![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
stoutfellowI don't like arguing about politics. I don't like arguing at all. But some of the stories that are trickling out of Washington are forcing me to break silence.
Recently, it has been revealed that lawyers in the Department of Justice and the office of the Counsel to the President, at the administration's request, have discussed the permissibility and advisability of the use of torture in the war on terror, and that these lawyers have affirmed that, in the present crisis, it is both permissible and advisable. Repugnant though I find this, it is not the reason for this post. What disturbs me - what frightens me - is the underlying argument presented in these memos.
Historical note: in the Roman Republic, there was a set procedure for dealing with the gravest of dangers. It consisted of assigning absolute and unfettered power to a single individual, for a period of six months or until the crisis was resolved, whichever was shorter. The title given to this individual was dictator.
One of the memos asserts that the President, in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief, has the authority to set aside any law and any treaty commitment if he deems it necessary, and only he can judge that necessity. It is not uncommon for the President to reach for additional power in time of crisis. Lincoln did; Wilson did; Franklin Roosevelt did. But each recognized that he was reaching, and that he would be held accountable for it. This memo appears to deny that accountability - to assert, in short, that the Commander-in-Chief is above the law. (At one point, the memo suggests that the federal law barring torture - a law implementing one of the Geneva Conventions, a convention that was signed by President Reagan - was an unconstitutional limit on the authority of the Commander-in-Chief.)
That is not the Presidency that I learned about in school; it is not the Presidency described by the Constitution; and it is not an office compatible with our claim to be a free people.
Historical note, cont.: In the latter days of the Roman Republic, Lucius Cornelius Sulla had himself named dictator, but without the customary time limit. He held the office for three years before retiring; he died less than a year later. A generation later, Julius Caesar, embroiled in civil war with Pompey, had himself proclaimed dictator for a ten-year period; two years later, having defeated his rival, he was named dictator in perpetuity. Soon after, he was assassinated, triggering another round of civil war. When the war ended, the Roman Republic was dead, and the Empire had been born.
The war on terror is not like other wars. When Lee surrendered at Appomattox, it was clear that the Civil War was over. When the Japanese government signed the articles of surrender aboard the USS Missouri, World War II was over. I can see no plausible circumstances under which anyone could confidently say that the war on terror is over.
We have government lawyers claiming that the President is entitled, under certain circumstances, to dictatorial powers, and that the current crisis justifies his doing so - a crisis with no foreseeable end. This combination frightens me, and so I have broken silence. This administration cannot be trusted to uphold the Republic as we have known it; and this is not an assertion I would have made under any previous administration, no matter how much I disagreed with its policies.
I do not know what to do.
Recently, it has been revealed that lawyers in the Department of Justice and the office of the Counsel to the President, at the administration's request, have discussed the permissibility and advisability of the use of torture in the war on terror, and that these lawyers have affirmed that, in the present crisis, it is both permissible and advisable. Repugnant though I find this, it is not the reason for this post. What disturbs me - what frightens me - is the underlying argument presented in these memos.
Historical note: in the Roman Republic, there was a set procedure for dealing with the gravest of dangers. It consisted of assigning absolute and unfettered power to a single individual, for a period of six months or until the crisis was resolved, whichever was shorter. The title given to this individual was dictator.
One of the memos asserts that the President, in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief, has the authority to set aside any law and any treaty commitment if he deems it necessary, and only he can judge that necessity. It is not uncommon for the President to reach for additional power in time of crisis. Lincoln did; Wilson did; Franklin Roosevelt did. But each recognized that he was reaching, and that he would be held accountable for it. This memo appears to deny that accountability - to assert, in short, that the Commander-in-Chief is above the law. (At one point, the memo suggests that the federal law barring torture - a law implementing one of the Geneva Conventions, a convention that was signed by President Reagan - was an unconstitutional limit on the authority of the Commander-in-Chief.)
That is not the Presidency that I learned about in school; it is not the Presidency described by the Constitution; and it is not an office compatible with our claim to be a free people.
Historical note, cont.: In the latter days of the Roman Republic, Lucius Cornelius Sulla had himself named dictator, but without the customary time limit. He held the office for three years before retiring; he died less than a year later. A generation later, Julius Caesar, embroiled in civil war with Pompey, had himself proclaimed dictator for a ten-year period; two years later, having defeated his rival, he was named dictator in perpetuity. Soon after, he was assassinated, triggering another round of civil war. When the war ended, the Roman Republic was dead, and the Empire had been born.
The war on terror is not like other wars. When Lee surrendered at Appomattox, it was clear that the Civil War was over. When the Japanese government signed the articles of surrender aboard the USS Missouri, World War II was over. I can see no plausible circumstances under which anyone could confidently say that the war on terror is over.
We have government lawyers claiming that the President is entitled, under certain circumstances, to dictatorial powers, and that the current crisis justifies his doing so - a crisis with no foreseeable end. This combination frightens me, and so I have broken silence. This administration cannot be trusted to uphold the Republic as we have known it; and this is not an assertion I would have made under any previous administration, no matter how much I disagreed with its policies.
I do not know what to do.
