MoveOn.org went after the wrong person. It’s not about questioning the patriotism of a military officer subordinate to the nation’s 43rd Commander in Chief. It’s more about holding the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States, responsible for his incompetent mismanagement of the national security of the United States, meaning the safety and security of the American people. That portfolio, the Executive branch’s command and control of the nation’s armed forces, ought to be removed from the 43rd President since it has been repeatedly demonstrated that he, George W. Bush, and his national security civilian subordinates are grossly incompetent and have engaged in a willful series of factual misrepresentations to Congress and the People of the United States. These factual misrepresentation led the Unites States to initiate and engaged an unnecessary war in Iraq, while the nation’s main enemy, al Qaeda, stills resides in border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan, six years after that terrorist organization’s September 11th 2001, attack on the United States.
While this President, acting as Commander in Chief, has incompetently pursued a disastrous foreign policy in an already volatile region, his legal counselors developed a legal theory that allows him to do anything he wants as Commander in Chief when the nation’s in a state of national insecurity. This theory of executive power seeks to subvert a commonsensical and transparent reading of the nation’s Constitution; it seeks to imply that powers not stated in the Constitution are greater than those that are.
If there is a “Unitary Executive” theory that the Constitution, as argued by some of the President’s legal counselors, which gives the Executive Officer of the United States government unlimited power (“inherent powers”) because that Officer is the “Commander in Chief,” then the stated powers, as expressed by the Constitution, gives Congress even greater powers, supported by a concept called the “Unitary Legislature.”
Congress, as a whole, represents the collected, unitary voice of the People of the United States; and is it directly answerable and accountable to the People via elections, as opposed to the President who is indirectly elected by the Electoral College. As such, Congress, as represented by the Office of Speaker of the House, has the responsibility to create laws and see that the President, even while performing his role of Commander in Chief, faithfully executes the laws.
Congress, constitutionally, has explicit as well as inherent powers of oversight regarding the Commander in Chief since the U.S. Constitution explicitly states that Congress shall have the power to:
a. raise an army;
b. raise a navy;
c. congressional oversight over military and national security matters
d. raise taxes and appropriate funds to war and military efforts
e. and, most importantly, the power to declare war.
Thus Congress, the legislative branch, has constitutionally a right to check, challenge and remove a Commander in Chief for abuse of power or incompetency in administering that function. Section 2 of the 2nd Article of the Constitution says this and only this about the power of Commander in Chief:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.
It explicitly says nothing about his powers as Commander in Chief. In reality, Congress grants the nation’s Executive Officer the right to wield the power as the Commander in Chief on behalf of the American people. Congress, and only Congress, can declare war. The President, by law, mandated to engage in basic national security defense such as guarding the Nation’s borders and coast, keeping a well-trained defense force. Just as Congress has the right and responsibility to remove the President for high crimes and misdemeanors if he abuses his role as Executive Officer, Congress can either impeached the President for his conduct as Commander in Chief, or remove those powers from him.
In other words, Congress, as the collective representative of the people of the United States, has the power to exercise its command and control over an errant Executive who abuses his power as Commander in Chief.
Thus it could be argued that:
President George W. Bush, Commander in Chief of United States Armed Forces, did engaged in the following high crimes and misdemeanors and warrants impeachment and removal as this United States’ Commander in Chief:
1. The President as “Commander in-chief” misrepresented facts to the Congress and the American people in regard to the country’s need to go to war (“casus belli”) against the state of Iraq. The principle reason was that former President Saddam Hussein was manufacturing and housing Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD);
2. And that Iraq had an operational relation with the terrorist entity Al Qaeda, which attacked the United States on September 11, 2001. No WMDs have been found and Iraq, as evidenced by the 9/11 Commission. Iraq did not participate in Al-Qaeda attack on the United States.
3. The Commander in Chief, as the executive commanding officer of the United States military apparatus, viz.-a-viz, the Department of Defense, had incompetenly prepared for the invasion of Iraq and its post-war occupation. Officers who stated the need for several thousand troops to fight and occupy Iraq were denigrated and isolated to the detriment of the security of the American people. By incompetently preparing for the war, the Commander in Chief failed to get needed material to troops in the field.
4. The National Security Council, Coordinated by the Commander-in-chief’s National Security Adviser, has performed in such as manner as to be more of a threat to the security of the people of the United States than to the country’s actual enemies. Its inability to anticipate, analyze, and coordinate executive departments mandated with the Nation’s security has undermined the Commander-in-chief’s ability to protect and defend the people of the United States, the prime responsibility of the President as Commander in Chief.
5. By invading Iraq, the President as Commander in Chief removed vital resources and personnel who had been fighting Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. To this day, the resurgence of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan is attributed to the incompetent mismanagement of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
6. Contrary to basic United States’ principles and laws, international law, the Commander in Chief has sanctioned the use of torture.
7. The Commander in Chief has sought to undermine the writ of habeas corpus by declaring US citizens “enemy combatants” thus removing them from the jurisdiction and scrutiny of United States Courts.
8. The Commander-in-chief engaged in secret surveillance wiretapping in violation of U.S. laws.
The President, as Commander in Chief, of the United States armed forces, did willfully misrepresent certain facts to the United States Congress regarding the state of Iraq and its president, Saddam Hussein; that country’s relationship with al-Qaeda; Weapons of Mass Destruction, and that alleged state’s participation in the attack on the United States on September 11, 2001.
Congress granted the President an Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq on October 16, 2002, which the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States, fraudulently used to justify an attack on the state of Iraq knowing full well that his Administration’s clams against Iraq were untrue. Section 2 of that authorization states:
That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
It has been well documented that Iraq did not participate in the attack on the United States and it also has been documented that the President knew so but chose to follow a course of action, attacking Iraq, which seriously compromised the nation’s effort to defeat that terrorist organization, Al Qaeda, which did attack the nation on that new day of infamy.
The President, as Commander-in-chief, should be held accountable for his mismanagement of the war in Iraq. As a MBA graduate of Harvard University, the President George W. Bush prides himself on his CEO style of management. However, by any reasonable and professional business practices, standards, and desired outcomes, the President, as the manager of the Nation’s national security apparatus and the national defense, has been an abysmal failure. That failure has dire consequences for the People of the United States.
The Unitary Executive, as articulated by some of the president’s legal counsel, is an assumption of power in which the Executive assumes powers that he does not legally have in the Constitution. Under our Constitution, Congress has a more stated role in National Security affairs than the President as Commander in Chief. As matter of fact, Congress created the National Security Act of 1947, which gave birth to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the National Security Council, National Security Agency, the Department of Defense, and, most importantly, the Central Intelligence Agency.
The Legislative branch not only created the agencies that are under the jurisdiction of the Executive Officer but oversight and a corrective function when that Officer is errant and has unfaithfully executed the laws of this country.
In the view of the Constitution, the Unitary Executive theory is a coup by stealth by an Executive branch that claims powers not stated by the Nation’s controlling political document, the Constitution, which is a “power map,” if you will. That power map, the Constitution, lays out which branches of government have certain powers and each branch’s responsibilities. In the field of national security, the Legislature has a more pronounced set of powers than the Executive. The Unitary Executive argument is a reiteration of the divine right of kings, and prescription for tyranny masquerading as security. In this argument, the king can do no wrong and whatever he likes if he solely deems situations to be a threat to the nation’s security. This theory seeks to subvert the basic American political concept of judicial review; it seeks to circumvent the Judiciary’s role in seeing that the Nation’s laws are faithfully executed.
The United States is a democratic republic, and as such has no king whose power is unlimited. As one of the country’s founding political theorists once argued, “In America the law is the king.”
It is certainly a high crime and misdemeanor to not truthfully inform Congress the reasons for going to war, and fraudulently claim a set of “facts” to justify another action under a false pretense.
When President Bush as the Commander-in-chief of US armed forces, outfitted in a U.S. military flight suit, landed on a United States warship, the USS Abraham Lincoln, and announced that “major hostilities” had ended in Iraq, he willing committed a factual misrepresentation that was either based on defrauding the American people or engaging in a gross and incompetent mismanagement of the early phases of an unnecessary war.
The ”major hostilities” that supposedly had ended became a civil war by competing Iraqi factions due to the Commander in Chief not adequately sending enough troops to maintain order and then breaking up the state of Iraq’s national security infrastructure that could have maintained order and stability as the country tied to new political framework.
Meanwhile, al-Qaeda, under the leadership of Osama bin Ladin, has regrouped and is planning further attacks on the People of the United States and their interests.
Congress therefore should revoke the Authorization for Use of Military Force of 16 October 2002, or amend it to specifically de-authorize the use of military force in Iraq, and redeploy American forces homeward or forward to Afghanistan.
Congress should strip the President of the United States, George W. Bush, of his powers as commander-in-chief and turn such over to the Joint Chiefs, whom shall report to the joint national security committees of Congress. Vice President Dick Cheney should also be impeached for aiding and abetting President Bush’s factual misrepresentation to Congress.
The Joint Chiefs should present to Congress a plan to continue hostilities against Al Qaeda, and present to Congress an assessment of the state of the United Sates armed forces.
The full powers of the Commander in Chief, in the office of the President of the United States, will be returned on January 20, 2009.
While this President, acting as Commander in Chief, has incompetently pursued a disastrous foreign policy in an already volatile region, his legal counselors developed a legal theory that allows him to do anything he wants as Commander in Chief when the nation’s in a state of national insecurity. This theory of executive power seeks to subvert a commonsensical and transparent reading of the nation’s Constitution; it seeks to imply that powers not stated in the Constitution are greater than those that are.
If there is a “Unitary Executive” theory that the Constitution, as argued by some of the President’s legal counselors, which gives the Executive Officer of the United States government unlimited power (“inherent powers”) because that Officer is the “Commander in Chief,” then the stated powers, as expressed by the Constitution, gives Congress even greater powers, supported by a concept called the “Unitary Legislature.”
Congress, as a whole, represents the collected, unitary voice of the People of the United States; and is it directly answerable and accountable to the People via elections, as opposed to the President who is indirectly elected by the Electoral College. As such, Congress, as represented by the Office of Speaker of the House, has the responsibility to create laws and see that the President, even while performing his role of Commander in Chief, faithfully executes the laws.
Congress, constitutionally, has explicit as well as inherent powers of oversight regarding the Commander in Chief since the U.S. Constitution explicitly states that Congress shall have the power to:
a. raise an army;
b. raise a navy;
c. congressional oversight over military and national security matters
d. raise taxes and appropriate funds to war and military efforts
e. and, most importantly, the power to declare war.
Thus Congress, the legislative branch, has constitutionally a right to check, challenge and remove a Commander in Chief for abuse of power or incompetency in administering that function. Section 2 of the 2nd Article of the Constitution says this and only this about the power of Commander in Chief:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.
It explicitly says nothing about his powers as Commander in Chief. In reality, Congress grants the nation’s Executive Officer the right to wield the power as the Commander in Chief on behalf of the American people. Congress, and only Congress, can declare war. The President, by law, mandated to engage in basic national security defense such as guarding the Nation’s borders and coast, keeping a well-trained defense force. Just as Congress has the right and responsibility to remove the President for high crimes and misdemeanors if he abuses his role as Executive Officer, Congress can either impeached the President for his conduct as Commander in Chief, or remove those powers from him.
In other words, Congress, as the collective representative of the people of the United States, has the power to exercise its command and control over an errant Executive who abuses his power as Commander in Chief.
Thus it could be argued that:
President George W. Bush, Commander in Chief of United States Armed Forces, did engaged in the following high crimes and misdemeanors and warrants impeachment and removal as this United States’ Commander in Chief:
1. The President as “Commander in-chief” misrepresented facts to the Congress and the American people in regard to the country’s need to go to war (“casus belli”) against the state of Iraq. The principle reason was that former President Saddam Hussein was manufacturing and housing Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD);
2. And that Iraq had an operational relation with the terrorist entity Al Qaeda, which attacked the United States on September 11, 2001. No WMDs have been found and Iraq, as evidenced by the 9/11 Commission. Iraq did not participate in Al-Qaeda attack on the United States.
3. The Commander in Chief, as the executive commanding officer of the United States military apparatus, viz.-a-viz, the Department of Defense, had incompetenly prepared for the invasion of Iraq and its post-war occupation. Officers who stated the need for several thousand troops to fight and occupy Iraq were denigrated and isolated to the detriment of the security of the American people. By incompetently preparing for the war, the Commander in Chief failed to get needed material to troops in the field.
4. The National Security Council, Coordinated by the Commander-in-chief’s National Security Adviser, has performed in such as manner as to be more of a threat to the security of the people of the United States than to the country’s actual enemies. Its inability to anticipate, analyze, and coordinate executive departments mandated with the Nation’s security has undermined the Commander-in-chief’s ability to protect and defend the people of the United States, the prime responsibility of the President as Commander in Chief.
5. By invading Iraq, the President as Commander in Chief removed vital resources and personnel who had been fighting Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. To this day, the resurgence of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan is attributed to the incompetent mismanagement of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
6. Contrary to basic United States’ principles and laws, international law, the Commander in Chief has sanctioned the use of torture.
7. The Commander in Chief has sought to undermine the writ of habeas corpus by declaring US citizens “enemy combatants” thus removing them from the jurisdiction and scrutiny of United States Courts.
8. The Commander-in-chief engaged in secret surveillance wiretapping in violation of U.S. laws.
The President, as Commander in Chief, of the United States armed forces, did willfully misrepresent certain facts to the United States Congress regarding the state of Iraq and its president, Saddam Hussein; that country’s relationship with al-Qaeda; Weapons of Mass Destruction, and that alleged state’s participation in the attack on the United States on September 11, 2001.
Congress granted the President an Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq on October 16, 2002, which the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States, fraudulently used to justify an attack on the state of Iraq knowing full well that his Administration’s clams against Iraq were untrue. Section 2 of that authorization states:
That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
It has been well documented that Iraq did not participate in the attack on the United States and it also has been documented that the President knew so but chose to follow a course of action, attacking Iraq, which seriously compromised the nation’s effort to defeat that terrorist organization, Al Qaeda, which did attack the nation on that new day of infamy.
The President, as Commander-in-chief, should be held accountable for his mismanagement of the war in Iraq. As a MBA graduate of Harvard University, the President George W. Bush prides himself on his CEO style of management. However, by any reasonable and professional business practices, standards, and desired outcomes, the President, as the manager of the Nation’s national security apparatus and the national defense, has been an abysmal failure. That failure has dire consequences for the People of the United States.
The Unitary Executive, as articulated by some of the president’s legal counsel, is an assumption of power in which the Executive assumes powers that he does not legally have in the Constitution. Under our Constitution, Congress has a more stated role in National Security affairs than the President as Commander in Chief. As matter of fact, Congress created the National Security Act of 1947, which gave birth to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the National Security Council, National Security Agency, the Department of Defense, and, most importantly, the Central Intelligence Agency.
The Legislative branch not only created the agencies that are under the jurisdiction of the Executive Officer but oversight and a corrective function when that Officer is errant and has unfaithfully executed the laws of this country.
In the view of the Constitution, the Unitary Executive theory is a coup by stealth by an Executive branch that claims powers not stated by the Nation’s controlling political document, the Constitution, which is a “power map,” if you will. That power map, the Constitution, lays out which branches of government have certain powers and each branch’s responsibilities. In the field of national security, the Legislature has a more pronounced set of powers than the Executive. The Unitary Executive argument is a reiteration of the divine right of kings, and prescription for tyranny masquerading as security. In this argument, the king can do no wrong and whatever he likes if he solely deems situations to be a threat to the nation’s security. This theory seeks to subvert the basic American political concept of judicial review; it seeks to circumvent the Judiciary’s role in seeing that the Nation’s laws are faithfully executed.
The United States is a democratic republic, and as such has no king whose power is unlimited. As one of the country’s founding political theorists once argued, “In America the law is the king.”
It is certainly a high crime and misdemeanor to not truthfully inform Congress the reasons for going to war, and fraudulently claim a set of “facts” to justify another action under a false pretense.
When President Bush as the Commander-in-chief of US armed forces, outfitted in a U.S. military flight suit, landed on a United States warship, the USS Abraham Lincoln, and announced that “major hostilities” had ended in Iraq, he willing committed a factual misrepresentation that was either based on defrauding the American people or engaging in a gross and incompetent mismanagement of the early phases of an unnecessary war.
The ”major hostilities” that supposedly had ended became a civil war by competing Iraqi factions due to the Commander in Chief not adequately sending enough troops to maintain order and then breaking up the state of Iraq’s national security infrastructure that could have maintained order and stability as the country tied to new political framework.
Meanwhile, al-Qaeda, under the leadership of Osama bin Ladin, has regrouped and is planning further attacks on the People of the United States and their interests.
Congress therefore should revoke the Authorization for Use of Military Force of 16 October 2002, or amend it to specifically de-authorize the use of military force in Iraq, and redeploy American forces homeward or forward to Afghanistan.
Congress should strip the President of the United States, George W. Bush, of his powers as commander-in-chief and turn such over to the Joint Chiefs, whom shall report to the joint national security committees of Congress. Vice President Dick Cheney should also be impeached for aiding and abetting President Bush’s factual misrepresentation to Congress.
The Joint Chiefs should present to Congress a plan to continue hostilities against Al Qaeda, and present to Congress an assessment of the state of the United Sates armed forces.
The full powers of the Commander in Chief, in the office of the President of the United States, will be returned on January 20, 2009.
No comments:
Post a Comment