Antiwar.com Blog

Thomas Woods, over at the LRC Blog has put out a call for great antiwar speeches in American history, so here’s a good one I remember reading in the New American.

In an article called “Minding Our Own Business,” Steve Bonta quotes a speech given in 1898 by Representative Richard P. Bland, a Democrat from Missouri, during the congressional fight over the annexation of Hawaii. Bland said that those promoting the American empire,

“boldly assert on this floor that Hawaii is necessary to us in our new policy. This new policy is defined as being the permanent occupation of the Philippine Islands, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and whatever other territory we may conquer during this war, and more still, they tell us that we must make alliances with England and Japan to the end that we may participate in carving up and parceling out the Chinese Empire…. Such a policy as this is intended and is urged by its promoters for the purpose of building up in this country a centralized power of wealth with big standing armies and navies to protect this plutocratic control…. You are on the road to imperialism, with a large Navy and standing armies and oppressive taxation and adopting a military government instead of republican institutions and constitutional liberty.”

Bonta says that Republican James F. Stewart of New Jersey answered:

“The silly argument of national isolation, the outgrowth of fear and timidity, is lame and impotent…. Every nation must at all times be prepared to protect its citizens and interests abroad, and in order to do this we must have mid-stations as bases of supply and resort, in order that our just resentment against foreign nations may be sure and certain of management and control…. Gentlemen on the other side, with tearful solicitude for our Constitution, and knowing our tender regard for that majestic instrument, interpose it as a bar…. Our country has arisen from lusty youth to vigorous manhood. We must share the responsibilities as well as the blessings of modern civilization. We must participate in the world’s destiny.”

What are life, liberty, property, peace and reason worth against such claptrap?

Apparently nothing.

Anybody else?

If the prohibition of torture is truly unjust, then is a little civil disobedience too much to ask for? Where is our Thoreau with thumbscrews? Jim Henley questions the torture enthusiasts’ depth of conviction:

Okay, here’s the scenario: Terrorists have planted a nuclear weapon in a major American city and if you don’t stop it millions will die. If you have any sense of honor at all, wouldn’t you give your own life to stop that? Most of us would say yes, wouldn’t we? What about prison? If you could save them at the cost of spending years in prison, maybe even the rest of your life, wouldn’t you have to make that choice? As bitter as the years might be, could you live with yourself knowing that you allowed a nuclear holocaust just so you could live out your own days in comfort and freedom? Fair? No. But what kind of man or woman worth the gametes that got them going could look someone in the eye and say, “I could have prevented it, but I would have suffered.”

So if it’s ticking bombs that worry you, what do we need laws permitting torture for? Do the crime, save the lives, then do the time. …

On a related note, Jesse Walker cites MLK’s critical distinction between legality and justice, and adds a critical distinction of his own:

I think the political rhetoric of the ’80s hit its low point when Oliver North’s apologists tried to defend his Iran-contra operation as an act of King-like civil disobedience, as though there were no difference between citizens refusing to respect unjust laws and officials refusing to respect the legal limits on their power. I suppose it’s only a matter of time before someone trots out the same argument to excuse the NSA’s illicit wiretaps.

It won’t be long. Witness Judith Miller’s application of the principle in her courageous stand for the rights of all statists:

The right of civil disobedience is based on personal conscience; it is fundamental to our system and it is honored throughout our history.

National Review exposes Christiane Amanpour’s inner anti-Semite.

Elsewhere among the deep thinkers, Glenn Reynolds turns his marble-sharp wit on those who have accused John Ashcroft of spying on MLK.

In a protest against the US’s continued presence in Iraq and the continuing Russian aggression and human rights abuses in Chechnya, prominent human right’s activist Said-Emin Ibragimov began a hunger strike to raise awareness on November 16. His condition has grown grave; at this time he appeals for others to join him in solidarity, as has Yelena Bonner, Andrey Sakharov’s widow. The situation in Chechnya is complex and ugly; however, these protestors do not seek a violent solution, are entirely seeking a peaceful solution. The Jamestown Foundation assessment discusses current human rights abuses in Chechnya and the Russian response. For additional information contact Banchik Nadezhda, columnist for Zapad – Vostok and Viche, at Nadia76@sbcglobal.net.

Back in August I had an interesting talk with Richard Maybury, an economist of the Austrian school and editor of the financial newsletter Early Warning Report. He is the author of a big idea, actually a model with which to help predict long term trends in global politics and finance. It’s called Chaostan, and basically it means that enlighenment ideas of liberty and property never made it past Marx in Germany in their natural spread eastward, that the former Soviet Union is ready to break into many more pieces, and most importantly that the US government ought to leave those people the hell alone, as creating a global empire there will destroy the great limited constitutional republic Americans created back when they believed in enlightenment ideals of liberty and property.

The American War Party has decided not to follow his advice.

A few days back I saw on TV a cheesy re-creation of a firefight in Afghanistan interspersed with interviews of the men involved in the actual event. One of them made the comment, “This is Injun Country,” in reference to their firebase out in the middle of Afghanistan somewhere. Eh, so what?

Well, just now I went to take a look at A Tiny Revolution, where Jonathan Schwarz quotes George Bush from February 2003 as saying, “If we must use force, the United States and our coalition stand ready to help the citizens of a liberated Iraq,” and then brings up the record regarding American’s promises to “help people” in the past.

“It might have been useful if we’d remembered the first Great Seal of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. It was part of the charter granted to British settlers in 1629 by Charles I. This was where America began�with Pilgrims, Thanksgiving, etc.
Now, look closely. Can you tell what the American Indian on the seal is saying?

That’s right! He’s asking the settlers to “come over and help us.” The settlers, of course, did help the Indians…to be dead.This formula recurs over and over again throughout American history. We go somewhere because we HAVE TO HELP PEOPLE. Then they all somehow�perhaps because of a 400-year streak of bad luck on our part?�end up dead.”

He then cites Andrew Bacevich’s review of Robert Kaplan’s new book, Imperial Grunts, where it is explained,

“[A]s Kaplan sees it, 9/11 returned the US military to its nineteenth-century roots when advancing the boundaries of free society meant removing any obstacles impeding the westward march of the young Republic. Today’s war on terror is “really about taming the frontier,” with the frontier now literally without limits. According to Kaplan, the vast swath of Islam, stretching from Africa across the Middle East to Southeast Asia, now qualifies as “Injun Country.” The “entire planet” has now become “battle space for the American military.”

At least the always optimistic Bacevich ends his review on a happy note,

“Hard-pressed to hold on to the new provinces to which today’s architects of empire have laid claim, America’s armed forces are in no position to appropriate more. As for the Pentagon’s ability to flood additional obscure quarters of the earth, the troops required to do so simply do not exist.”

No wonder Zbigniew Brzezinski and them are so concerned about Iraq, the job was Asia – now the neocons have blown it.

Anybody ever looked at a map of Asia? Anybody believe that the way to spread liberty is by making up stupid racial slurs to dehumanize people and then kill them and steal their stuff?

Does anyone really believe that 6% of the world (us) can conquer the Old World from across the ocean or that we’ve got the right to even try?

Check out some Richard Maybury and get back to me.

As you know, the so-called social contract which created the national government provides them the power to prosecute for treason, as it was in the Old World, but at least they made the standards pretty specific. From Article 3 Section 3:

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.”

Now comes George W. Bush, joining Bill O’Reilly in invoking “comfort to the enemy” while crying about folks who point out what a complete and total disaster his invasion of Iraq has been:

“I ask all Americans to hold their elected leaders to account and demand a debate that brings credit to our democracy, not comfort to our adversaries.”

So, which criticism is permissible and what isn’t? What brings credit to our democracy and what makes our enemies feel comforted?

What if I were to assert that the Iraq war is what brings comfort to our enemies? What if I were to cite the CIA, the RIIA [.pdf], the Saudis, the Israelis, all the former CIA guys I’ve interviewed, the best reporters and academics to back me up? That al Qaeda has become al Qaedaism – an ideology like neoconservatism, but for pissed off Salafist types, that the Kurdish Peshmergas are preparing for war, that the SCIRI and Da’wa party, who lived in Iran though the Iran-Iraq war and up until the US invasion in 2003 and now dominate the Shi’ite south, have basically secured a giant new province for the Ayatollahs that we had supported Saddam Hussein against?

What if I were to point out that the congress has had to raise their phony “debt ceiling” to 9 Trillion dollars?

Or that the Constitution has been all but scrapped?

How about the fact that a high level member of the War Party has been indicted for the leaking of the name of a CIA officer at the center of their anti-nuclear proliferation efforts, others are under investigation for leaking secret codes to Iranian spy Ahmad Chalabi, and one more has pled guilty to passing classified information to Israel?

Seems to me that if we’re to start throwing around accusations of treason, the Cheney/ex-Trotskyite cabal and their child-leader are much more susceptible to charges of working against America for the benefit of foreign states than those of us in opposition.

Update: Thank you all for your many thoughtful comments.