Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Monday, April 24, 2006

DC Absurd allegation: Conspiracy of law to stifle accountability

There's a new one going around. If you agree to protect the Constitution, you "may be" involved in an illegal conspiracy. Call it the "conspiracy of law" doctrine. It's legal fiction.

Patton is rolling in his grave with this one: "If you can't get people to follow illegal orders, you can simply make it a crime to enforce the law."

That's what America's media wants to see happen. [Ref: Seven days in April, WashingtonTimes Op-Ed By Tony Blankley April 18, 2006]

* * *

American military officers are refusing to obey unlawful orders, and resigning.

WaTimes has an interesting piece, asking us to embrace the absurd Orwellian notion that to protect the Constitution, that is an unlawful conspiracy.

The Generals have resigned. Since when is refusing to obey an unlawful order a crime? This is absurd. It would ask us to believe that the Generals -- who decide that the laws are not lawful, and choose to resign to honor their oath -- are committing an offense, regardless their action:

  • A. If they resign, they are conspiring to support the Constitution; or

  • B. If they obey illegal orders, they are conspiring against the rule of law.

    Blankley's construct is absurd. For there to be a crime, one has to commit a crime. If Blankley's options are credible -- that no matter what the General's do they could be held liable for crimes -- then why would anyone want to join the Armed Services?

    Ah, that must be another conspiracy as well: The decision to not do something.


    Hay Blankley, contracts are freely chosen vehicles, not requirements. If military personnel -- as you would have them agree -- that regardless their action or conduct, they could be liable for crimes, then there's no merit to any argument that American mlitary personnel are free.

    Rather, they are paid mercenaries, contracted to violate the laws of war, under pentalty of additional loss of liberty.

    In Blankley's universe, in order to protect the nation we must enslave a pirate class who agree to wage illegal war under threat of punishment.

    That is called barbarism.

    * * *

    Blankley uses some artful sophistry in making his case. Last time we checked he's a journalist and his story doesn't cite any legal authority.

    Blankley's "issue" is the assertion that because things happen together, they may be evidence of a conspiracy.

    Stunning. Are we going to apply that standard to the illegal invasion of Iraq, and the "must have been conspiracy" prior to the Iraq invasion? Given the American hypocrisy over the abuse of power, why expect that.

    It should be done, but this lazy Congress refuses to assert the rule of law.

    Rather, they embrace Blankley's non-sense as if it were gospel.

    * * *

    Blankley’s nonsense sound like more of the propaganda about the Senate Polygraph tests.

    There's non-sense gonig around that -- despite the President's refusal to testify under oath before the 9-11 commission, what does he have to hide -- that the Members of Congress are going to have to sing loyalty oaths, and then be subjected to polygraph tests.

    Blankley, maybe you could look into the "big conspiracy" by the White House to review the wiretapping and ask, "When is the President going to take a polygraph?"

    From Porter Goss on down, everyone wants to take a polygraph. Why is Bush squeamish about 9-11 and "what really happened"?

    Sure, it's the same thing: Innuendo, smearing, and accusations.

    You're free to look into the matter.

    * * *

    The real issue is: Is it illegal for the military officers to resign? No.

    Is it illegal for an officer to discuss with another officer the decision to resign? No.

    So if you want to make the "big case" that the officers -- by doing what is lawful, resigning – are engaging in criminal activity, you've got an impossible burden.

    Then again, why expect that burden be met when you have a crowd of Americans who are willingly lining up to take loyalty oaths, polygraph tests, and be the first to raise their hand in blind loyalty to the Nazis in the White House.

    America can’t find evidence of WMD, so let’s find those who dare say the Emperor has no clothes.

    * * *

    It's a crime to obey unlawful orders. It's also a crime to know that the orders are illegal, and continue to obey them.

    We live in a strange world when -- in an effort to remove oneself from the White House's conspiracy in Iraq -- people are accused of being part of another conspiracy.

    I'll say. It's the fictional conspiracy of, "Law and order" and "asserting one's oath" to protect the Constitution.

    Perhaps Blankley wants to make "legal actions to protect the Constitution" an indictable offense. This President is doing just that , yet why isn't the Congress moving against the "big conspiracy"? Blankley has no answer, just more hand waving.

    Not surprising. The flies have landed. The brain stem cut. The EKG has flatlined.