Recently in Politics (Be Nice!) Category

I will warn you in advance, dear reader - I am a little cranked up today.

Seven years ago, I wrote a little something for a website that I developed when I was an expatriate living in Taipei, Taiwan, ROC.  It has turned out to be more than prophetic, so I believe the time is now to resurrect it in light of the current international turmoil surrounding the Olympic flame and the protests it has engendered world wide.  The central point of the editorial back then was human rights in China.  Here is the original article, followed by some current commentary:

"Taiwan is known officially as the Republic of China, and functions as a democratic regime on an island 100 miles off the coast of mainland China. Communists under Mao Tse-Tung overran the Republic of China after World War II, and have since claimed to be the legitimate government of China. They also pursue the political ideology of "One China". And they continue to oppress the very people who's republic they say it is (People's Republic of China is their official name). Ever since Chiang Kai-Shek fled with the legitimate government of China to the island of Formosa in 1949, the Communist regime has viewed Taiwan as a rogue province to be recovered at all costs. Over the years, the Communist leaders on the mainland have managed to bully the rest of the world into accepting them as the legitimate government of China. Taiwan was one of the charter members of the United Nations, yet they were stripped of their seat in favor of the these hooligans. Yes, I know this is not politically correct these days, but what are they going to do about it--my ISP is in the U.S. where I have the freedom to say whatever the hell I want to.

Just how did they do this? However they managed it, the world's leaders chose to ignore every not-so-subtle indication that these guys aren't exactly the definition of trustworthy. The cold war may be over, but to really get a hint of what these guys are really about, try this on for size. These are two snippets taken from the front page of The Wall Street Journal on the same day in January, 2001. They represent a perfect example of the two-faced hypocrisy that the PRC has gotten away with. When will we wake up and realize that these people will tell us what we want to hear in order to accomplish their agenda?

[The first snippet:]

China intends to ratify a key international human-rights pact within the next three months, officials told the U.N. secretary-general. The government is seeking to keep human-rights abuses from sinking Beijing's bid to host the 2008 Olympics. The treaty is one of two, which also has yet to be ratified, that lays down baseline guarantees for civil liberties often neglected in China.

[Followed in close proximity by this one:]

China intensified a crusade aimed at deterring protests by the Falun Dafa during Lunar New Year celebrations.  Beijing warned that deonstrators would be harshly punished and urged the group's followers not to sacrifice themselves.  Meanwhile, members of the sect are selling works by its leader at two market kiosks in Hong Kong amid warnings from Beijing that the city should not be used for "subversion".

This is great, isn't it? You just can't make this stuff up! Just for information, this Falun Dafa group (also known as Falun Gong) is a peaceful religious sect that practices meditation, self reliance and inner strength. Now, we can't have that, can we? Want more examples? Can you say "Tienanmen Square, June 4th, 1989"? Or how about Tibet, and the Dalai Lama? Stay tuned for more.... Don't you just love freedom of the press?"

So that was what I wrote seven years ago, the day that these two snippets appeared to expose the duplicity that permeates the Chinese government. Now, we are faced with a real dilemma and are looking to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to take a position. 

According to the Associated Press, when Jacques Rogge, the IOC head, was asked whether he had second thoughts about awarding the games to Beijing seven years ago, he responded: 

"I've said that it is very easy with hindsight to criticize the decision," he said. "It's easy to say now that this was not a wise and a sound decision." Again according to the Associated Press, Rogge insisted Beijing had "clearly the best bid" and offered the strong pull of taking the Olympics to a country with one-fifth of the world's population. "That was the reasoning for awarding the bid to Beijing."

When Beijing was seeking the games, Rogge noted, Chinese officials said the Olympics would help advance social change, including human rights. He called that a "moral engagement" and stressed there was no "contractual promise whatsoever" on human rights in the official host city contract.

"I would definitely ask China to respect this moral engagement," Rogge said, in one of his most pointed comments on the subject.

Rogge reported having "very frank and open discussions" with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao on a range of Olympic issues Wednesday. He declined to elaborate. Rogge insisted that "a number of important points have been met" on human rights, including a new Chinese law enacted in 2007 that removed many restrictions on foreign journalists. But he said the law had not been fully implemented and he was urging Chinese officials to do so "as soon as possible."

Okay, that's enough from the AP on the subject.  Considering that I wrote about this seven years ago, why should any of us be surprised that things have turned out this way?  Beijing is escorting foreign journalists, allowing them no freedom of movement, always under the control of their "handler".  They have cut off free access to the internet, so their citizens don't have accurate information at all.  And before it is over, they will make another empty promise, and the world will accept it, not even considering the possibility that they might be lying.  I for one won't be buying it.  For those who believe anything coming out of Beijing's mouth, I have a wonderful piece of beachfront property for sale about ten miles outside of Tucson.

As I said before, I just love freedom of the press - it's a wonderful tool to enable us to poke a sharp stick into Beijing's eye. 

It's been a long time since I delved into the specifics of the Constitution.  In my youth I was a passionate student of history and of political science, linked together by a marvelous high school American History teacher whose approach to teaching the subject was to sequentially cover in some detail each Presidential election, the platforms of each party on the ballot, and tying it into the prevailing economic, social, and political environment.  It was a wonderfully rich learning experience.  Recently, I ran across this editorial, and the argument it presents took me back to those days and struck me as incisive and fact-based - an increasingly rare thing in the journalistic community the last several years.  I am posting it here without comment to encourage some intelligent, civil discussion amongst my gentle readers.  I know it doesn't have anything to do with dogs, but its entertaining nonetheless....

Editorial Observer

Congress, the Constitution and War: The Limits on Presidential Power

By ADAM COHEN

Published: January 29, 2007

President Bush doesn't seem to care that Congress wants a bigger role in guiding the Iraq war. Talking about his plan to send in 20,000 additional troops, he said on "60 Minutes" that he knows Congress can vote against it, "but I've made my decision and we're going forward."

It is hardly the first time this president has insisted that he is "the decider," or even the first time he's used the Constitution to justify it, as Vice President Dick Cheney did when he told Fox News: "The Constitution is very clear that the president is, in fact, under Article 2, the commander in chief."

But Mr. Cheney told only half the story. Congress has war powers, too, and with 70 percent of Americans now opposed to President Bush's handling of the war, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll, it is becoming more assertive about them. Congress is poised to pass a resolution denouncing the troop increase. Down the line, Congress may well consider mandatory caps on the number of troops in Iraq, or setting a date for withdrawal.

If it does, we may be headed toward a constitutional clash, with the administration trying to read powers into the Constitution -- as it has with its "enemy combatant" doctrine and presidential "signing statements" -- that the Founders did not put there. The Constitution's drafters were intent on balancing power so no one branch could drift toward despotism. The system of checks and balances that runs through the document divides the war power between the president and Congress.

The Constitution's provision that the president is the commander in chief clearly puts him at the top of the military chain of command. Congress would be overstepping if, for example, it passed a law requiring generals in the field to report directly to the speaker of the House.

But the Constitution also gives Congress an array of war powers, including the power to "declare war," "raise and support armies" and "make rules concerning captures on land and water." By "declare war," the Constitution's framers did not mean merely firing off a starting gun. In the 18th century, war declarations were often limited in scope -- European powers might fight a naval battle in the Americas, for example, but not battle on their own continent. In giving Congress the power to declare war, the Constitution gives it authority to make decisions about a war's scope and duration.

The Founders, including James Madison, who is often called "the father of the Constitution," fully expected Congress to use these powers to rein in the commander in chief. "The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it," Madison cautioned. "It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature."

In the early days of the republic, the Supreme Court made clear that Congress could limit the president's war powers -- notably in the Flying Fish case. In 1799, during the "Quasi War," the undeclared sea war between the United States and France, Congress authorized President John Adams to clamp down on trade between the two nations by stopping ships headed to French ports. But Adams went further, ordering commanders to stop ships that were sailing to or from a French port.

When the Flying Fish was seized while sailing from a French port -- something Congress had not authorized -- the ship's owner sued. The Supreme Court decided in his favor, ruling that the president had no right to issue the order he did. John Marshall, the nation's greatest chief justice, declared that even in a time of hostilities, a president's decision to act militarily beyond what Congress had authorized was "unlawful."

The court has repeatedly reinforced this principle. In 1952, in the steel seizure case, it ruled that President Harry Truman could not seize steel mills to avert a strike -- even though steel was needed for the Korean War -- because Congress had set out a different way of handling the labor unrest. More recently, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, it held that President Bush must follow Congressional guidelines when he sets up military tribunals for detainees.

Past Congresses have enacted just the sort of restrictions the Bush administration is trying to foreclose today. During the Vietnam War, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974 capped the number of American military personnel in South Vietnam at 4,000 within six months. The Lebanon Emergency Assistance Act of 1983 required the president to get Congress's approval for any substantial increase in the number or role of armed forces in Lebanon.

There is little question that Congress could use its power of the purse to end a war. But cutting off financing is a drastic step, and one that members of Congress are understandably reluctant to take, because it can look like a refusal to support the troops. The Constitution's text, Supreme Court cases and history show, however, that Congress can instead pass laws that set the terms of military engagement. Whether it would be wise for Congress to adopt such limits is debatable; whether it has the authority to do so should not be.

The Bush administration insists that if Congress tries to manage the Iraq war, it will leave the commander in chief with too little authority. But the greater danger is the one Madison recognized at the nation's founding -- that all the power will be left with the person "most interested in war, and most prone to it."