A Tale of Three Georges

I’ve tried not to devote a lot of space here to my opinions on the actions of the current Presidential administration, not because I don’t have them, but because my country really doesn’t need more yelling and I’m not sure I have anything to add to the discussion. But some things make me feel like there’s a little person jumping up and down and screaming on the inside of my head, and I just can’t stand it anymore.

Before I begin, in the interest of being open-minded, I will say that I am very glad that the Dec. 15 elections in Iraq went relatively well and with a minimum of violence. I celebrate the high voter turnout, particularly among the Sunnis. In addition, I believe in the “You break it, you buy it” school of foreign policy, so I have some doubts about the wisdom of any immediate pullout of our troops. I honestly don’t know exactly the right thing to do – I don’t want us to leave the country in chaos, but neither do I want us to stick around for a decade trying to quell an insurgency that just won’t die. I promise not to use the phrase “weapons of mass destruction” at any point in this post.

Having said that, George, honey - if you want me to rise above the shrill tone of political discourse in the U.S, you’re going to have to help me out a little here. You weren’t on board with the McCain torture amendment, and only reversed yourself under major political pressure. There’s the brouhaha about clandestine prisons in Eastern Europe. There’s Khaled El-Masri, the German citizen and car salesman who was mistakenly kidnapped and held for five months. Call it “extraordinary rendition” all you want – it’s still kidnapping a citizen of another country on foreign soil. I’m still not a fan of many provisions of the Patriot Act. Then there’s authorizing the NSA to eavesdrop on us without a court warrant and saying that it is a power “inherent” in your role as Commander in Chief.

The hell it is. George, meet another George – George Washington. Remember him? General in the Revolutionary War, presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, first President of the United State who refused a third term, and all-around Founding Father? Yeah, that guy. I had to take a course in college on the Constitution. I’m no Constitutional scholar, but I did attend most of the classes. If memory serves me correctly, checks and balances figured prominently in the design of the three branches of our country’s government.

As did the idea that a government should be accountable to the people it governs. Granted, the founding fathers only included white male property owners in their equation, but the basic concept was right on the money. They tried the whole king thing, and it didn’t take. That’s why they put in the bit about the executive AND legislative AND judicial branches all keeping an eye on each other. You don’t get to override the rule of law on your say so. I think the guy on the dollar bill would be on my side with this one.

This isn’t a minor point, and it’s not a left/right issue. Libertarians and small government conservatives should be throwing temper tantrums right about now. And it has nothing to do with whether or not I like you, George. I don’t particularly, but I don’t want ANYBODY – not John Kerry, not Ralph Nader, not the Pope - bypassing the checks and balances and telling me that it’s okay “because I said so.” That stopped working for me when I was six.

My political platform is based on three main principles. One is the inherent dignity of every human being as an image bearer of God. Two is that we should try to head in the general direction of justice whenever we can. Three is my deep-rooted and visceral distrust of all authority. I don’t care if you are a preacher, politician or professor – I don’t do blind faith well, and I feel I have ample empirical evidence for my position.

This is why I believe in maximum transparency in government. I don’t like closed doors, back rooms or shredded documents. All of us need to be accountable to someone else because it’s too easy to convince ourselves that the ends justify the means when the only person we have to convince is the one in the mirror. If you have only yourself and your minions to talk to, soon you’ll be thinking goofy things like there is no such thing as global warming.

Democracy – that thing we’re trying to export to Iraq – is based on the premise that no one is above the law, that no one person or branch gets to act unilaterally. It’s not always terribly efficient, and democracies still manage to do some goofy and destructive things, but to quote Winston Churchill, “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”

If I may bring up another George, King George III got a little greedy and pissed off all the colonies and gave them the catchy “No taxation without representation” bumper sticker. According to americanrevolution.com, “From 1811 to the time of his death in 1820 he became progressively insane and blind. He spent his time in isolation, and was often kept in straight jackets and behind bars in his private apartments at Windsor Castle.”

I think we can draw two lessons from this: One, inbreeding is just not a good idea and two, being king might not be all it’s cracked up to be.

Get a freaking warrant. That’s all I ask.

Comments

[Jim]

Not sure why I follow your blog . . . you usually come across as being weirder than I; but your Three Georges is right on target. Absolutely great!

[Col Steve]

Christy -

I agree with your last sentence, especially since the law allows for a short period of warrantless searches for emergency situations and the FISA court has been extremely lenient on showing "probable cause."

However, let's look at "checks and balances."

Are we at war or not? Congress is the most egregious example of power without responsibility among the three branches.

Declare war? Of course not. Instead, pass a law (PL 107-40) that essentially gave a blank (or open for intrepetation) check to the President. Then, have the gall to claim "I'm shocked!" (be interesting if the WH releases the who got what briefing when information).

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.(a) INGENERAL.—That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organiza-
tions, 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.

(b) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.—(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.—Consistent withsection 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

Or the Courts. In its 2002 per curiam opinion in "In Re Sealed Case", the appellate court for the FICA noted (and the ruling was made public) that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."

And further that "we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."

This ruling seems to fly in the face of the 4th amendment and has huge implications for governmental power. The question of the scope of the President's constitutional powers in this area remains judicially unsettled and has even though the court (1972 SCOTUS ruling on the 1967 Katz case) has recognized this (and the Patroit Act only exacerbated the need for some interpretation).

Finally, I am always skeptical of historical comparisons.

I have always found it very interesting to watch how history is (mis)used in policy debates - and history has never been used more passionately (and inaccurately) than by the various sides arguing about Iraq. Iraq is Vietnam; Iraq is not Vietnam (but it will be if the United States pulls out too soon). This struggle is like WWII, or the Cold War. The Iraqi leaders are the founding fathers, and 2005 is their 1783 (the President went on and on about this one this week). Saddam was Hitler; no, Bush is Hitler. America is Athens or Rome. And of course, remember Munich!

Are we that intellectually sloppy? Are we incapable of analysis without recourse to idiotic analogies? (no offense here, I'm extrapolating to a larger point)

History is usually employed to dumb-down arguments, to explain complex policy positions to the simple-minded. Who would argue that the United States should "stay the course" if Iraq is Vietnam?

Beware of historical analogy - when you hear one, chances are that someone thinks you are an idiot that can be swayed by unexplained, underexamined comparisons.

As you note, the founding fathers operated in a time where white, male, property owners set the agenda and built protections for slavery and limited rights for women into the framework.

If anything, what we should learn from history is the need for our institutions to adapt more rapidly to the changes in our world than figuring out ways to bend the old concepts.

We live in a world of extraordinary technological and scientific change. The world is simply moving so much faster today than at any point in any of our lifetimes; and a good bet is that this sense of speed—indeed, this sense of acceleration—will only continue.

The Administration and Congress need to solve the problems the changing security environment creates instead of ad-hocing it on the fly.

FISA was written in a time of nation-state adversaries with much reduced communication tools than today. The Geneva Convention was written without much thought to non-state actors or adversaries who don't even recognize rules of warfare.

Instead of writing endless memoranda debating the nuances of bending existing procedures, how about our leaders standing up, saying things are different, and working (the President, Congress, SCOTUS, UN, etc.) to fix them in a manner that reflects today's society and follows faithfully the values we think transcend history.

[Philip]

Christy - I apologize now for the blog/subject highjack.

Col Steve - Nice War College answer. However, not everyone has the time, resources, or intellictual curiosity to drill down into the complexities of international relationships and law. Nor does everyone understand the inherent problems associated with the Patriot Act, or how PL 107-40 essentially overrode the War Powers Act and took Congress out of the GWOT OODA loop. This doesn't make them any less intelligent.

I do agree we live in a world of extraordinary change. However, our judicial system is a tort system which needs precedent to act. All three branches are still reacting to the fears of the American people and are willing to impede on a few rights to ensure their safety. IMHO, if we trade our freedoms for our security, then we have lost the war.

You can make a very strong case that using warrentless electronic spying is justified to capture time-sensitive foreign intelligence in the domestic realm. You can make the same case for using this technology to obtain GWOT-linked foreign intelligence in allied nations. We've now expanded the searches to include narco-terrorism (which we used to call drug smuggling). What's next? What about Pre-natal rejection terrorism? Stock Market terrorism? Are we allowed to monitor all calls to escort services based upon Human Trafficking Terrorism? What about terrorism against the government? Will speaking out against the government be considered a terrorist act? To use an old cliche, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

From a sailor's perspective. Christy, back to you.

[David Ruiz]

Thank you Philip. I do believe that making references, parallels and comperisons to historical figures and events is viable and in most cases necessary. Through them we can see where and how we have either changed for the good, worst, or continue the line we once followed and once brought us where we are now. Remember, you cannot know who you are now, in the present, without knowing who you were in the past. This of course, applies to everything whether is people or circumstances.

Its unfortunate that this (the lying, pretenting, stealing, killing, etc.) has been happening right infront of the eyes of the people who elect/select the "leaders" that make it happen.

Here is Bush last year lying to you:

"Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

Do you see the pattern? Lie after lie and the man still stands firm as the "leader of the free world." The pattern that I talk about, Christy, is the comparison you made to the first George president of the U.S. of A. See, I see it in a little diffent way. George Washington, just like George Bush, do not respect or follow the constitution. They only pretended.

Not much has changed.

[Christy]

Jim -
Not sure why you follow my blog either, but glad you liked the post. And weird is in the eye of the beholder. I think everyone is weird on some level - I've just opted to have most of my weirdness out in the open.

Col. Steve -
Haven't heard from you in a while. I thought I drove you away with one too many excursions into the inner workings of my psyche. I think you are the only one of my commenters who appears to do research before leaving a comment.

You are correct that Congress has ceded much of their authority and then evaded responsibility for their actions. They are just as responsible for this war as Bush, and spend more time in ideological political posturing than they do in legislating for the reality that actually exists - on a number of issues. So if you want me to say that Congress mostly sucks, I will agree.

And there are good historical comparisons and sloppy ones. Mostly, I just thought it worked literarily that they were all George.

Phil -
I pretty much agree with you. Oooh... The left-winger and the career military guy join forces. Bush is in trouble now:-)

David -
In fairness to Bush, almost all of our Presidents have lied - a lot. I can't decide if Bush lies more than the others or if he's just worse at it, so he gets caught. Either way, our history shows that we should be skeptical about what most of our leaders are telling us.

And I still think George Washington would be horrified by the idea of warrantless wiretaps (once you explained to him what a wiretap was). Which doesn't excuse codifying slavery in the constitution - but I still think I'll borrow a founding father to bolster my position.

[Philip]

Christy,

I agree it is not only our right to question our leaders, it is our obligation living in a democracy. I don't think that President Bush lies any more than any other President, or that he is worse at it. Rather, due to technology, it is much easier to determine lies and the press today is so good at finding out information. The Head of the KGB once said, "There is no better intelligence gathering system than the Western Press Corps." That rings truer today than ever before.

I like your political platform principles, but I believe they are too open to interpretation. I also have to disagree with the King George position. I don't think he was being greedy, instead he was trying to distribute the costs of a war (where significant portions were fought defending the colonies) amoung all colonies. I personnally believe the Founding Fathers were doing a little too much whining about the whole thing, but I believe it turned out okay. I'm simplifying because I'm not really interested in quoting references nor am I doing a thesis.

I consider myself a moral person and I have empirical evidence to back that up based upon the ethical situations I've been placed in. That being said, I have knowingly lied to people working for me and for those I have worked for when I felt it would be better to do so. Ethics in a classroom are usually black and white, but the world is just one big grey haze.

With our combined forces, the world should be scared. Actually, its when I start agreeing with Jason A. that I get worried. He's more left than you are.

Hey, unrelated, I'm coming out in March for another Conquer the World Conferene. Maybe I'll see you then. I wouldn't mind actually sitting in on one of your classes. I love getting the liberal point of view.

[Col Steve]

Christy - I've been following your blog (fairly) regularly. I enjoy your thoughts and perspectives. I appreciated the literary reference because the reader has to think harder about the issues or consider them from another perspective.

David - I'm not arguing to ignore the past, but I don't agree (completely) with your statement. You use both "historical" and "past" in the same paragraph. The historian Sir Michael Howard once referred to the past as an “inexhaustible storehouse of events,” that one could use to “prove anything or its contrary.”

History, contrary to popular assumption, is not the past. The terms are commonly, but incorrectly, used interchangeably. The past, simply put, is what happened. History, in contrast, is the historian’s (or journalist, commentator, etc.) interpretation of what happened. As Michael Howard stressed, history is merely what “historians write.” Thus, history is just like human memory—fallible and prone to selective recall. As such, history is highly idiosyncratic, and inevitably imperfect.

So (and to Philip's point as well about some people not having the ability to dig deep on a subject) the imperfection of using historical references puts an extra burden on those in the media or public policy arena. The issues here are important, but complex.

Simple reductions and comparisons (and here I'm referring to the headlines or commentary in the media) don't help us solve the issues. Careless (or biased) examples only reinforce, as Christy said, "political posturing."

I'm not trying to defend the President's action. I think the proper action would have been to follow up with warrants and ask Congress to address the underlying issues why such warrantless searches were thought necessary. I do grow weary of the left and right trying to numb the American people with mindless dribble or appeals to simple mindedness. Can we have a discussion where if you think the President *may* be justified you are not labeled a fascist, constitutional ignoring, wing-nut or if you think the President *may* be wrong you are not considered a terrorist-loving, soft on freedom wing-nut?

I think we should question our leaders, but let's keep the focus on the larger issues - which I believe is possible even at a "simple" level.

Lincoln said right after Fort Sumter. "Is there in all republics, this inherent, and fatal weakness? Must a government, of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own existence?"

The slippery slope Philip fears or the checks and balances between the branches Christy mentions is part of addressing the Lincoln's second question. I just fear we never get to answer the hard question when we default to dumbing down events to fit neatly into our sound-bite driven, public policy formulation processes.

[Christy]

Phil -
The part about the founding fathers doing a little too much whining cracked me up. And I imagine you're right about the press. If you can fit me in between all the plans for world domination in March, we can most definitely hang out - and you are welcome to come to my workplace and even sit in on a class - although I won't be teaching it. They won't let me.

Col. Steve -
I too wish that more people believed that we should focus on solving problems and getting some things done, rather than engage in an ideological war of words. Unfortunately, yelling seems to make for better television.

[sonja]

Excellent post and comments. I enjoyed reading all of them. One minor point: If slavery had not been codified in the constitution, it's very likely that we would have split into two countries then. There were significant differences between the southern and northern states even during the constitutional conventions and it was due in large part to the negotiation done by Washington, Jefferson and Madison on the issue that the Constitution was ratified. Washington himself was (as we might say) gravely conflicted on the matter of slavery and left his widow in danger at his death by manumitting his slaves on her death. So, while he had his faults as a leader and it's true that he lied (as do most politicians), I'm not sure that he lied about slavery; he was pretty out in the open on it and took a lot of heat from his peers in the Virginia slaveholding class at the time. All of that is to say, Christy, you are well founded to use George Washington for your purposes here.

I thoroughly enjoyed that post. Bravo!