. One can hardly take such a presumptuously politicized observation seriously. Please explain how sending in a small fraction of the troops needed to actually have a chance of success and then hamstringing them at every turn including when they return from duty bears no responsibility whatsoever for failure. Are you so cowardly as to try to insulate the president, his administration and the republicans from all responsibility? You do realize that valid observations you point out are completely smeared by such insecure politicking.
This was a fantastic article. Really loved reading your we blog post. The information was very informative and helpful...
Cara mengobati kanker dengan herbal, Cara mengobati kanker dengan tradisional, Cara mengobati kanker dengan alami, Cara mengobati kanker dengan cepat, Cara mengobati kanker stadium 3, Cara mengobati kanker stadium 4, Cara mengobati kanker stadium awal, Cara mengobati kanker stadium 2, Cara mengobati kanker stadium akhir, Cara mengobati kanker tanpa ke dokter, Gambar obat kanker yang ampuh, Gambar obat kanker yang ampuh, Obat kanker ampuh dengan singkong, Cara mengobati kanker stadium awal tanpa operasi, Obat kanker manjur dari tumbuhan, Cara mengobati kanker stadium 1 tanpa operasi, Obat kanker ampuh dengan daun sirsak, Cara mengobati kanker stadium 2 tanpa operasi, Obat kanker paling mujarab yang efektif, Cara mengobati kanker stadium 3 tanpa operasi, Cara mengobati kanker stadium 3, Cara mengobati kanker stadium 4 tanpa operasi, Obat kanker paling manjur 2016, Cara mengobati kanker stadium akhir tanpa operasi, Pengobatan kanker mujarab tanpa operasi, Cara pengobatan kanker yang manjur, Pengobatan kanker manjur dan aman, Cara pengobatan kanker yang mujarab, Cara pengobatan kanker tanpa operasi, Cara pengobatan kanker yang ampuh, Obat kanker mujarab tanpa operasi, Obat kanker manjur tanpa operasi, Obat De Nature
obat herbal mengobati kanker serviks stadium 3
obat alami untuk mencegah kanker serviks obat medis untuk kanker serviks wwwobat kanker serviks obat vaksin kanker serviks obat untuk mengatasi kanker serviks Tumbuhan untuk obat kanker serviks Obat untuk menyembuhkan kanker serviks obat untuk penderita kanker serviks obat tradisional untuk kanker serviks obat utk kanker serviks obat untuk kanker serviks obat tradisional utk kanker serviks sirsak obat kanker serviks obat sakit kanker serviks hello world obat untuk kanker rahim stadium 3 obat herbal kanker rahim stadium 4 obat kanker rahim stadium 1 1 Obat kanker rahim stadium 2 Obat penyakit herpes kelamin pria
obat umum kanker serviks herbal
obat kanker serviks menurut dokter Obat herbal kanker serviks pada umumnya Obat tradisional kanker serviks paten obat tradisional kanker serviks manjur obat tradisional kanker serviks mujarab obat tradisional kanker serviks ampuh obat tradisional kanker serviks herbal ampuh obat tradisional kanker serviks herbal mujarab obat tradisional kanker serviks herbal paten Obat tradisional kanker serviks herbal manjur obat tradisional kanker serviks herbal obat tradisional kanker serviks herbal spesial obat kanker serviks manjur herbal khusus obat kanker serviks manjur herbal khusus wanita obat tradisional kanker serviks herbal ampuh Obat kanker serviks manjur herbal khusus umum obat tradisional kanker serviks herbal obat herpes herbal alamiah obat herbal tradisonal herpes genital ampuh Obat herbal alamiah herpes genital
Obat kanker serviks manujur di youtube
obat kanker serviks manjur facebook obat herpes genital manjur obat herpes genital manjur obat herpes genital manjur obat herpes genital manjur obat herpes genital manjur obat herpes genital manjur obat herpes genital manjur obat herpes genital manjur obat herpes genital manjur obat herpes genital manjur obat herpes genital manjur obat herpes genital manjur obat herpes genital manjur obat herpes genital manjur obat herpes genital manjur obat herpes genital manjur obat herpes genital manjur obat herpes genital manjur obat herpes genital manju Obat herpes genital manjur Obat herpes genital manujur di youtube Obat kanker dan herpes di twitter obat herpes genital manjur facebook
obat kanker serviks tradisional jawa
obat kanker serviks tradisional jawa sumatera Obat kanker serviks tradisional sumatera Obat kanker serviks tradisional kalimantan obat kanker serviks tradisional herbal jawa obat kanker serviks tradisional herbal jawa sumatera obat kanker serviks tradisional herbal sumatera obat kanker serviks tradisional herbal suku pedalaman obat kanker serviks tradisional herbal suku pedalaman sumatra Obat kanker serviks tradisional herbal suku jawa obat kanker serviks tradisional herbal s obat kanker serviks tradisional herbal suku minang obat kanker serviks tradisional herbal suku sunda Obat kanker serviks tradisional herbal suku irian obat kanker serviks tradisional herbal suku dayak obat kanker serviks tradisional herbal suku kubu obat tradisional kanker serviks suku obat kanker serviks tradisional herbal suku bugis obat herbal herpes genital dompo obat herbal herpes genital dompo simplex
Have you ever noticed how ‘What the hell’ is always the right decision to make?
Post a Comment
Agen Judi Online Terpercaya
|
Books by Balkinization Bloggers Linda C. McClain and Aziza Ahmed, The Routledge Companion to Gender and COVID-19 (Routledge, 2024) David Pozen, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford University Press, 2024) Jack M. Balkin, Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation (Yale University Press, 2024) Mark A. Graber, Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform after the Civil War (University of Kansas Press, 2023) Jack M. Balkin, What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision - Revised Edition (NYU Press, 2023) Andrew Koppelman, Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed (St. Martin’s Press, 2022) Gerard N. Magliocca, Washington's Heir: The Life of Justice Bushrod Washington (Oxford University Press, 2022) Joseph Fishkin and William E. Forbath, The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2022) Mark Tushnet and Bojan Bugaric, Power to the People: Constitutionalism in the Age of Populism (Oxford University Press 2021). Mark Philip Bradley and Mary L. Dudziak, eds., Making the Forever War: Marilyn B. Young on the Culture and Politics of American Militarism Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond (University of Massachusetts Press, 2021). Jack M. Balkin, What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision (Yale University Press, 2020) Frank Pasquale, New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI (Belknap Press, 2020) Jack M. Balkin, The Cycles of Constitutional Time (Oxford University Press, 2020) Mark Tushnet, Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law (Yale University Press 2020). Andrew Koppelman, Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?: The Unnecessary Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2020) Ezekiel J Emanuel and Abbe R. Gluck, The Trillion Dollar Revolution: How the Affordable Care Act Transformed Politics, Law, and Health Care in America (PublicAffairs, 2020) Linda C. McClain, Who's the Bigot?: Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2020) Sanford Levinson and Jack M. Balkin, Democracy and Dysfunction (University of Chicago Press, 2019) Sanford Levinson, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Duke University Press 2018) Mark A. Graber, Sanford Levinson, and Mark Tushnet, eds., Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford University Press 2018) Gerard Magliocca, The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights became the Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, 2018) Cynthia Levinson and Sanford Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and the Flaws that Affect Us Today (Peachtree Publishers, 2017) Brian Z. Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law (Cambridge University Press 2017) Sanford Levinson, Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016) Sanford Levinson, An Argument Open to All: Reading The Federalist in the 21st Century (Yale University Press 2015) Stephen M. Griffin, Broken Trust: Dysfunctional Government and Constitutional Reform (University Press of Kansas, 2015) Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015) Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014) Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014) Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013) John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013) Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013) Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013) Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013) James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013) Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012) Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012) Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012) Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012) Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011) Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011) Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011) Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011) Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011) Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010) Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010) Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010) Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010) Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010) Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009) Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009) Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009) Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009) Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008) David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007) Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007) Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007) Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006) Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006) Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006) Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006) Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006) Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005) Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004) Balkin.com homepage Bibliography Conlaw.net Cultural Software Writings Opeds The Information Society Project BrownvBoard.com Useful Links Syllabi and Exams |