Nations are arbitrary
constructs. That is, nations come into being as the result of forms of
governance that cannot be demonstrated, beyond a reasonable doubt, to give
expression to the way things ‘ought’ to be in a certain geographic area.
Nations are always, and
everywhere, parasitic upon the people who are encompassed by, if not enslaved
within, the arbitrarily arranged boundaries and arbitrarily determined manner
of organizing what goes on within those borders. Nations seek to induce their
people – as if people were the possessions of nations -- to cede their moral
and intellectual agency to the service of ‘leaders’ who are primarily
self-serving ideological psychopaths (whether this is filtered through
religious, economic, philosophical, racial, militaristic, and/or financial
colors).
The history of nations is
universally one of: oppression, exploitation, murder, conflict, war,
discrimination, dishonesty, abuse, manipulation, vested interests, theft,
injustice, callousness, enslavement, irresponsibility, impulsiveness, and
destruction. However, in the best tradition of ideological psychopathy, those
histories tend to be glorified through self-aggrandizing literary constructions
which use misinformation, disinformation, and falsehoods to paint a historical
portrait of a nation that tends to distort the truth of things.
Moreover, that kind of
historical propaganda is used to shape the thoughts, beliefs, attitudes,
values, and behavior of people in order to persuade the latter individuals that
they have a duty or obligation to service the needs of a nation. People are
encouraged to believe that the interests of a nation are synonymous with their
interests ... that what is ‘good’ for the ‘national interests’ is automatically
and necessarily what is ‘good’ for the people living within the borders of that
nation or good for the people living elsewhere.
‘National interests’ are
code words for that which serves those who either have, or want to have,
control of people and resources. ‘National interests’ are euphemistic code
words for the ‘way of power.’
National interests are considered
by some to be sacred. The way of power is the holy road for realizing those
interests.
The role of individuals
is to bow down in submission and utter gratitude before their ‘god’ – the state
or nation. The role of individuals is to be ready to sacrifice themselves,
their families, their resources, and their communities in order to appease
their ‘god’ – the state or nation.
The state is a jealous
god. It will not countenance worship of anything but itself and will treat as
blasphemous the words of anyone who alludes to a ‘reality’ other than what has
been revealed to the ‘prophets’ (founders) and ‘apostles’ (judicial
interpreters) of the state.
Those who reject the
revealed truths of the nation concerning the nature of duty are apostates.
Those who do not wish to be oppressed, exploited, and manipulated by the
nation-deity are infidels.
Apostates and infidels
are allegedly guilty of treason against the so-called moral imperative of the nation/state.
Those treasonous wretches surely deserve to become outcasts among civilized peoples.
There is an experiment conducted
by Stanley Milgram that is relevant here. The experiment which I have in mind
is different from the learning/memory-shock study explored in an earlier posting (A Critique of Two Experiments).
More specifically,
Milgram instructed a number of his graduate students to venture forth into the
subway system of New York City. Their task would be to ask subway patrons to
give up their seats so that the graduate student could sit down even though
there was no apparent reason – such as illness, disability, elderliness, or the
like – why a person who was sitting down should give up her or his seat to a
perfect stranger.
As was the case in the
‘learning/memory’ experiment conducted in the early 1960s, Milgram had no
specific hypothesis about what subway patrons would do under those
circumstances. He wanted to see what would happen and, then, try to figure out
the social dynamics after the fact.
A number of graduate
students came back to Milgram and indicated that they were having difficulty
with their role in the experiment. They couldn’t bring themselves to ask
sitting subway patrons to give up their seat so that the graduate students
would be able to sit down.
Milgram was annoyed with
their reports. Consequently, he descended into the bowels of the New York City
subway system himself to show his graduate students how it was done.
Strangely, just as had
been the case with some of his student assistants, Milgram found that he
couldn’t voice the request. He would stand before a sitting subject and feel
helpless as the required words became stuck in his throat.
In the process, Milgram
discovered that there are social forces in existence which are so powerful --
even in relation to what appear to be very simple situations unrelated to
issues of power and authority -- that can, among other things, impede a
person’s ability to voice a seemingly simple request. Those forces tend to
dominate even in circumstances when a person is strongly motivated – as Milgram
was – to speak.
A person sitting in a
subway seat is only likely to do so many things in relation to the foregoing
request ... assuming, of course, that obvious gang members are eliminated from
the subject pool. The sitting individual can give up the seat or refuse to do
so.
In the latter case, the
refusal can be polite or impolite. If impolite, one’s ego is likely to be the
recipient of some sort of verbal abuse and, in addition, there could be a
degree of belittling body language that might be offered up by the sitting
subway patron as well.
Depending on how, where,
or when the experimental request is made, there might, or might not be, other
subway patrons who are observing what is taking place. If there are such
witnesses, then the force of rejection – if not conflict/antagonism -- becomes
intensified and, consequently, gives rise to a more unpleasant set of events
with which the experimenters must deal.
Nations take advantage of
the foregoing social phenomenon. Not only are people socialized into not asking
strangers for their seats when there is no justifiable reason for doing so,
but, as well, people are socialized into not asking people of power to give up
their seats of authority even when there are justifiable reasons for doing so.
In fact, many people
cannot bring themselves to say anything. Like Milgram, their words become stuck
somewhere within themselves.
Of course, the situation
with authority figures is different from the people sitting in a subway. The
latter individuals are unlikely to react with physical violence, and, moreover,
they have little capacity – except for a few words of sarcasm or criticism,
along with accompanying body language and/or facial expressions – to punish
someone who asks them to give up his or her seat, whereas the individuals
sitting in power have an array of punishments that can be brought to bear on
the individual who dares to request or suggest that the people in authority
give up her or his seat in the governmental counterpart to the New York City
subway system.
-----
The template for
nationalistic and commercial behavior in the Americas was set by, among others:
Columbus in conjunction with the Arawaks of the Bahamas; Cortes in relation to
the Aztecs in Mexico; Pizarro and his treatment of the Incas in Peru; the
settlers of Jamestown with respect to the Powhatan-led Indian Confederacy in
Virginia, and the Puritans interaction with the Pequot Indians in Rhode Island
and Connecticut. Via the foregoing template, millions of Indians were
slaughtered and millions of acres of land were confiscated so that the royalty
and financial interests in Europe and America could earn profits and claim
resources to which they had no right.
In an attempt to justify
the foregoing slaughter and theft, Europeans and Americans sometimes made a
distinction between ‘natural rights’ and ‘civil rights.’ While white
Europeans/’Americans’ were sometimes willing to acknowledge that Indians had
‘natural rights’ with respect to the land and its resources, the visitors to
the New World also said that those ‘natural rights’ did not have the legal
standing that civil rights did.
Civil rights were those
which were ritualistically recognized by arbitrary systems of laws that were
generated by arbitrary systems of governance. The forms of governance, systems
of laws, and instances of recognition were arbitrary because they couldn’t be
justified in a way with which everyone could agree beyond a reasonable doubt.
Civil rights had legal
standing while natural rights did not have legal standing because, by
definition, this was the manner in which those legal systems were structured.
Those sorts of legal systems only recognized the validity of the logic that was
given expression through the ‘way of power’ that authorized those laws ... it
was tautological in character.
Something was true or
valid because a source of power said something was true or valid. Laws – and
their derivative civil rights – acquired legitimacy through proclamation -- and
those ‘rights’ could be proclaimed out of existence just as easily.
Civil rights depend on
the network of arbitrary laws promulgated by a given system of arbitrary
governance. For those who have been socialized into that sort of an arbitrary
system, it seems commonsensical to consider those rights to be superior to
natural rights even though civil rights are entirely arbitrary, while natural
rights – properly understood -- can be shown, beyond a reasonable doubt, to constitute a
way forward that is capable of being justified.
From the perspective of
Europeans, the enjoyment of civil rights by the commercial and governmental
agents of a nation entitled those people to kill, enslave, steal, rape, and
oppress whomever and whatever they liked – especially those who were only
protected by ‘natural rights’ – since, as indicated earlier, ‘civil rights’ had
legal standing, whereas ‘natural rights’ had no legal standing.
The idea of ‘natural
rights’ constitutes a threat to the idea of ‘civil rights.’ After all, if
natural rights actually exist, then they have existential priority over civil
rights since ‘natural rights’ existed prior to the formation of any form of
governance, state, nation, or legal system.
‘Natural rights’ also
constitute a threat to the legitimacy of governance, states, nations and legal
systems because those rights are not derived from the activity of government
but, instead, precede that activity. As a result, forms of governance that
cannot be reconciled with those ‘natural rights’ are revealed to be arbitrarily
constructed.
When the idea of
‘national interests’ is invoked, those invocations tend to be based on the
premise that the interests of a nation have priority over civil rights, just as
civil rights are considered by some to have priority over natural rights. In
other words, those arguments suppose that national interests have a greater
legal standing than do either civil or natural rights.
Those kinds of arguments
cannot be justified. They only can be advanced through a way of power whose
tactics of violence, exploitation, oppression, and manipulation serve to
express their own brand of ‘logic’ ... a form of ‘logic’ which might be able to
influence, but can never justify, what takes place through the exercise of
power.
Whatever the public
relations officers for a nation might say, the ‘state’ tends to be inherently
opposed to the sovereignty of the individuals who fall within the borders of
the geographical area associated with that state. National interests are very
difficult to reconcile, if this can be done at all, with the principle of
individual sovereignty, because, generally speaking, national interests – such
as power and control -- require people to be willing to sacrifice their own
sovereignty in order for the given goal(s) of national interests to be
realized.
The Preamble to the
Philadelphia Constitution indicates that the national interests of the United
States should be a function of: forming a more perfect union, establishing
justice, insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense,
promoting the general welfare, and securing blessings of liberty. In practice,
however, national interests in America – as elsewhere – have become a function
of whatever the people in power decide will advance the agenda of the way of
power, and, as a result, perfection, justice, tranquility, defense, welfare,
and liberty – to the extent they are considered at all (and, frequently, they
are not) -- are filtered through the colored lenses of various machinations of
power.
For instance, according
to some people, the Civil War was necessary because, in effect, that war was in
the service of national interests – that is, among other reasons it was
supposedly fought in order to hold the United States together as one nation.
I’m not certain what the argument is that justifies the loss of nearly 600,000
lives, along with millions of others who were severely wounded, tortured in
prisoner of war camps, lost their homes and families, as well as became
economically, if not politically, oppressed – not to mention the bitterness
that has been generated and lasted for more than a hundred years -- so that a
bunch of states operating in accordance with vested interests could remain a
nation.
What is the nature of the
metric which enables one to demonstrate that national unity is worth the lives
of so many people? How does one organize the liabilities and assets of such an
existential ledger to demonstrate that preserving the nation constituted a net
gain despite the tsunami of destruction that swept over the lives of millions
of individuals during and after the Civil War?
At one point, Lincoln had
argued – incorporating ideas from Daniel Webster – that because the
Constitution had been ratified by the people, then, only the people –
considered as a whole – had a right to dissolve the Union. However, Lincoln’s
understanding of history is a little distorted since a considerable amount of
evidence can be put forth (and some of that evidence has been explored in earlier postings to this blog) to indicate that the people, as a whole,
did not ratify the Constitution, but, rather, only a very limited, select
portion of the people got a chance to participate in the process ... a process
that, in many ways, was both corrupt and corrupted.
The way of power had been
used to forge the United States. Lincoln wanted to use the same way of power –
this time manifested in the form of the Civil War -- to continue to force on
people the sort of Union that really only served the interests of the few –
both on the level of state and federal government.
Whatever the arguments
are that seek to justify preserving national interests over human lives those
arguments require one to devalue the sovereignty of individuals so that the
idea of national interests might endure. One cannot set events in motion that
which will lead to the death and destruction of the lives of hundreds of
thousands of people without devaluing the sovereignty of those individuals
whose lives are destroyed quite independently of their wishes.
Of course, someone might want
to respond to the foregoing considerations by claiming that no one could have
predicted how the war would unfold. No one intended that what happened would or
should happen.
The same sort of
principle holds in relation to war as holds in a courtroom. In other words,
just as is true in the case of a lawyer who doesn’t know the answer to a
question that such a question shouldn’t be asked, then, similarly, if people
don’t know what the outcome of a war will be, then, perhaps it shouldn’t be
waged.
Quite frankly, in stark
contrast to the moving gravitas of, say, the Gettysburg Address, on the night
that the Civil War began, Lincoln maneuvered the South into firing on Fort
Sumter – which actually belonged to South Carolina – to prevent the North from
further reinforcing a fort that the North had confiscated. The South was made
to appear the aggressor when it was merely trying to reclaim a facility that
was continuing to be occupied by Northern troops despite the South’s repeated
attempts to peacefully resolve the problem.
Furthermore, despite the
fact that no Northern troops were killed or injured by the South on that
occasion, Lincoln used the events at Ft. Sumter to declare war on the South. As
a result, several weeks later, Lincoln authorized, without Congressional
approval, a naval blockade of Sothern ports.
The naval blockade was
about collecting tariffs, and, thereby, it helped to perpetuate the nearly
forty-year tariff conflict which had been waged by Northern financial interests
against the labor-intensive Southern states. Thus, the blockade – as was true of
the rest of the war -- was primarily about control and money rather than being
a matter of preserving the Union for ‘We the People.’
For most people –
including Lincoln -- the idea of freeing the slaves via the Civil War did not
arise until after that conflict had been underway for some time. In fact, for a
long time Lincoln believed that the best solution to the problem of slavery –
and Lincoln was very much a white-supremacist – would be to ship people of
color to some country in Africa or the Caribbean. Moreover, at the beginning of
the Civil War there were more northern states that supported slavery than there
were southern states that did so.
Moreover, even if the
idea of freeing the slaves had been part of the reason why it would be in the
alleged national interests to fight the Civil War, the lives of people of color
continued to be devalued both in the North and the South for more than another
hundred years after the Civil War ended. Therefore, to whatever extent the
sovereignty of people of color was part of the national interests at the time
of the Civil War, that purpose was never served very well by the war.
The Civil War was
primarily fought due to an array of economic and political considerations.
Those considerations were largely a matter of which group of bankers,
entrepreneurs, financial interests and politicians would be able to control the
United States commercially, financially, and politically. Whether
states-rights-oriented or federalist-rights-oriented financial interests get to
call the shots makes little difference to the individuals whose sovereignty was
not actually championed by any of the economic and political forces that led to
the Civil War.
Many people seem to
forget that Lincoln had been a top-tier lawyer and lobbyist for the railroads
prior to becoming President. Railroads were part of the Northern power base
that created the Republican Party and financed Lincoln’s election run.
After Lincoln became
President, railroads were the recipients of a great deal of government subsidies
and largesse. Moreover, as president, Lincoln also served the interests of
northern manufacturers – who also financed his Presidential bid -- by
instituting tariffs that would give Northern entrepreneurs a distinct advantage
relative to their Southern counterparts.
Lincoln used the military
to imprison tens of thousands of Northern critics of the war. In addition, he
closed down more than 300 newspapers because they had the audacity to question
his judgment.
On orders from Lincoln,
Ohio congressman Clement L. Vallandigham was arrested by nearly 70 armed
federal soldiers, imprisoned, tried by a military tribunal, and, then, forcibly
deported to Canada. The congressman’s crime, apparently, was that he gave a
speech in the House of Representatives which criticized Lincoln’s suspension of
habeas corpus as well as the President’s tendency to violate the Philadelphia
Constitution.
The federal government
was confiscating firearms from people. Government officials in Maryland were
being imprisoned. People were
being incarcerated without due process.
A number of federal
judges were detained for a period of time via Lincoln’s decisions. In addition,
Lincoln arranged for an arrest warrant to be issued for the chief justice of
the Supreme Court.
Lincoln often considered
anyone who disagreed with him or his policies to be guilty of treason. Such a
perspective was not about the interests of ‘We the People,’ but, rather, that
perspective gave expression to Lincoln’s belief that his paranoid delusions
concerning the way things were or should be were more important than the
sovereignty of people.
Many political prisoners
during the Civil War were sent to Fort Lafayette in New York harbor. When
members of Congress inquired about whether, or not, constituents of theirs had
been incarcerated at the Fort, they were told by the Lincoln administration
that providing such information was not in the national interests.
None of the foregoing
events were about serving: ‘We the People.’ They were entirely an expression of
the way in which power seeks to control or eliminate anyone who threatens what
certain individuals (the so-called ‘leaders’) consider to be in the national
interests ... that is, the interests of the way of power.
Lincoln had become – if
he was not always this way – an ideological psychopath. All that was important
to him was his own beliefs, interests, and goals, and, he didn’t care how many
people had to die or how many lives had to be destroyed in the process ...
moreover, like a lot of ideological psychopaths, he was facile with language
and could use that skill set, without any sign of remorse on his part -- to
manipulate, exploit, and abuse people.
More than a hundred years
later, a number of presidential administrations used Lincoln’s behavior as
justification for perpetrating many of the same kinds of abuses as were set in
motion by Lincoln ... and with the same underlying argument – national
interests. All those administrations have succeeded in doing is demonstrating
their own forms of ideological psychopathy.
-----
During the Second World
War, Ho Chi Minh had fought against the Japanese forces that had invaded and
occupied Indochina. After the war ended, Ho Chi Minh, together with others who
had fought alongside him, issued a declaration of independence – patterned,
somewhat, after the American document – with respect to the unjustifiable
actions of another previous invader and occupier of Indochina – France.
France had perpetrated
many crimes against the Vietnamese people. The French had confiscated lands and
resources, taxed the people mercilessly, and either imprisoned or killed anyone
who spoke out against those abuses and forms of exploitation.
The French – no doubt due
to reasons of national interest – had decided that the Vietnamese should
subsidize a variety of French vested interests. At one point, the French had
disrupted the economy of Vietnam to such an extent that more than two million
Vietnamese starved to death when the French confiscated – and let rot – all
available rice.
In 1941, Churchill and
Roosevelt had met off the coast of Newfoundland. They drew up what is referred
to as the Atlantic Charter. Supposedly, the charter was an affirmation of the
right of self-determination for all peoples ... that is, the right of all
peoples to determine how they would govern themselves.
Shortly after the war
ended, the United States was encouraging Britain – the ones occupying South
Vietnam at the time -- to return control of southern Vietnam to the French.
Britain, being a civilized country, complied with the request, and everyone
‘forgot’ all about the Atlantic Charter.
In October of 1946, the
French began to bomb the port city of Haiphong in northern Vietnam. A war
ensued that lasted approximately eight years.
Beginning in 1953, the
United States supplied the French with arms. By 1954, America was underwriting
nearly 80% of the French war effort in Vietnam.
The Vietnamese had not
invaded the United States. The Vietnamese had not invaded France.
Yet, the national
interests – i.e., control, power, theft, and profits -- of France and America
apparently required that Vietnam be invaded, occupied and controlled by France.
The Atlantic Charter meant nothing ... in fact, like the many treaty and
agreements that were signed by the United States with respect to Indians in
America, such agreements were just pieces of paper that were not to be taken
seriously and, as a result, they could be broken – and were -- whenever the way
of power decided that duplicitous behavior was ‘necessary and proper.’
In 1954, the French were
militarily forced to withdraw from North Vietnam. An agreement was reached in
Geneva to permit the French to temporarily occupy South Vietnam, while the
Vietminh would continue to rule in North Vietnam.
A further facet of the
foregoing agreement was that elections were to be held in two years. Supposedly,
the Vietnamese were going to be given the opportunity to unify Vietnam through
free elections in which the Vietnamese people would be able to determine their
own form of governance.
The United States induced
Ngo Dinh Diem, who had been living in New Jersey, to: Return to Saigon, head up
the government there, and resist any efforts which might be made with respect
to fulfilling the conditions of the Geneva agreement involving free elections. The
latter step was necessary because U.S. intelligence reports indicated that if
elections were held, Diem, along with the network of landlords who had
connections to the military and were running South Vietnam, would lose.
Diem was a Catholic in a
largely Buddhist country. He was also a friend of the rich and powerful in
South Vietnam who oppressed the largely peasant population of that area.
Diem ran a corrupt regime
in which imprisonment, or worse, was used as the means to stifle criticisms of
the corruption. The United States government fully supported Diem.
The agreement made in
Geneva indicated that the United States would be permitted to have 685 advisors
in South Vietnam. President Eisenhower secretly violated the agreement and
ordered several thousand military personal to be sent into that country, and,
subsequently, President Kennedy exacerbated things by not only deploying some
16,000 troops to South Vietnam, but, as well, he permitted those troops to take
part in combat missions.
The foregoing escalations
were deemed to be necessary because Diem’s position in South Vietnam was
becoming increasingly unpopular and, therefore, untenable. With the assistance
of a CIA agent, Lucien Conein, and the American Ambassador for South Vietnam,
Henry Cabot Lodge, a coup was set in motion in November, 1963 and Diem was
murdered ... three weeks later, Kennedy was also assassinated.
Publically, Truman,
Eisenhower and Kennedy spoke about the value of freedom versus the totalitarian
nature of Communism. Privately, they supported the French occupation of South
Vietnam, subsidized war against North Vietnam, as well as actively violated or
worked against the Geneva Accords and the Atlantic Charter which had called for
the Vietnamese people, among others, to be able to determine their own
political fortunes.
Ho Chi Minh was not a
communist but a nationalist who fought for self-determination (against the
French, the Japanese, the French again, and, finally, the Americans) and who
also fought to enable peasants to be able to take economic control of their own
lives. What was at stake in Southeast Asia was not the realization of the
domino theory – a theory for which there was no substantiating evidence either
before or after Vietnam – but, rather, the loss of American access to, and
control of, a variety of resources including: rubber, teak, corn, rice, spices,
oil, and tin ... not to mention all the money which was being made through
war-profiteering.
In August 1964, the Gulf
of Tonkin event was invented. President Johnson used a non-event to start a
full-scale war with North Vietnam.
According to American
officials, the U.S.S. Maddox, a destroyer, had been on a routine mission in
international waters when it was attacked in an unprovoked manner. However, the
ship was not in international waters but was operating in coastal waters
controlled by North Vietnam, and the ship’s mission was anything but a routine
one since it was using electronic surveillance to spy on the North Vietnamese,
just as the United States had used a Gary Powers’/CIA operated U-2 plane to spy
on the Soviet Union in 1960.
Violating territorial
waters and engaging in spying activities is entirely a matter of provocative
activity ... if the North Vietnamese actually had attacked, which they didn’t.
However, official U.S. reports to the contrary, the North Vietnamese never
fired torpedoes at the U.S.S. Maddox.
Just as the fictional
slaughter of incubator babies in Kuwait by Iraqis (the story was tearfully sold
by the 15-year old daughter of the Emir of Kuwait and was organized by the
public relations giant Hill and Knowlton) was used to induce Congress to pass a
resolution concerning war with respect to Iraq in the first Gulf War, so too,
the alleged North Vietnamese attack was used as a pretext to induce Congress to
pass the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution to enable President Johnson to substantially
escalate the war in Vietnam. The
foregoing scenarios are similar in a number of ways to the manner in which
President Lincoln used the non-event of Fort Sumter -- in which no Northern
troops were killed or injured as a result of Southern activities – and which,
in any event, had been maneuvered by President Lincoln as a pretext for
labeling the South as an aggressor in order to be able ‘justify’ declaring war
on the South.
More than 50,000 American
soldiers died in Vietnam. Hundreds of thousands more were wounded and scarred
for life ... and, in passing, one might
note that one of the largest segments of the homeless population in
America consist of Vietnam veterans, although that percentage is now being
challenged by an increasing number of veterans from wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Millions of people in
Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos also lost their lives, families, and homes. Their
countries were saturated with toxic Agent Orange, just as countries in the
Middle East recently (over the last twenty-four years or so) have since been
saturated with the toxicity of depleted uranium.
The International Red
Cross reported that during the Vietnam War up to 70,000 Vietnamese were
detained in prison camps in South Vietnam. Many of those individuals were, with
U.S. assistance, beaten and tortured ... and, therefore, Abu Ghraib and
Guantanamo are not really new and startling developments -- just more of the
same.
The foregoing prison
camps were augmented by ‘Operation Phoenix’ which was run by the CIA in
Vietnam. More than 20,000 Vietnamese civilians were executed through that
program which, surely, was serving ‘national interests.’
As President Lincoln did
in the South during the Civil War, President Johnson also did in South Vietnam.
A scorched-earth policy was pursued and whole towns, cities, and jungles were
destroyed ... women, children, and old people were all considered to be targets
of opportunity.
The manner in which war
was conducted in Vietnam was a bright and shining expression of ideological
psychopathy, just as had been the case in the Civil War. ‘National interests’
in both cases was not about: Perfecting the union; establishing justice;
ensuring domestic tranquility; providing for the common defense; promoting the
general welfare, or securing liberty, but, rather, such ‘national interests’
were about promoting the agenda of ideological psychopaths with respect to
issues of control, power, war profiteering, and making the world free for corporations.
-----
On March 19, 2003, the
United States launched ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom.’ The mission was not only
supposed to protect America from the weapons of mass destruction (nuclear,
biological, and chemical) which Saddam Hussein allegedly possessed and,
supposedly, was ready to use, but, as well, Operation Iraqi Freedom was going
to free Iraq from years of oppression, exploitation, and abuse by a vicious
dictator.
The foregoing operation
achieved neither of its stated objectives. The goal of protecting Americans
against weapons of mass destruction was not realized because Saddam Hussein
didn’t have any such weapons – something that United Nations weapons inspectors
Scott Ritter and Hans Blix had been telling the West for quite some time.
The goal of freeing Iraqi
people also was not realized. This is because, despite the appealing sounding
name of ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom,’ the United States became a military and
economic occupier of Iraq rather than its liberator.
On May 8, 2003 the United
States sent a letter to the United Nations Security Council which outlined the
alleged intentions of the Coalition Provisional Authority that, in the near
future, would begin occupying Iraq. Two days earlier, Paul Bremer III had been
appointed to head up the CPA, and he would, in effect, replace Jay Garner who,
since January 20, 2003, had been running the Office of Reconstruction and
Humanitarian Assistance at the Defense Department ... an agency that had been
busily planning for a post-war Iraq.
Garner, who was a
general, wanted to put Iraqis in charge of their own self-determination – both
political and economic -- as quickly as possible. He arrived in Baghdad on
April 23, 2003, several weeks after the fall of that city, and was told by
Rumsfeld on the night of Garner’s arrival that Garner was going to be replaced
in a month’s time by Paul Bremer III who, aside from a number of years in the
State Department, also had been managing director of Kissinger Associates, as
well as the CEO and chairman of Crisis Consulting Practice for the insurance
company Marsh and McLennan.
In 2001, Bremer had
written a paper that provided an overview of the sorts of problems that would
be encountered by multinational corporations during the process of
globalization. In the paper, he described the destructive ramifications which
would accrue to local populations as multinational corporations undertook
policies of globalization, but Bremer stipulated that those sorts of problems
were a necessary by-product of a process that, in time, supposedly would bring
benefits to that local population.
In 2003, Bremer was given
the opportunity to put theory into practice. As a result, he began implementing
the policies outlined in the 2001 paper – knowing that those policies would
have a destructive impact on the Iraqi people.
According to the
aforementioned U.S. letter to the United Nations Security Council, America was
going to temporarily occupy and rule over Iraq. The Americans indicated that
the administration of Iraq would employ power only as much as was necessary to
successfully bridge the time needed to reach a point when the Iraqi people
would begin to rule themselves. In the meantime, the United States would
undertake to oversee the running of Iraq in a responsible fashion that would
deliver humanitarian relief, provide for the re-construction of the Iraqi
economy and infrastructure, as well as regulate its financial and resource
sectors.
The U.N. Security Council
approved the U.S. proposal for Iraq on May 22, 2003. However, the Security
Council added a few provisions which were intended to guide the efforts of the
CPA.
The Security Council
wanted to ensure that the focus of the CPA would be on providing for the
security, stability, and welfare of the Iraqi people. In addition, the Council
emphasized the right of the Iraqi people with respect to self-determination.
Moreover, the resolution
of the U.N. Security Council also stipulated that the CPA was bound by both
Hague Regulations of 1907 and the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Previously, the
United States had ratified both documents.
Article 43 of the Hague
Regulations – which is mirrored almost exactly in the U.S. Army’s laws
concerning the conduct of land warfare – indicates that one of the
responsibilities of an occupying force is to administer the life of an occupied
country in such a way that the basic necessities of life for the people in the
occupied country will be provided for – including electricity, drinking water,
street safety. Article 43 of the Hague Regulations also indicates that an
occupying force is not permitted to make any changes in the occupied country
beyond what is needed to deliver the foregoing services.
During its occupation of
Iraq, the United States repeatedly violated the conditions for being an occupying
force. More specifically, not only did the United States violate the Security
Council Resolution concerning the CPA, but as well, the United States violated
the conditions of the Geneva Conventions, the Hague Regulations, and the
provision of the U.S. Army’s own manual concerning the Law of Land Warfare.
The Bremer Rules (a list
of one hundred edicts) that were put into effect in Iraq between May 6, 2003
and June 28, 2004 were in direct conflict with established international law –
i.e., The Hague Regulations and The Geneva Conventions – as well as Security
Council Resolution 1438 which had granted the CPA approval to serve as a
temporary occupying force in Iraq. The Bremer Rules reflected, in considerable
detail, the contents of a hundred-plus page document written by Bearing Point,
Inc. that had been given an initial three-year contract – later renewed for an
additional three years – by the United States to provide technical and
consulting support to the U.S. Agency for International Development with
respect to restructuring the Iraq economy.
The essence of the
foregoing collaboration was intended to move Iraq away from an economy that
was, in many respects, controlled by the state, and toward an economy dominated
by privatization, free markets, and free trade. As I pointed out in an earlier
posting, the term: “free” in the foregoing sort of context is intended to apply
only to corporations and not necessarily to the people who will be impacted by that
corporate freedom ... ‘free trade’ and ‘free markets’ refer to the ability of
private businesses to do whatever they deem to be necessary to turn a profit
irrespective of how those activities affect people beyond the horizons of that
business.
According to the U.N.
Security Council Resolution 1438 as well as The Hague Regulations, an occupying
force was not permitted to make any changes to the country being occupied that
were not directly related to providing the people being occupied with the basic
necessities of life. Bremer, Bearing Point, Inc. and the United States had
other ideas concerning the provisions of Resolution 1438.
In effect, Bremer became
the ‘emperor’ of Iraq. The Iraqi people had been relieved of one tyrant – i.e.,
Hussein – to become entangled with someone –i.e., Bremer -- who was, in many
ways, far worse than Saddam.
Bremer proclaimed the
laws. The U.S. military -- contrary to the U.S. Army’s own rules concerning
land warfare -- enforced those laws.
For instance, one of the
very first edicts of the Bremer Occupation was to fire all Iraqis workers who
had an affiliation with the Ba’ath Party. Under Hussein, if one wanted to work
in the civil service, then irrespective of one’s feelings about the Ba’athist
perspective or Saddam Hussein, one had to be a member of the Ba’ath Party, and,
therefore, many scientists, skilled laborers, doctors and engineers – the very
people who were expects in keeping the lights on, the water running, sewage
treated, the streets safe, transportation moving, money flowing, and the
medical needs of people addressed – were dismissed.
In short, Bremer’s first
proclamation undermined, if not completely thwarted, the requirements of the
U.N. Security Council Resolution 1438 and The Hague Regulations. He – and,
therefore, the United States – was obligated to satisfy the basic needs of the
occupied people and do this in a way that would not change the occupied country
in any unnecessary way, and, yet, the first Bremer rule made both facets of the
foregoing goal largely unrealizable.
During the first gulf
War, the United States had concentrated on destroying many parts of the
infrastructure of Iraq – including water and electricity facilities. Iraqis –
that is, the very ones who were dismissed by Bremer -- had the foregoing
systems up and running within three months of their destruction. Yet, the
foreign contractors which Bremer unnecessarily forced on the Iraqi people could
not get those systems running even after years of collecting fees for providing
non-existent services.
Another promulgation of
Bremer was aimed at liberalizing trade policy in Iraq. As a result, policies
were eliminated (e.g., tariffs, licensing fees, and import taxes) which
previously had protected the Iraq economy from foreign competition and, in the
process, made Iraq entirely self-sufficient with respect to, among other
things, its food production, and, consequently, as a result of one of Bremer’s
rules, many aspects of the local network of producers and suppliers in Iraq
were destroyed.
Iraqi people were put out
of work, local supply lines were disrupted, and many people went hungry and
without necessary services. However, international corporations benefitted from
the new markets in Iraq that were opened up due to the trade liberalization
policies of Bremer ... policies that were in direct conflict with the U.N.
Security Council Resolution 1438 and The Hague Regulations by which the United
States had agreed to be bound in the administration of Iraq during the period
of occupation.
Another of Bremer’s Rules
protected all military forces, foreign contractors, and private security firms
(such as Blackwater, which, after a number of scandals, later changed its name
to Xe) against being held accountable by the Iraqi legal system for whatever
violations of Iraqi law that might be committed by those individuals (for
example, think Abu Ghraib). In addition, the same Bremer proclamation
stipulated that Iraqis who were not provided with the promised, basic
necessities of life – such as water, electricity, sewage treatment, and so on
-- by foreign contractors responsible for those services, were excluded from
having any legal standing in those matters, and, therefore, could not sue the
incompetent contractors.
Bremer also issued
several edicts concerning the banking system in Iraq. The first of those rules
opened up Iraqi banks to 50% ownership by foreign, financial interests, while a
follow up rule expanded the percentage of an Iraqi bank that could be owned by
foreign interests to 100%.
A further proclamation by
Bremer opened up all Iraqi businesses to foreign ownership. Furthermore, a
great many of the services that previously – i.e., before the war – had been
run by the government were privatized under Bremer’s loving care.
Due to the foregoing
provisions concerning the occupation of Iraq, scores of American companies
received contracts that were worth multiples of the previous GNP for Iraq.
Commercial activity that should have been directed to Iraqis and controlled by
them was usurped by foreign businesses ... businesses that not only had been
enabled by the Bremer Rules, but, as well, were handed the advantage of playing
in an unfair economic game that was being rigged by American referees.
No one can plausibly
argue that any of the foregoing arrangements – or the scores of other rules
introduced by Bremer to transform Iraq into an economic fiefdom of Western
corporations and financial interests -- were integral elements in a fair plan
that would provide the Iraqi people with the basic necessities of life and, in
the process, not unnecessarily change the way in which an occupied country had
been operated prior to becoming occupied. Consequently, all of Bremer’s Rules
were in direct violation of the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1438, as well
as The Hague Regulations.
Before the U.S. invasion
of Iraq in 2003 – which most everyone now acknowledges was entirely
unwarranted, if not illegal – Iraq, despite years of economic and military
sanctions by the West, had one of the most advanced societies in the Middle
East. Furthermore, despite the sanctions, Iraq had a functioning system of:
Health care, food production, commerce, education, and public service, and,
yet, under the Bremer Rules all of that changed.
Iraq never attacked the
United States with military forces, nor did it ever have any intentions of
doing so. Iraq was not a threat to the American people.
Nonetheless, ‘national
interests’ dictated that Iraq needed to be destroyed and made safe for various
foreign financial and economic corporate agendas. Once again, the way of power
that controls the United States government provided evidence which
demonstrates, in fairly clear terms, that ‘national interests’ is just a code
phrase for the developmental plans of ideological psychopaths who do not really
care about what happens to Iraqis as long as the former individuals make a
profit and get to control Iraqi society and resources, and, consequently,
‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ was oxymoronic.
-----
The Office of Legal
Counsel is part of the Department of Justice. The function of the OLC is to
provide legal advice concerning the lawfulness of various possibilities being
considered by the President or by other departments within the Executive Branch
of government.
The legal advice that is
generated through the Office of Legal Counsel is binding upon all members of
the Executive Branch. The authority underlying such an obligatory dimension
comes from a statute passed by Congress.
In effect, the foregoing
statute serves as something of a ‘necessary and proper’ clause for the
Executive Branch. As a result, the Office of Legal Counsel was enabled to
determine what qualifies as being ‘necessary’ and ‘proper’ with respect to the
Executive Branch being able to carry out its perceived duties.
However, there is a
black-hole of ambiguity at the heart of both the statute that allegedly invests
the legal advice of the OLC with binding authority, as well as Congress’s
presumed ‘right’ to bestow that sort of authority on the Office of Legal
Counsel. More specifically, what meaning is to be given to the idea that
something is ‘necessary and proper’ and what justifies that kind of an
assignment?
Article IV, Section 4, of
the Constitution guarantees that: “The United States shall guarantee to every
State in this union a republican form of government...” One of the principles
of republicanism requires that a person should not to be a judge in his or her
own cause, and, yet, the statute which enables the Office of Legal Standing to
issue binding legal advice does just that ... it requires members of the OLC to
be judges in their own cause, and, as well, by passing the statute that gives
the OLC such authority, Congress also is serving as a judge in its own cause –
namely, determining what constitutes being ‘necessary and proper.’
Well, if the OLC and
Congress should not be judges in their own cause, then who can inform either
body what constitutes ‘necessary and proper’ activity? If one assigns that task
to the Supreme Court, then, those nine individuals also become judges in their
own cause since their ‘cause’ is claiming to understand the Philadelphia
Constitution, when, in fact, their judicial perspectives are nothing more than
their own arbitrary theories of legal hermeneutics concerning the nature and
meaning of the Constitution, and by making a ruling in any given case, those
justices are only imposing their own ideas about things onto that document ...
that is, they are serving as judges in their own cause.
There is an additional
dimension to the problem of determining the meaning of whether, or not,
something is ‘necessary and proper. The Ninth Amendment indicates: “The
enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to
deny or disparage others retained by the people,” while the Tenth Amendment
indicates that: “The Powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states,
or to the people.”
The Constitution did not
give Congress explicit authority to determine what constitutes being “necessary
and proper” – that is, interpreting the meaning of the “necessary and proper”
clause is not an enumerated power. In fact, that sort of a process is not even
an implied power but, rather, it is an inferred power, and the question is
whether, or not, such an inference is justifiable.
Under the Ninth and Tenth
Amendment, whatever is not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited
by the Constitution to the states, are retained by, and reserved for, the
people. Consequently, the business of determining what is meant by the idea of
something being “necessary and proper” belongs to the people.
The role of the Supreme
Court as the final arbiter of the meaning of the Philadelphia Constitution is
not an enumerated power that is clearly indicated in the foregoing document. It
is an inferred power – an inference that began to be articulated by John
Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, but Marshall’s
inference is problematic in a variety of ways and on a number of levels.
There is a further problem
surrounding the issue of determining the meaning of “necessary and proper” in
the context of the Philadelphia Constitution. The entire purpose of the
Constitution is to serve the purposes and principles set forth in the Preamble
to that document.
Given the foregoing – and
how else can construe the nature of the relationship between the Preamble and
the articles and sections which follow the words contained in the Preamble --
whatever meaning might be assigned to the idea of being “necessary and proper”
must be capable of being fully reconcilable with: forming a more perfect union;
establishing justice; insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common
defense, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty.
However, the problem that arises at this point is that no one has fully
articulated a non-arbitrary perspective (that is, one which can be demonstrated
as being true beyond a reasonable doubt) concerning what is meant by
perfection, justice, tranquility, defense, welfare, or liberty.
The only perspective
which can be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to the issues
and principles inherent in the Preamble involves the basic right of sovereignty
– the right of everyone to have a fair opportunity to push back the horizons of
ignorance concerning the nature of existence ..
including one’s relationship to Being. Thus, the meaning of “necessary and
proper” needs to be worked out by the people – not the government -- in the
context of how the principles and purposes of: perfection, justice,
tranquility, defense, welfare and liberty are to be manifested in terms of the
basic right of sovereignty to which everyone is entitled.
Supposedly, the statutory
provisions that enable the Office of Legal Counsel to issue binding opinions to
members of the Executive Branch, also prohibits anyone from being able to
prosecute those who follow that counsel. Again, this is a violation of Article
IV, Section 4, since the provisions of the statute being alluded to not only
empower: Congress, the Executive Branch, and the Judiciary to be judges in
their own causes but, as well, seemingly prevents anyone from doing anything
about those matters.
As far as the way of
power is concerned, the foregoing arrangement works out quite nicely and
insulates those in power from being held accountable for their deeds. As far as
the way of sovereignty is concerned, the foregoing arrangement is entirely
arbitrary, and, therefore, cannot be justified in a manner that can be
demonstrated to be beyond all reasonable doubt concerning the ‘necessity’ and
‘propriety’ of that kind of an arrangement.
Moreover, once again, the
reader should be reminded that the standard of something having to be proven beyond
a reasonable doubt is an appropriate principle to employ in the matter of
determining what is ‘necessary’ and ‘proper’ for all three branches of
government to be able to do. As is the case in criminal trial where the one who
is being prosecuted stands to suffer substantial losses with respect to issues
of justice, tranquility, defense, welfare, and liberty, so too, when it comes
to giving expression to the Philadelphia Constitution, the same high stakes are
present, and, therefore, the same high standards of proof – that is, beyond a
reasonable doubt -- are applicable ... or should be – in relation to that
document.
In the light of the
foregoing considerations, let’s take a look at the issue of “national
interests” in the context of the Office of Legal Counsel. The question which
needs to be asked, of course, is whether, or not, making the legal opinions of
that agency binding upon the members of the Executive Branch is really in the
“national interests.”
The Office of Legal
Counsel falls under the authority of the assistant attorney general for the
United States. Such an individual has to be nominated by the President, and,
then, with the advice and consent of the Senate, confirmed.
The head of OLC oversees
the work of 4-5 deputies who are appointed by the President. None of these
deputies goes through a process of Senate confirmation.
There are a further group
of lawyers – usually consisting of between 15 and 20 individuals – which also
work in the OLC. This group of lawyers lends assistance to the head of the OLC,
along with his or her deputies, and like the deputies, the additional lawyers
do not go through a Congressional vetting process.
Due to a variety of
considerations – including in-fighting among members of Bush’s administration –
the Office of Legal Counsel was without an acting head on September 11, 2001.
Although Jay Bybee was confirmed, approximately a month after the events of
9/11, to become the next head of the OLC, Bybee did not actually show up for
work until near the end of November of 2001 so that he would be able to finish
up dealing with a prior commitment to the University of Nevada at Las Vegas.
Why arrangements were not
made to get someone else to fulfill those obligations at UNLV once 9/11
occurred is something of a mystery. Then, again, maybe there is a ‘rhyme and
reason’ to that sort of a decision.
The vacuum in leadership
at the OLC was filled by John Yoo, a Deputy Assistant Attorney General. Yoo
began to write legal opinions for the Executive Branch that, by statute, were
supposedly considered to be binding upon the administration with respect
to the matter of what was, and
wasn’t permissible, with respect to the so-called war on terror.
John Yoo had not been
elected to his office, nor had he been confirmed by the Senate. Nonetheless,
without appropriate oversight, he was, in effect, telling the President and the
rest of the Executive Branch – including the Pentagon and the CIA – what was,
and was not, appropriate to do in relation to, among other things, the ‘war on
terror.’
John Yoo’s journey to
becoming Deputy Assistant Attorney General was a tale of two interests. On the
one hand, John Yoo was asked to join the OLC by John Manning who, initially,
accepted the Bush administration appointment to be head of the OLC, but, subsequently,
withdrew his name from consideration.
However, despite Manning’s departure, the Bush administration asked Yoo
to remain with the Office of Legal Counsel.
Yoo was placed in charge
of offering counsel with respect to legal questions concerning presidential
powers involving matters of national security. The reason why Yoo was asked to
stay on at the Office of Legal Counsel by the Bush administration and the
reason why Yoo was assigned the foregoing role of providing legal counsel about
the scope of presidential powers might very well be related to the reason why
Jay Bybee was permitted to continue teaching at UNLV while the country was
trying to deal with the aftermath of 9/11.
John Yoo was a proponent
of giving the Office of President an expansive set of powers to do what the
President might consider to be ‘necessary’ and ‘proper’ with respect to
fulfilling the duties of office. Yoo’s perspective was deeply colored and
shaped by his family’s experiences in Korea.
Yoo was born in South
Korea in 1967, but his family had survived the Korean War and, as a result,
held staunchly anti-Communist views. His parents believed that President
Truman’s intervention – although it was done without Congressional authority –
had saved the Yoo family, along with all of South Korea.
The foregoing attitudes
were absorbed by Yoo, the younger. Therefore, among other things, he believed
that leaders should have the power to enact certain policies even if they
weren’t necessarily overtly authorized to take those actions.
After graduating from
Harvard and, then, getting a law degree from Yale, Yoo made a further splash in
the academic pond by writing an article in 1996 – ‘The Continuation of Politics
by Other Means: The Original Understanding of War Powers’ -- that was published
in the California Law Review. The
foregoing article maintained that the Founding Fathers championed the English
way of doing things with respect to the issue of initiating war – namely, the
king was the person who had the right to declare war.
While there might have
been some individuals among the Founders who liked the English model of
governance – for example, Alexander Hamilton, and, to some extent, John Adams –
there certainly was no established consensus among the Founders which suggested
they believed that the President should have the power to not only be Commander
in Chief with respect to the manner in which a war was conducted, but, as well,
should have the power to initiate war. Moreover, even if there were such a
consensus – which there wasn’t -- the Philadelphia Constitution is not worded
in a way that reflects that kind of a perspective ... so, go figure.
Yoo’s views concerning
the ‘real’ beliefs and values of the Founders with respect to the powers of the
Presidency in relation to declaring war were rejected by anyone who knew
anything about either the views of the Founders and/or the wording of the
Constitution. More importantly, Yoo’s views – even if true (which they weren’t)
-- were actually irrelevant to what the people considered to be ‘necessary’ and
‘proper’ concerning such matters, for, supposedly, America belonged to ‘We the
People,’ and not to the Founders, or to the Framers, or to any of the branches
of federal or state government.
Quite independently of
what the Founders might have believed concerning the issue of presidential
powers in relation to the declaration of war, there was no enumerated power
entitling the president to declare war. Furthermore, even Congress’ stated
power to declare war must be capable of being reconciled with Article IV,
Section 4, of the Philadelphia Constitution, and as well, the Preamble to that
document.
Yoo, of course, didn’t
care about any of the foregoing considerations. Based on a scholarly-challenged
understanding of both history and the Philadelphia Constitution, Yoo believed
that the President had certain powers which few other individuals were willing
to acknowledge. Therefore, Yoo was, by the authority of a congressional
statute, in a position to enable a president to do what the Philadelphia
Constitution didn’t entitle a president to do ... no wonder the Bush
administration asked him to stay on at the Office of Legal Counsel and assigned
him the legal responsibilities it did.
On September 25, 2001,
John Yoo – an ideologically driven 34-year old unelected official, who had not
been confirmed by the Senate and who was operating without oversight from the
Assistant Attorney General (i.e., the absent head of the OLC) – issued an
opinion that, by statute, was not only legally binding upon the Executive
Branch of the United States Government, but as well, exonerated officials from
any questions of culpability that might arise in relation to what they were
legally being obligated to do. In his legal memorandum, Yoo repeatedly cited
his own paper in the California Law
Review – and like most law review journals, the articles in such
periodicals tend to be reviewed and edited by students, not professors – as an
authority for what he was claiming in the Office of Legal Counsel document that
was counseling the Executive Branch.
Yoo’s legal memorandum
informed the President, and the rest of the Executive Branch, that the war
powers of the President were unassailable. In other words, nothing that the
President, as Commander in Chief, wanted to do or decided to do with respect to
waging war could be overridden by congressional statute ... according to Yoo, the President was a law unto himself in such circumstances.
By the time that Jay
Bybee showed up – which was in late November of 2001 -- to assume his responsibilities
as head of the Office of Legal Counsel, the Executive Branch already was deeply
ensconced in its preparations for war with Afghanistan and Iraq. To the best of
my knowledge, Yoo never thought to – and/or was never asked to -- send his legal
memorandum to Jay Bybee to be reviewed or critiqued.
Yoo worked in the Office
of Legal Counsel until the summer of 2003, well after the wars in Afghanistan
and Iraq had started, and in the case of Iraq, supposedly stopped. Throughout
this period, his legally binding counsel to the Executive Branch was always the
same: The President, as Commander in Chief, could do whatever he liked and no
one had the legal authority to say otherwise ... and Yoo (in the form of his
1996 article for the California Law Review)
was the authority for what Yoo was saying in this regard.
Was it in the national
interests to have an ideologically driven, unelected official (with no
accountability to an oversight process) tell the Executive Branch what it
could, and couldn’t do, in the area of presidential powers and national
security? No, it wasn’t, but the Bush Administration wanted someone like Yoo to
be present so that it would be enabled to do what it already wanted to do
without being held legally responsible for doing so.
In the case of the Yoo
legal memorandum of September 2001 which told the President, and the rest of
the Executive Branch that the power of the presidency was unlimited when it
came to war, ‘national interests’ had been reduced down to, on the one hand,
the mind-set generated through the Korean war-values inculcated into a
youngster by his Korean parents, and, on the other hand, the imperious
inclinations of a President who wanted to impose his ideas about national
security and national interests on everyone else quite independently of whether
any of those ideas were tenable or warranted ... which, it turns out, they
weren’t.
Was it in the national
interests to take authority away from ‘We the People’ with respect to deciding
what was ‘necessary’ and ‘proper’ for the Executive Branch to do in relation to
the matter of war powers? No, it wasn’t, but this is what happened.
Yoo was the unelected
catalytic ideologue who enabled the Executive Branch to push for, and engage in
totally unnecessary wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq (although the United
States promised to do so, it was never able to produce the necessary evidence
to the United Nations, NATO, or the people of the United States that could
justify either of the foregoing wars). Some 7,000 American soldiers, and
counting, have lost their lives in those two wars and four times that number
have been seriously injured, and many more have suffered some form of
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result of their experiences in those two
countries. In addition, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis lost their
lives, and many more were seriously injured, and/or have fallen victim to the
extensive use of depleted uranium in those countries by the U.S. military, and,
finally, a great deal of the infrastructure and economy of those countries has
been destroyed (unless, of course, one wishes to place the heroin trade that
has flourished as a result of the wars on the asset side of the ledger).
Moreover, trillions of dollars have been, and will continue to be, wasted in
waging such unnecessary wars... where are the national interests in all of
this?
The moral of the
foregoing story is not that people and circumstances sometimes come together in
ways that serve personal rather than national interests of ‘We the People.’
Rather, the foregoing account is intended to illustrate the point that people
cannot be trusted with power because the nature of that catalytic agent both
temps, as well as enables, people to serve their own interests and claim that
what is being done is in the ‘national interests.’
The way of sovereignty is
not about national interests. The way of sovereignty is a function of whatever
helps establish, preserve, and enhance basic sovereignty for individuals, and
this is, rarely, if ever a matter of national interests since national
interests tend to be about what helps establish, preserve and enhance the way
of power as filtered through the ideology of arbitrary belief systems.
Two-time medal-of-honor
winner, Smedley Butler was familiar
with the Janus-like duplicity of America’s use of power. He knew that one face
– the public face, the one which was promulgated through most of the media and
the one which was taught to unsuspecting children in thousands of classrooms
across America -- claimed that its use of force was entirely defensive in
nature and/or for the good of humanity and/or was used to facilitate the
advancement of democracy throughout the world. However, Butler also knew that
the other face – the business-end of the American Janus-mask as it were –
conducted wars wherever and whenever it could in order to benefit, in one
capacity or another, the ‘way of power,’ and Butler’s observations and
conclusions in this regard have been confirmed repeatedly by a vast array of
independent observers/researchers.
The Janus-like character
of America existed before Smedley Butler arrived on the scene in the late 1800s
and early-to-mid 1900s. The Janus-like character of America existed when, after
a lifetime of military service, Butler explicated, in considerable detail, why
‘war is a racket’. The Janus-like character of America’s presence in the world
has continued on since Butler passed away from this world.
This essay has
considered just a few examples from American history to illustrate that the idea of “national interests” is very rarely, if ever, about what is
actually in the best interests of the people in the United States. Rather, “national interests” are a function of what serves certain narrow financial and
political interests which seek to control the lives of other people – whether
American or non-American.
