This is Martin Lewis, who writes,
General Pace -- you have the power to fulfill your responsibility to protect the troops under your command. Indeed you have an obligation to do so.
You can relieve the President of his command.
Not of his Presidency. But of his military role as Commander-In-Chief....
In addition to relieving him of his command as Commander-In-Chief, you also have authority to place the President under MILITARY arrest.
Read the whole post for more details, and for Mr. Lewis's statement, "To be crystal clear -- I am NOT advocating or inciting you to undertake any illegal act, insurrection, mutiny, putsch or military coup." So you're urging a general to arrest the President, and at least to strip the President of his constitutionally assigned role as Commander-in-Chief, but "[t]o be crystal clear," you are "NOT advocating or inciting you to undertake any ... military coup." Oh, OK.
(I take it that Lewis's defense would be that the general's actions wouldn't be a coup because they are authorized under military law. But the military's displacing civilian government in a way that is nowhere authorized by the Constitution -- which is quite explicit both about the President's relationship to the military and about the ways that the President can be relieved of command as Commander-in-Chief -- is surely a coup, even if you've come up with a creative reading of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to try to support it.)
I don't agree with Clayton Cramer's suggestion that Lewis's speech is criminally punishable -- the Constitution trumps the statutes that Cramer cites as well as the statutes that Lewis cites (though at least Cramer's argument is much more plausible as a statutory matter). But surely public calls for a general to oust the President should be pretty firmly denounced, even though they shouldn't be criminally punished.
Happyshooter: I know Lewis is occasionally a humorist, but I saw no cues to that in this particular item.
Link
The man's channeling Swift. It's like Marcotte's apology back when she was trying to save her Edwards job "I didn't actually mean any of it." Too bad you did such a good job convincing us of it otherwise.
He tried to defend the idea early in the comments section. Guess I'm too much of a rube to get the joke.
I don't know what's more pathetic -- the article, the idea of a military coup against Dubya, or the picture of said coup's being led by a lickspittle like Peter Pace.
Anyway, I don't read Huffington Post, but I would think this is Mr. Lewis's invitation to them to disassociate themselves from him. I hope they accept.
Now if he had done something really serious like calling for the USA military to depose Hugo Chavez instead of George Bush, the drive by media would be all up in arms and foaming at the mouth.
Says the "Dog"
Don’t Get Weak
Random thoughts on the passing scene.
By Thomas Sowell
Sometimes it seems as if everybody is trying to rip off his own little piece of America, until we are all torn apart.
A reader writes: “Liberals hold us individually responsible for nothing but collectively responsible for everything.”
The last time I saw a Republican express outrage was 1991, when Clarence Thomas told the Senators what he thought of the smear tactics used against him. Before that, it was Ronald Reagan saying, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” Before that, it was probably Teddy Roosevelt.
Too many people in positions of responsibility act as if these are just positions of opportunity — for themselves. The ones who simply steal money probably do less harm than teachers who propagandize their students, media who slant the news, or politicians who sell out their country’s interests in order to get reelected.
A reader wrote: “Have you ever noticed that opinion polls ask the opinions of people who have no expertise in the subject on which they are being polled and publish these opinions as if they were gospel truth instead of group ignorance?”
Judging by the polls, Republican voters’ memories do not seem to be as short as Senator John McCain may have thought. Judging by press coverage, the media’s memory does not seem to have been as long as he may have thought when he played to that gallery.
A sign of the times: A full-page ad for an Alaska cruise in the left-wing New York Review of Books says, “See Alaska’s Glaciers Before They’re Gone!” Shipmates listed include Ralph Nader and the editor of The Nation magazine.
The people who are scariest to me are the people who don’t even know enough to realize how little they know.
A reader sent the following message, quoting his nephew: “Calling an illegal alien an ‘undocumented worker’ is like calling a drug dealer an ‘unlicensed pharmacist.’“
Some of the biggest cases of mistaken identity are among intellectuals who have trouble remembering that they are not God.
Our education system, our media, and our intelligentsia have all been unrelentingly undermining the values, the traditions, and the unity of this country for generations and, at the same time, portraying as “understandable” all kinds of deviance, from prostitution to drugs to riots.
The home run records that made Babe Ruth famous have been broken but one of his records will probably never be broken — pitching the longest shutout in World Series history, 14 innings. Few pitchers go even nine innings these days.
“Global warming” seems to be joining “diversity,” “gun control,” “open space,” and a growing list of other subjects where rational discussion has become impossible — and where you are considered a bad person even for wanting to discuss it rationally.
Is your employer poorer by the amount of money he pays you? Probably not, or you would never have been hired. Why then should we assume that a corporation or its customers are poorer by the amount paid to its chief-executive officer?
A review of one of the many environmentalist books says that even if you can’t do all you would like toward “living green,” you can at least “congratulate yourself on taking small steps to improve the planet.” That is what environmentalism — and much else on the political Left’s agenda — is really all about, self congratulation.
Just watching Suze Orman for a few moments while channel surfing is enough to make me feel exhausted.
When I see the worsening degeneracy in our politicians, our media, our educators, and our intelligentsia, >>>>>>>I can’t help wondering if the day may yet come when the only thing that can save this country is a military coup.<<<<<<<<<
In his book Income and Wealth, economist Alan Reynolds says that people often form “strong opinions” based on “weak statistics.” Unfortunately, that is also true of a wide range of other issues, from “global warming” to “gender bias.”
I am so old that I can remember a Democrat, at his inauguration as president, say of our enemies: “We dare not tempt them with weakness.”
© 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Or maybe that's the real point of the Iraq misadventure?
Are the VC getting some weird referral link or something?
I'm not Samuil, but I believe he's referring to Thomas Sowell's National Review Online piece from early May (reprinted in the Baltimore Sun on May 3, 2007, available in Westlaw at 2007 WLNR 8363924), wherein he wrote "When I see the worsening degeneracy in our politicians, our educators and our intelligentsia, I can't help wondering if the day may yet come when the only thing that can save this country is a military coup." Sowell was also subsequently interviewed on Hannity &Colmes on May 28, 2007. The show transcript is available on Westlaw under the identifier 2007 WLNR 10016873. Here's the relevant excerpt:
COLMES: Hey, Dr. Sowell. It's Alan Colmes. Thank you for doing our show tonight.
I was reading something you wrote recently at National Review Online, where you wrote, When I say the worsening, the degeneracy in our politicians, our media, our educators, and our intelligentsia, you say, I can't help wondering if the day might yet come when the only thing that can save this country is a military coup.
How seriously are you -- how serious are you about the idea that that's what it might take to save this country?
SOWELL: I'm very serious about whether or not the country can be saved at all in the long run, and especially with Iran moving towards nuclear weapons, with so many signs of degeneracy, the schools, whatnot. Heaven knows I don't want to see a military coup, but I don't want to see the society degenerate either.
COLMES: What do you think would lead to a military coup?
SOWELL: Excuse me?
COLMES: What do you think might be the forces that would lead to a military coup in this country?
SOWELL: I think if the political system becomes ever more irresponsible, and it's already pretty irresponsible, if the educational system becomes more degenerate, if race hustlers polarize the country, and that the schools and the intelligentsia dismantle the values on which it's built -- I mean, right now, we're living a lot off the capital of the past, and that can't continue indefinitely.
COLMES: Isn't that a little alarmist, to say that, you know, with the divisions in this country, a military coup might be the only way that this country can proceed? I mean, we still live in a representative form of government. A lot of bickering back and forth, obviously, but that's healthy in a democracy. I don't see us headed toward a military coup.
SOWELL: Well, I'm happy that you don't.
(CROSSTALK)
COLMES: I'm glad I could make you happy.
SOWELL: And I prefer that you turn out to be right and that I turn out to be right. I probably won't be here to find out one way or the other.
It was just satire.
Keep moving, nothing to see here...
Or order the U.S Marshals to extract him from the brig?
According to a few minutes at Wikipedia, there are ~168,000 US service members of all branches in Iraq vs. >500,000 in the Regular Army alone.
Get a grip.
From the same "think tank":
www.familysecuritymatters.org/index.php?id=575255.
His point:
>>>>>Bush’s war strategy of non-war has resulted in a functional paralysis caused by our self-imposed failure to identify and confront open and avowed enemies.>>>>>>>
His fantasy:
>>>>>>>Americans mount a vigorous offense against the center of the enemy’s power. Waves of bombers obliterate dozens of enemy cities. His food is choked off, his military is decimated, his industry is bombarded, his ships are sunk, his harbors are mined—his people are psychologically shattered. In a single night, a hundred thousand civilians die in a firestorm in his capital. Americans drop leaflets telling the enemy population which cities could be next. Civilians are immersed in propaganda from their government, telling them that they are winning the war—yet they cower defenselessly while American bombers level their homes.
[...]
We call upon the enemy to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative is prompt and utter destruction.3
When the enemy balks at the ultimatum, atomic bombs are dropped on his cities. He surrenders, thus acknowledging the reality of his defeat and making a political decision to cease fighting. He orders his reluctant soldiers to lay down their arms. The American military occupies the defeated nation. We censor the media, impose reforms on schools, dismantle economic cartels, efface militaristic language from discourse at all levels, and write a political constitution which they are forced to accept. We tell them, pointedly and publicly, that they are defeated, and that we have no obligations to them. When they face starvation, we remind them that their miseries are their own fault. We charge them for many of the costs of the occupation. Not one dime of aid arrives until they demonstrate their complete surrender, in word and in action, including their repudiation of the militaristic ideology that motivated their attacks.>>>>>>>
Nice, huh?
1. Bush is not subject to the UCMJ, see article 2 of the UCMJ. (This assumes he was discharged in the 70's from the ANG, and I assume he was).
2. Martin Lewis, if he were subject to the UCMJ and I have no idea of his status could be charged under article 94 "Mutiny and Sedition" as well as 134 General Article - "Disloyal statements" and if he were an Officer, article 133 "Conduct Unbecoming...."
Umm, Article 2 is far from dispositive on the issue.
As for issue 2, you should know (if you are a really are/were a Drill SGT) that it is not only legal, but your duty to report and prevent--if possible--violations of the UCMJ by superior officers. If the president gave Pace a clearly illegal order it would be his duty to disobey it, publically if necessary. He contradicted Rumsfeld in a news conference on just such an issue--so GEN Pace does know right from wrong.
I was being sarcastic, but, it looks like you're missing the point altogether.
There simply aren't enough troops to do a successful military coup in the United States.
Got it?
As a matter of principle, I suppose most of us can imagine some situation in which a military coup would indeed be called for. (Imagine, perhaps, that the President was about to order the CIA to institute the mass murder of his political opponents, and had indeed murdered those Congressmen who had been using the normal constitutional channels by calling for impeachment.) And though I doubt the circumstances that would justify such a coup would be quite as Sowell describes, his description is general enough that it's hard to pin it down. Even those tactics (such as military revolt) that are usually rightly reviled may, I suppose, be inevitable in some extraordinary circumstances.
But it hardly makes such tactics -- or calls for such tactics -- proper in the particular circumstances we now face, which is what Lewis is calling for.
The UCMJ does not apply to civilians. The President is not a commissioned officer; he commissions officers. Saying that he is subject to the UCMJ is as ludicrous as those in the 1990s who said that Clinton could be court-martialed for adultery(also a UCMJ offense).
We have a civilian run military, and the Constitution kinda trumps the UCMJ. There are ways to remove the President(impeachment &removal, don't re-elect him, let his term expire, etc.), but there is no way soldiers would ever even attempt this. Do you realize the outcry that would result. Not only that, what happens the next time a President violates an article of the UCMJ, only this time it's a democrat?
Yes, General Pace would be obligated to disobey an illegal order, but it would be up to Congress and SCOTUS to enforce it, not the military.
Besides, General Pace is NOT a commander - he is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of STAFF and holds exactly zero command authority. That authority resides with the SecDef and the Combatant Commanders.
Does the phrase the President as "Commander-in-Chief" actually mean that the President himself would be subject to military discipline? It is an extraordinary idea; I had always taken the idea of the President as "Commander-in-Chief" as some sort of poetic metaphor. But maybe the phrase "Commander-in-Chief" is to be taken literally and the President is indeed subject to military discipline, which can flow up as well as down.
I don't see why you think the issue is so silly.
Now it may well be a bad idea for the President to be "Commander-in-Chief" in that sense but then we need to change the words in the Military Code of Justice. no?
If you want a more specific legalistic argument -- though this is not really a subject on which the concerns are primarily legalistic -- note that the Constitution says that the President "shall be Commander in Chief." It also makes clear how he can be removed: by the House and Senate via the impeachment and trial procedure, and by the Cabinet and Vice President finding him to be disabled (see the 25th Amendment). This means that no statute can be constitutionally construed as authorizing removal of the President from his post as Commander in Chief in any other way. So the constitutional text makes clear that the military cannot remove the President from his commander-in-chief role this way; and the constitutional structure (deliberately designed to make the military power subordinate to elected officials) and American constitutional history confirm this.
Do me a favor and remind us all that the question of whether a sitting president is subject to the UCMJ is a non-trivial issue when Landmark Legal Foundation is calling for President Hillary's court martial for a variety of UCMJ violations in Spring, 2009.
It's an inane argument, comparable to the idea that maybe the Surgeon General should be subject to court martial, because he's a general, right? If you believe that civilians in the chain of command are subject to the UCMJ, then why not have some military police corporal arrest Donald Rumsfeld or perhaps the Secretary of the Navy? "Commander-in-Chief" as a military officer is a legal fiction. That people can't seem to get that doesn't shock me; after all, plenty of people believe fire can't burn steel, "mission accomplished," and the Jets are going to win the Superbowl.
Actually, it can and does (try speeding on a military base and you will find out how wrong you are). The position is not as ludicrous as the Clinton example because the crimes Bush would be charged with would be directly related to his role as commander-in-chief (i.e., they would be war crimes related to his command of military forces). Clinton's had no nexus to his military duties.
And technically, you are right, the Joint Chiefs don't technically command any troops--they aren't in a chain of command. They are actually more advisors to the president. The warrant would issue from the joint command where the crimes were alleged to have occurred, Central, Southern or even European Command (if we were going to arrest him for the torture that occurred in the secret prisons in Poland). Actually, it might be easier to have NATO issue the warrant and have the Germans arrest him (actually that has already been tried a couple times with administration figures already--I'm not sure if anyone has tried to do it with Bush yet). They claim jurisdiction for war crimes committed anywhere in the world committed by anyone.
As I posted elsewhere, it reminds me of when Tucker Carlson questioned Jon Stewart's journalistic responsibility:
STEWART: You know, it's interesting to hear you talk about my responsibility.
CARLSON: I felt the sparks between you.
STEWART: I didn't realize that -- and maybe this explains quite a bit.
CARLSON: No, the opportunity to...
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: ... is that the news organizations look to Comedy Central for their cues on integrity.
(LAUGHTER)
This does explain the "living, breathing, constantly mutation Constitution," however: it's all subject to poetic license.
Actually genuis, just like the coast guard, under certain circumstances the Public Health Service (of which the Surgeon General is the head) falls under the jurisdiction of the military--so yes, he or she can be court martialled. That uniform is not just for show.
1. J.F. Thomas, you could not be more wrong in suggesting that the President might be subject to the UCMJ. Article 2 of the UCMJ is the definiive statement on who is subject to the UCMJ (subject to constitutional limiations) and the President is not one of the categories of persons subject to the Code.
2. Russ, you're mostly right, but not entirely right, when you say that the UCMJ doesn't apply to civilians. Article 2 lists several categories of civilians who are "subject to the Code." Some of those categories of civilians (such as contractors and dependents stationed overseas) have been held unconstitutional. However, persons accompanying the forces "in the field" (meaning in relation to combat operations) during a declared war or contingency operation are subject to the UCMJ per Article 2(9). It's possible that some applications of this provision would be unconstitutional, though I dare say that the exercise of court-martial jurisdiction over at least some persons "in the field" with the military would pass constitutional muster. Article 2(7) also renders persons in the custody of the armed forces who are serving a court-martial sentence subject to the UCMJ even if they have been discharged.
Good argument idea, poor execution. Officers of the public health service and NOAA are subject to the Code and court martial jurisdiction while serving with military.
Funny how you find Article 2 not to necessarily exclude the POTUS as falling under the UCMJ as CinC. Yet, you neglect to notice Article 2,section A, paragraphs 9 and 10:
With that in mind, how can you make this claim:
It's in the UCMJ, and not something the President just manufactured. Why are you being selective in your reading?
Well Eugene, just as I am sure the president could be arrested and booked for murder by local police if he shot someone dead in Crawford, TX without being removed from office, I'm sure he could be arrested and tried without being technically removed from office for crimes he committed in his role as commander in chief. As a constitutional scholar you should at least entertain the notion.
"Arrest" in the miltary sence is not the same as the civvie law term.
Military arrest means to confine. If some general is shoplifting at the base PX and some E-3 MP takes him to the station to do the paperwork that is an apprehension.
The general’s boss then ordering the MP to take him to a military prison and lock him up there pending future court martial is an arrest.
Less well known was the incident where Pennsylvania's regular army in 1783 surrounded the Continental Congress' meeting place in Philadelphia, and demanded paychecks--and the Pennsylvania government, afraid to upset an important voting bloc, took no action, causing Congress to move to Princeton. My book Armed America: The Remarkable Story of How and Why Guns Became as American as Apple Pie (Nelson Current, 2007), has a discussion of this and its significance to establishing the relationship between militias and standing armies in the Articles of Confederation period.
Doesn't history show that you have to be a colonel to pull off this kind of (non-)coup?
You really think the Founders had the slightest notion of creating a republic whose president could be removed by court-martial?
The question is who decides who is an "enemy combatant", "illegal enemy combatant", or "prisoner of war". That is the designation that the president has decided he has the right to decide with no review by any other party (and once they are declared an "illegal enemy combatant" they are not covered by the UCMJ but a decidely inferior set of procedures).
He certainly could be--but he would be arrested by a police officer--not a general. There's a reason that George Washington's officers created the Society of the Cincinnatus, modeled after the Roman military leader of that name who took the job of dictator, defeated Rome's enemies, and then immediately gave up his powers and returned to civilian life. The society sought to emphasize the importance of military officers doing their job, and leaving control of the government to the lawful, civilian authorities.
It's a sad day indeed when you have to argue with liberals like J.F. Thomas that a military coup would be a bad thing.
OK, J.F. Thomas, this is about the fifth demonstrably incorrect thing you've said in this thread; get your head in the game, son.
If you are stopped for speeding on a military base, that does not mean you are subject to the UCMJ. You will be charged either with violating state or federal traffic laws (depending on whether the military base is under joint state and federal jurisdiction). You will not be court-martialwed. This is basically the sdame as the situation where you have to go to the EDVA if you are stopped by Park Police for speeding on certain federally-owned pieces of the GW Parkway. Those guys aren't subjct to the UCMJ either.
Second, even if this sort of attack were possible, Lewis seems to be unaware that a very high burden of proof is required to pursue a case up rather than down the chain of command. e.g., when a private is charged under the UCMJ, it is he, not his superior who carries the burden of proof. When the situation is reversed, the superior officer is reviewed on something akin to the "rational basis test".
Obviously the situation is somewhat different for capital crimes.
***************************************
On the subject of denouncements, I would like to identify standards for when I'm to firmly denounce this or that statement, characterization, action, or person. I keep hearing calls that I should denounce this or that misbehaving person. It's fine to jump ahead with this Martin Lewis one, what with the Republic being at stake, but for the future I need some standards to make sure I'll always be consistent in my denouncements and also that I don't get carried away with excessive denounciateering. Thanks for any suggestion.
The Incompatibility Clause (Art. I, sec. 6, cl. 2) provides that "no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his Continuance in Office."
Just this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces threw out decisions by the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals because Sentator Graham (an Air Foce reservist) was appointed to the panel while simultaneously serving as a sitting U.S. Senator. United States v. Lane, 64 M.J. 1 (CAAF 2006).
Clayton, I'm amazed that you think yourself any better. Have you read some of the stuff you've posted? There's not a fact within a thousand miles of most of your posts.
I rather doubt that the UCMJ would apply to ex-President Bush. This is at least more legally plausible than a military coup.
But on what basis would he qualify as an illegal enemy combatant? Are you suggesting that he has been fighting against U.S. forces on the battlefield? Perhaps you mean that his actions and decisions as C-in-C have been so harmful that he might as well have been an enemy combatant. But in that case, you could make the same case for a number of Democrats in Congress being traitors, and you would be correctly outraged if anyone tried to try them for treason for arguing against the war.
Classic. Sui genuis.
It is the first demonstrably incorrect thing I have said. I stand corrected, you do appear in front of a federal court, not a military one--at least not in this country. List the other four (or so). Just because you don't like my facts, doesn't make them false.
And of course the General wouldn't arrest him--it would be military police.
On the other, a columnist (with no other credentials of note) who would call for one in public is almost certainly not worth serious thought. (Especially on HuffPo. I'm rather more left than right and I don't bother reading it.)
Veering off topic: A former Army officer once told me that there's a little book called Coup d'Etat: A Practical Handbook that no officer who values their career wants to get caught reading.
On the same basis he uses. "I don't have to tell you what I base it on--he's a bad guy, take my word for it."
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newburgh_conspiracy and the article that Professor Volokh linked to here gave specific sections of current U.S. law that Martin Lewis appears to have violated with his call for General Pace to arrest President Bush.
"Not a fact within a thousand miles of most of my posts"? Try again.
Since when has this been a prerequisite?
But President Bush--why, that's practically the same situation to you. Definitely: tenured faculty at Columbia.
Where is your famous linking to back up your assertions Clayton?
And the point is that the president threw out the established process for determining combatant status (over the objection of the uniformed military) and replaced it with a system that almost ensured that all the detainees would be declared enemy combatants. Of course now we are going to have to go back and declare them "illegal" enemy combatants.
Gee, are you admitting you may be wrong?
- i see you didn't read the last paragraph of this very posting.
Amazingly enough, there seems to be very little in the way of data about what conditions prisoners arrived there.
- then what are you basing your assertions on?
And certainly, al-Qaeda terrorists wouldn't lie.
- And Bush only tells the truth?
"Not a fact within a thousand miles of most of my posts"? Try again.
- have you read any of your posts regarding gays, muslims, environmentalists, liberals, etc?...I can continue but i'd basically be listing the encyclopedia.
http://www.jcs.mil/chairman/chairman_resp.html
So, even if Lewis' suggestion was legal (which it is of course not), Pace is not the person to do it.
J F Thomas, clearly you are a few blocks short of a full track :)
On the subject of whether I was ever a drill SGT, I was the Distinguished Graduate of DS Class 8-71 at Ft Lewis. I've also been a number of those categories of persons subject to the UCMJ under Article 2 of the UCMJ including, enlisted, Cadet, RA Officer, USAR Officer, and my wife is a NG JAG Officer. So yes, I understand the basics of the UCMJ, apparently well beyond your level of undertanding.
Now may I ask about your experience in the UCMJ, beyond apparently getting speeding tickets on post? BTW: you are wrong on that as well.
It looks like an interesting book.
It looks like an interesting book.
"Try speeding on a military base." That's laughable. For one, I live on a military base, being a commissioned infantry officer myself. Military traffic laws are under federal jurisdiction, but they are not part of the UCMJ.
As a company commander, I had authority to apply the UCMJ to those under my command. Civilians could be arrested by the MPs for criminal actions occuring on military bases, but were not subject to the UCMJ.
"Actually, it might be easier to have NATO issue the warrant and have the Germans arrest him (actually that has already been tried a couple times with administration figures already--I'm not sure if anyone has tried to do it with Bush yet). "
I find this to be proof you suffer from BDS(Bush Derangement Syndrome). You seem willing to cede authority over ELECTED US officials to foreign governments. Do you not think this nation would not be willing to go to war over such things?!?! After all the insanity demonstrated in Belgium trying to get Donald Rumsfeld arrested, when we threatened to pull all funding for NATO as an HQ in that country, they suddenly backed down.
As soldiers, we are under civilian authority. I can think of nothing more damaging to the Republic than to make us the arbiters of who should be in political office. The UCMJ is there to govern the military, not the political masters who answer to the will of the public, either through elections or the Congress.
When you decide that soldiers can decide who can run things, you no longer have a republic; you have a military dictatorship in which the civilian leadership is tolerated only as long as we are satisfied they are doing things the way we want.
Besides which, the rank and file would in no way EVER go along with this. Leave these questions to the voters, where they belong.
CHARLES J. DUNLAP, JR.
From Parameters, Winter 1992-93, pp. 2-20.
The letter that follows takes us on a darkly imagined excursion into the future. A military coup has taken place in the United States—the year is 2012—and General Thomas E. T. Brutus, Commander-in-Chief of the Unified Armed Forces of the United States, now occupies the White House as permanent Military Plenipotentiary. His position has been ratified by a national referendum, though scattered disorders still prevail and arrests for acts of sedition are underway. A senior retired officer of the Unified Armed Forces, known here simply as Prisoner 222305759, is one of those arrested, having been convicted by court-martial for opposing the coup. Prior to his execution, he is able to smuggle out of prison a letter to an old War College classmate discussing the "Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012." In it, he argues that the coup was the outgrowth of trends visible as far back as 1992. These trends were the massive diversion of military forces to civilian uses, the monolithic unification of the armed forces, and the insularity of the military community. His letter survives and is here presented verbatim.
It goes without saying (I hope) that the coup scenario above is purely a literary device intended to dramatize my concern over certain contemporary developments affecting the armed forces, and is emphatically not a prediction. — The Author
Read the whole thing here
Thank you for serving!! I doubt that many who post here have.
Sorry, J.F. Thomas, but it's beginning to look like a WWF Smackdown.
I extend my sympathy.
Clearly the author of the HuffPO article didn't intend it to be satire. I wouldn't support his arrest either, but this article should certainly disqualify him from being viewed as a contributor to any serious political discussion.
So, 95 or so comments later, Martin Lewis and Clayton Cramer have both made plausible (if strained) statutory arguments that clearly violate the Constitution. Great.
Mr. Lewis and Mr. Cramer, drop your statute books, pick up a copy of the Constitution, and read.
So I assume this is a write-only comment?
It's also about as clear a statement as one can expect that FSR does not support freedom of speech. HuffPo, on the other hand...
Why would it take down everything the columnist has ever written...they agreed with it when it was originally posted and so now they don't agree with it just because of a single article by the author? This sounds less like FSR was really denouncing the article and more like FSR was trying to cover its own ass...remove all record of the author and FSR hopes to avoid some rightful criticism.
Just this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces threw out decisions by the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals because Sentator Graham (an Air Foce reservist) was appointed to the panel while simultaneously serving as a sitting U.S. Senator. United States v. Lane, 64 M.J. 1 (CAAF 2006)."
Interesting point here, though not on the topic of this thread. Technically, retired officers of the Armed Forces do not leave the forces, but they maintain their commissions in the retired reserve, and remain subject to military law-- thus continuing to hold "an office under the United States". Has there ever been a court case addressing the applicability of the Incompatibility Clause in the case of a retired officer serving in Congress? Doc
FSR is not a government entity. Therefore your remark about freedom of speech is meaningless. You did know that, didn't you? That your remark was meaningless, I mean.
Does HuffPo delete stuff? I don't follow it, or even read it occasionally, so I don't know. But if they ever delete something because they don't like it, I guess Brian K will have some words for them.
I said they don't support not that they are required to follow it. they are free to delete or post whatever they want and i am free to criticize them for it...that's because the government is not allowed to restrict speech (with some exceptions). Are you aware that non-governmental agencies can support concepts that they believe in? or do i need to use smaller words?
I guess Brian K will have some words for them.
I sure will if I learn about them deleting stuff. I've criticized various fox "news" programs and wired online magazine for the same reason.
Yes it does. If you say "I believe that speech should not be restricted" then punish someone for their speech, it shows that you do not really believe in unrestricted speech.
But of course it is not up to the military (and for all the nasty things said about me in this thread, note that I just hypothesized about the process, I never said it would be a good idea) to bring the charges. It would be up to the Congress as part of the impeachment process, to charge him with crimes of a military nature. I started to explore that line of thought yesterday but didn't flesh it out.
FSR, presumably, buys the First Amendment, which states the Congress can't mess with freedom of speech. Nowhere did FSR suggest Congress shut down freedom of speech.
In fact, FSR is exercising their freedom of speech by choosing not to be associated with speech they abhor.
To delete somebody's speech from a privately-held blog is not the same as deleting their person. Only the second is punishment.
FSR is not choosing to associate with speech they abhor...if they were doing that they would only have deleted the offending post. since this guy was a long term author for them they must have previously loved his speech. in order for deleting all of his posts to be equal to not associated with speech they abhor FSR would have to completely switch ideological viewpoints...which hasn't happened.
What they did was delete everything the guy had ever written. they want to distance themselves as much as possible from the guy...and the only reason they would do that is protect themselves. if they really only disagreed with the article they would either have deleted the one article or countered its opinion with more speech.
In fact, FSR is exercising their freedom of speech by choosing not to be associated with speech they abhor.
No they are not. they are exercising their freedom of association. same amendment, different right.
Only the second is punishment.
I'd hate to see how you punish your kids (assuming they're still living).
The dinosaurs, right? Unless it's winter? (Damn! I wish academia had booted military history out of the curriculum. I KNOW I'd be able to answer this one if I'd had some classes.)
Daily Kos is said to have deleted a thread having to do with taking Bush's property. I think you'll have time to get over there and chide them right and proper.
What FSR did is only "punishment" under the liberal view, which is any predictable consequence to bad action is "punishment".
One reason they may have wanted to distance themselves from the writer is the liberal jackass tactic of demonizing somebody and then demonizing anybody who quotes him--even on something else--or, in the case of blogs, runs his stuff.
Once, on a femblog, I used some Dpt of Labor figures and found I was completely discredited because Farrell said it. Turns out that Farrell (Warren, that is) wrote a book feminists don't like and, in it, used some DOL figures. Thus, with libs/fems, anything that Farrell said, even if it's quoting the DOL, is no longer a fact, even if you quote it directly from the source and have not, as I had not, heard of Farrell
I'm not providing you with a new technique. I'm sure you've used it yourself. But I wanted you to know that others are on to it.
And FSR just deprived you of an opportunity to use it on them.
Let me know what you told Kos.
you mean like how anything written in the nytimes or said by a liberal is automatically a lie and by extension any argument that references said paper or liberal? the only jackass-y thing to do is criticize one side while giving a free pass to other side when they do the EXACT same things. either criticize the action regardless of who perpetrates it or admit you are little more than a hack.
Once, on a femblog, I used some Dpt of Labor figures and found I was completely discredited because Farrell said it. Turns out that Farrell (Warren, that is) wrote a book feminists don't like and, in it, used some DOL figures. Thus, with libs/fems, anything that Farrell said, even if it's quoting the DOL, is no longer a fact, even if you quote it directly from the source and have not, as I had not, heard of Farrell
forgive me if i don't take your word for either the feminists reaction or their rationale for it. you've proven yourself to be someone who can't accurately portray the opposing party.
And FSR just deprived you of an opportunity to use it on them.
not really. that's the funny thing about the internet...pretty much everything is saved somewhere. the offending posts and everything written by the author still exists and is still linkable back to FSR. all FSR has done is shown how cowardly they are. you also completely misrepresent my arguments (assuming of course your not just making stuff up to save your failing argument)...i may use association to vary the amount of skepticism i show a source but i never use it to dismiss a source altogether. (if i've proven someone wrong 100 times i'm not going to automatically assume they're right the 101st time)
Let me know what you told Kos.
YAY! more ad hominem attacks...i guess its your only recourse once i have proven you wrong (thanks for admitting it by the way...even if only implicitly). what kos did was wrong for exactly the same reason that what FSP did was wrong...at least i'm man enough to admit that.
And I'm not talking about dismissing a source when trying to figure something out. I'm talking about dissing a source somebody else uses because the source once quoted, say, Farrell. Old trick.
I don't think anybody says whatever the NYT says is automatically a lie. It's just that, when finding the NYT lied, it's sort of juvenile to admit to being surprised.
FSR, by distancing itself from the thread in question, makes it more difficult for somebody to smear them by referring to it and how they must just absolutely love it, the maroons. "If they didn't agree with it, they wouldn't be keeping it up...." So the next argument they make that a lib doesn't like can't be smeared that way. The lib might have to actually address the argument.
I'm not covering my retreat at all. I thought about it and am willing to admit that the military has no business actually arresting the Commander in Chief (at least until he has been formally impeached and removed from office by congress). I still believe that the Commander in Chief role is a separate and distinct role from that of president and as such Congress could, under the constitution, impeach him for violations of the UCMJ for acts he committed in his role as Commander in Chief.
I don't think that my position is a wildly outrageous reading of the constitution brought on by BDS.
Wrong again. The military may not be involved in domestic law enforcement. See Posse Comitatus.
Nothing. I didn't directly tell FSR anything either. See unlike you I'm treating both sides equally when they engage in equal behavior. (You didn't exactly provide any proof of what kos did either and since i don't visit that website i have no way of knowing if your telling the truth or just making stuff up)
And I'm not talking about dismissing a source when trying to figure something out. I'm talking about dissing a source somebody else uses because the source once quoted, say, Farrell. Old trick.
yes...an old trick on both sides. (for the conservative side see the reaction to the new york times or to someone who dares quote a feminist or CAIR). Now can you find proof of when I have done this? I didn't think so because I've never done it.
I don't think anybody says whatever the NYT says is automatically a lie.
now I know you're joking.
FSR, by distancing itself from the thread in question, makes it more difficult for somebody to smear them by referring to it and how they must just absolutely love it, the maroons. "If they didn't agree with it, they wouldn't be keeping it up...."
but the manner in which they distanced themselves from it just opens them up to more criticism and doesn't protect them from smear campaigns either.
So the next argument they make that a lib doesn't like can't be smeared that way. The lib might have to actually address the argument.
Again with the horrible one sided view of what actually happens. I'm going to coin a new term for it The Richard Aubrey Syndrome which is characterized by an extreme desire to only see what one wants to see and an extreme level of political hackery.
And this statement has exactly what to do with the topic at hand?
So, that pretty much settles that.
The ink cloud is getting thin, better emit some more before the predators get you!
It refutes your preposterous assertion that the military would arrest the President after "he has been formally impeached and removed from office by congress."
No it doesn't. It doesn't have anything to do with it.
You keep bringing this up and the more i think about it, the less sure i am that you are accurately describing what happened. Could it be possible that your posting was dripping with obvious hatred of feminists and all things liberal in general? (very likely given your posts on this site) That's an obvious sign that the person making the comment is not interested in a real debate and wouldn't alter his stance if conflicting info is given. as a result you were the victim of one of the two ways to get rid of a troll: insult him till he leaves. (the other being ignore him but that option is rarely taken)
it most certainly is an old trick and is a response to an even older trick: trolling
Thanks for the tip. I washed some graffiti of my back fence a while back. But, now I realize washing the fence was an attack on free speech. In the future, my fence will be a free speech zone.
How can the military's inability to arrest someone under posse comitatus not have anything to do with your assertion that the military should arrest someone?
You take over. I'm tired.
It's easy to be a troll on a femblog. You can say something like, "the laxers didn't do it." Then the stuff rolls down.
The point I was making when this first happened to me had to do with job-related injuries and death--men being the oppressors and all have a lot more of them--and I related both some DoL figures and some work comp issues. Then I found Farrell had made the same point.
It would be the same thing if you talked about some DoJ figures, or FBI stats and discovered they don't count because some guy named Jared Taylor ("Paved with Good Intentions") had said them, too.
If FSR is sufficiently aware of the tactics out there, the deletion of the entire body of work would be a good move. As you say, it doesn't go away. But the move reduces the ad hominems available.
they did it cover their asses. that only means they have a rationale for their actions...not that their actions are immune from criticism.
I suppose the CYA move presumes having done something wrong.
In this case, FSR doesn't appear to have done something wrong, but presumes others may use the thread in question as a tool against it, regardless of its quality. Once a meme, or narrative, has been established, it remains. It becomes a fact. Irrespective of the actual facts.
not necessarily. e.g. physicians order extraneous tests all the time to protect against malpractice suits even though they have done nothing wrong.
In this case, FSR doesn't appear to have done something wrong
we seem to have a different opinion on this.
If I get your point, you think dropping the guy's work is the wrong thing.
women do NOT lie about rape. that is gospel for feministing.com etc.
when i pointed out how bogus the case was, that was the (essential) response. long before the case got thrown out, it was clearly junk
"The point I was making when this first happened to me had to do with job-related injuries and death--men being the oppressors and all have a lot more of them--and I related both some DoL figures and some work comp issues. Then I found Farrell had made the same point. "
men are FAR more likely to commit suicide, far more likely to die on the job, far more likely to be the victim of homicide, they live shorter on average, they are more likely to be committed to a mental hospital, they are more likely to be injured at work, they are more likely to be incarcerated, they are less likely to get child custody, etc.
but these sorts only want to talk about how men are oppressors and women are the oppressed.
nuance and balance is not their style.
Some years ago, Schumer's office discovered that Gingrich had on his staff a history prof who had written something about WW II. Imagine that. They twisted an excerpt to make it look as if she favored Nazis. Their allies in the press went along with it. There was no way to correct it, there being no blogosphere and the MSM was actively pushing the Nazi angle.
So Gingrich dumped her. It was a gutless move, but it deprived Schumer (Sack of S*** from NY) of a lever with which to attack Gingrich.
She was so angry that she talked about a wrongful termination lawsuit. Don't know where that went.
So, folks, it looks as if FSR did the same thing--speculating--and deprived the libs of a lever which could, entirely falsely, be used against anything else they may say.
Lib politics is a sort of Gresham's law in another venue.