|
Wartime Principles
by William Stone, III
On Thursday, the morning after President Bush abused his powers with an
Unconstitutional use of military force, my home-town newspaper the Sioux City Journal wrote:
"The antiwar rhetoric should cease. It is the role of every American to throw
our support behind the men and women who are fighting this war."
|
I assume that those who advocate
"putting aside our differences" in order to
"support the troops" are recalling the Viet Nam Non-War. In that extremely
unpopular Unconstitutional abuse of Federal power, returning troops found
themselves the butt of a great deal of anti-military hostility. Most
individuals who fought in Viet Nam were conscripts (read: "slaves"), and
didn't want to be there in the first place. Their government forced them into
a life-or-death situation, and they did what any individual would. Sometimes
this involved killing people to survive. There was also a sizable contingent
that believed they were were defending their country in some fashion.
Many returning soldiers were derided, insulted, even spat upon. For those
who remember such incidents, let me assure you that no libertarian in
disagreement with the President Bush's actions wish ill will to United States
servicemen and women. When these troops come home, they will have nothing
but our gratitude.
Regardless, President Bush's actions remain immoral, Unconstitutional, and
downright evil. Those who understand why this is so shouldn't be discouraged
from speaking out.
The argument, repeated gibbered by screeching, talk radio whores of the
Boot-On-Your-Neck Party (BOYN: collectively the Republicans and Democrats)
goes like this:
Not supporting Our President during Time of War encourages The Enemy and only
prolongs the battle - and in the process ensures more casualties.
Dissenters, the BOYNs' whores opine, are causing people to die.
This is, of course, utter nonsense. The only individuals responsible for the
deaths of American soldiers are those who order them into harm's way. I can
disagree with the President until I'm blue in the face, but it won't alter
the location of a single infantryman. Only the President has such power.
As a dissenter who argues this case from ethical grounds, let's remember the
moral compass in use, the Zero Aggression Principle or ZAP:
"No human being has the right - under ANY circumstances - to initiate
force against another human being, nor to threaten or delegate its
initiation."
Organized government warfare violates the ZAP in two vital respects:
1. Organized government warfare initiates force against the governed.
Government cannot so much as lay one brick atop another without stealing
either the funds or the means to do so. Government produces nothing: it can
only steal from those who do. Theft is the simplest, most clear-cut
initiation of force possible.
2. Organized government warfare initiates force against innocent bystanders.
Government operatives wish to dismiss such bystanders as irrelevant - the
present term used is "collateral damage."
The Zero Aggression Principle doesn't distinguish between sides or factions
in a conflict. It distinguishes ACTIONS.
If two individuals engage in a fight that harms a bystander, then force has
been initiated against the bystander. The ZAP does not make special
dispensations for warfare: ALL initiation of force is immoral under EVERY
circumstance.
For those uncomfortable with the ethics of the Zero Aggression Principle,
there is always the Constitutional argument to be made against the present
military adventure: it's Unconstitutional. Not that this is surprising -
the FedGov has not held a Constitutionally-declared war since 1941.
The BOYNs like to claim that Congress' authorization for the President to
use military force is the same as a Declaration of War. It is not, and one
need only glance at the wording of the Declaration of War on Japan to see
that this is so (www.law.ou.edu/hist/japwar.html).
The last Constitutional Declaration of War by Congress was only one paragraph
long and was entitled:
"JOINT RESOLUTION Declaring that a state of war exists
between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the people of
the United States and making provisions to prosecute the same."
The
"authorization for use of military force" the BOYNs' whores like to
reference is pages long and at no time are the words "declaration of war" used
in it. It simply isn't the same, and no amount of lying by the BOYNs and
their whores in the media will change this.
The Constitution states that Congress has the power to "declare war." It does
not have the power to
"authorize the use of military force." It was never
the intent of the founders of this country to entrust to its Federal
Government the power to use military force on a whim. To do so would be
foolish, and would lead to the kinds of military adventurism that were so
prevalent in the 20th century.
The language of the Constitution is clear: military force is used after a
Declaration of War by Congress and never before.
Imagine that Congress passed a law that said the sky was green. Would the
sky instantly change color in order to comply, or would it remain blue?
The passage of a law by Congress that is in violation of the Constitution
does not make that law valid. The Constitution will not change to accommodate
laws in violation of it any more than the sky will change to green.
No wonder the BOYNs would like to equate the trivial effort necessary to
"authorize military force" with the grave responsibility of "declaring war."
If they don't, the individuals over whom they wield power might discern that
they have been governed by a lying pack of traitors for more than fifty years.
Any Congressman who voted for such an authorization is a traitor, in
violation of their Oath of Office - in which they swore a sacred oath to
protect and defend the Constitution.
Any President who makes use of the military in absence of a Declaration of War
by Congress is similarly in violation of his Oath of Office and is a traitor.
The majority of Congress and the President of the United States should at
this moment be on trial for their lives. They are in gross violation of
their Oaths and are engaged in acts of high treason as a result. Their
actions threaten the very existence of the Republic whose Constitution they
have sworn to God to protect.
We are ruled by traitors interested in only one thing: the acquisition and
maintenance of personal power. To this end, they place our sons, daughters,
friends, and lovers in harm's way.
Reminding them that we know this is true will not endanger our loved ones.
Rather, the sooner these lying, honorless traitors are removed from power,
the sooner those dear to us will come home.
Never be silent - NEVER. Along with your gun, let them pry your principles
from your cold, dead fingers.
- – William Stone, III
William Stone, III is a computer nerd (RHCE, CCNP, CISSP) and philosopher of
the Zero Aggression Principle from McCook Lake, South Dakota. He seeks the
Libertarian Party's nomination for the 2004 Senate race in South Dakota.
Contact:
Webmaster
© William Stone & Associates,
All Rights Reserved.
|
|
