Speech at West Point

[Nono]

Sometimes when I'm just about to give up on the United States once and for all, I see something like this. Bill Moyers (whoever he is) recently gave a thoughtful, historically interesting and wide-ranging lecture to cadets at The Point. Message To West Point includes these statements:

(...) The chickenhawks in Washington, who at this very moment are busily defending you against supposed “insults” or betrayals by the opponents of the war in Iraq, are likewise those who have cut budgets for medical and psychiatric care; who have been so skimpy and late with pay and with provision of necessities that military families in the United States have had to apply for food stamps; who sent the men and women whom you may soon be commanding into Iraq understrength, underequipped, and unprepared for dealing with a kind of war fought in streets and homes full of civilians against enemies undistinguishable from non-combatants; who have time and again broken promises to the civilian National Guardsmen bearing much of the burden by canceling their redeployment orders and extending their tours. (...) Who has been the real beneficiary of creating this high-tech army called to fight a war conceived and commissioned and cheered on by politicians and pundits not one of whom ever entered a combat zone? One of your boys answered that: Dwight Eisenhower, class of 1915, who told us that the real winners of the anything at any price philosophy would be “the military-industrial complex.” (...) The last time Congress declared war was in 1941. Since then presidents of the United States, including the one I served, have gotten Congress, occasionally under demonstrably false pretenses, to suspend Constitutional provisions that required them to get the consent of the people’s representatives in order to conduct a war. They have been handed a blank check to send the armed forces into action at their personal discretion and on dubious Constitutional grounds. Furthermore, the current President has made extra-Constitutional claims of authority by repeatedly acting as if he were Commander-in-Chief of the entire nation and not merely of the armed forces. Most dangerously to our moral honor and to your own welfare in the event of capture, he has likewise ordered the armed forces to violate clear mandates of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions by claiming a right to interpret them at his pleasure, so as to allow indefinite and secret detentions and torture. These claims contravene a basic principle usually made clear to recruits from their first day in service—that they may not obey an unlawful order. The President is attempting to have them violate that longstanding rule by personal definitions of what the law says and means. (...) What, then, can you do about it if disobedience to the chain of command is ruled out? For one, you didn’t give up your freedom to vote (...) Second, remember that there are limitations to what military power can do.(...) Third, don’t let your natural and commendable loyalty to comrades-in-arms lead you into thinking that criticism of the mission you are on spells lack of patriotism. Not every politician who flatters you is your ally. Not every one who believes that war is the wrong choice to some problems is your enemy. Blind faith in bad leadership is not patriotism. In the words of G.K. Chesterton: “To say my country right or wrong is something no patriot would utter except in dire circumstance; it is like saying my mother drunk or sober.” Patriotism means insisting on our political leaders being sober, strong, and certain about what they are doing when they put you in harm’s way. (...)

And I believe that it's no coincidence that this same speech that warns against militarism and advocates strict adherence to the US constitution and preservation of accountable civil control of the armed forces also deplores the growing wealth gap in the US. To someone like me it's all of a piece.

[brien]

Here is a short bio on Bill Moyers, of PBS. He is a well known and very respected journalist.

Bill Moyers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Journalism
The recipient of the 2006 Lifetime Emmy, "Bill Moyers has devoted his lifetime to the exploration of the major issues and ideas of our time and our country, giving television viewers an informed perspective on political and societal concerns," according to the official announcement, which also noted, "the scope of and quality of his broadcasts have been honored time and again. It is fitting that the National Television Academy honor him with our highest honor – the Lifetime Achievement Award." [[1]] He has received well over thirty Emmys and virtually every other major television journalism prize, including a gold baton from the Dupont Journalism awards, a lifetime Peabody award, and a George Polk Career Award for contributions to journalistic integrity and investigative reporting. He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Letters and has been the recipient of numerous honorary degrees (honorary degree).

The latest of his programs are webstreamed for viewing online at pbs.org/moyers[[2]].

His journalistic career began in earnest when he served as publisher for the Long Island, New York daily newspaper Newsday from 1967 to 1970. Moyers left when the paper was fully acquired by the Times-Mirror Company, publisher of the Los Angeles Times.[2] In 1971 he began working for the Public Broadcasting System (PBS), hosting a news program called Bill Moyers' Journal, which ran until 1981 with a hiatus from 1976-1977.[3] In 1976 he moved to CBS, where he worked as editor and chief correspondent for CBS Reports until 1980, then as senior news analyst and commentator for the CBS Evening News with Dan Rather from 1981-1986. He was the last regular commentator for the network broadcast.[4]. During his last year at CBS, Moyers made public statements about declining news standards at the network. Though Thomas H. Wyman was removed as CBS chairman and news president Van Gordon Sauter resigned, Moyers declined to renew his contract with CBS, citing commitments with PBS.

In 1986 Moyers and his wife Judith Davidson Moyers formed Public Affairs Television. Among their first productions was the popular PBS series Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth. Moyers briefly joined NBC News in 1995 as a senior analyst and commentator, and the following year he became the first host of sister cable network MSNBC's Insight program. He was the last regular commentator on the NBC Nightly News.[5]

Moyers hosted the TV news journal, NOW with Bill Moyers, on PBS for three years. He retired from the program on December 17, 2004 but returned to PBS soon after to host Wide Angle in 2005. When he left NOW, he announced that he wished to finish writing a memoir of Lyndon Johnson.[6]

In 2006 he presented two Public Television series. In Faith and Reason Bill Moyers on Faith & Reason | PBS [3], a series of conversations with esteemed writers of various faiths and of no faith, Moyers explored the question, "In a world in which religion is poison to some and salvation to others, how do we live together?" The other recent series, Moyers on America [4], analyzed in depth the ramifications of three important issues: the Jack Abramoff scandal ("Capitol Crimes"), evangelical religion and environmentalism ("Is God Green?"), and threats to open public access of the Internet ("The Net at Risk").

[xyzer]

Im find this tripe to be untrue and way off the test of reality. bill Moyers may be a noted news commentator but that doesn't equp him to expound on the military or the law. His insinuations are ridiculous..e.g.

The chickenhawks in Washington, who at this very moment are busily defending you against supposed “insults” or betrayals by the opponents of the war in Iraq, are likewise those who have cut budgets for medical and psychiatric care; who have been so skimpy and late with pay and with provision of necessities that military families in the United States have had to apply for food stamps; who sent the men and women whom you may soon be commanding into Iraq understrength, underequipped, and unprepared for dealing with a kind of war fought in streets and homes full of civilians against enemies undistinguishable from non-combatants; who have time and again broken promises to the civilian National Guardsmen bearing much of the burden by canceling their redeployment orders and extending their tours. (...)

The bugets for veterans care were not cut! President Clinton suddely ordered the VA to give lifetime care to all veterans rather than the traditional care for those on disability. This opened a floodgate of claims which were way over budget and required several years of catch up! It wasn' a cut and that turd should know it!

Since then presidents of the United States, including the one I served, have gotten Congress, occasionally under demonstrably false pretenses, to suspend Constitutional provisions that required them to get the consent of the people’s representatives in order to conduct a war. They have been handed a blank check to send the armed forces into action at their personal discretion and on dubious Constitutional grounds.

More crap! Every venture into war that this uninformed peddler of nonsense says have been caused by presidents getting Congress to declare war under false pretenses was done legally and in conformance with consitutional mandates! I don't know what he maeans by blank checks ,,but that is the way war is directed..not by hundreds of separate congressmen and buraucrats making deciions but by those who have the expertise and advice of our best intelligence and military sources!

Most dangerously to our moral honor and to your own welfare in the event of capture, he has likewise ordered the armed forces to violate clear mandates of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions by claiming a right to interpret them at his pleasure, so as to allow indefinite and secret detentions and torture.

Horse feathers..there is no evidence of any command decisions to violate the UCMJ or the Geneva convention except in the minds of idiots..

Actually this doesn't even sound like Moyers who has been a newsperson for many years...he has to know better than this..I'd like to see the refenerence!

[Nono]

Quote by: x (...) that doesn't equp him to expound on the military of the law. His insinuations are ridiculous (...)

Well why don't you do some expounding on "the military of the law" then, x? You can start by explaining that term.

You can then go on and refute Moyers's statements. Mind yer facts now.

By the way, they aren't insinuations -- they're full-throated affirmations. That's what impresses me about this text.

[Clarence]

My uncle is a West Piont grad and a Col. in the Army. His wife is a Lt. They aren't irrational people. I wonder what effect this will have?

[Osborn F Enready]

Bill Moyers is one of the few good investigative journalists still around.

I support Bill, and his speech, as well as his views on the corporatizing of media and his views on the absolute tyranny of the Bush administration in making their number one goal our conversion to full fledged empire.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Bill Moyers is one of the few good investigative journalists still around. I support Bill, and his speech, as well as his views on the corporatizing of media and his views on the absolute tyranny of the Bush administration in making their number one goal our conversion to full fledged empire.

Arguably, they are just trying restore their
government to its "true principles" of subordinating the masses, including dividing and conquering us--colonialism from within, as it were.

The idea is that "one day Americans will become purely righteous
people" so long as we're attaining elite status compared to the rest of the world and have ever-clearer restrictions on our freedom to move, speak and behave in ways contrary to the status quo.

Grandpa h.

[Osborn F Enready]

Grandpa said: Arguably, they are just trying restore their government to its "true principles" of subordinating the masses, including dividing and conquering us--colonialism from within, as it were.

What the hell do you mean by that?

Grandpa said: The idea is that "one day Americans will become purely righteous people" so long as we're attaining elite status compared to the rest of the world and have ever-clearer restrictions on our freedom to move, speak and behave in ways contrary to the status quo.

Again, what the hell do you mean by that? Elaborate? Support or against?

[grandpa]

Quite simply, systems of governance are designed to restrict people, to regiment their understandings and behaviors in a way that benefits those who govern. This is true of any system of power, to my knowledge--including the one here first established to enslave and wipe out the native population, bring in black slaves and establish obedience to conditions of "wage slavery" among poor whites.

We live in a regimented society for a reason--certain groups can't help but dominate when everything. America is on its way to becoming an elite society by itself--including even the poor, so long as cheap slave-like labor is used to feed us. The "white man's burden" is translating to other skin colors now, seeing as to how we no longer have chattel slavery.

That's colonialism from within, which somewhat effectively attempts to justify our external behavior (foreign policies).

Grandpa h.

[Osborn F Enready]

Grandpa said: Quite simply, systems of governance are designed to restrict people, to regiment their understandings and behaviors in a way that benefits those who govern.

You are far too quick to dismiss the fact that SOCIETY hinges upon governance of some type. I am pro-individualist, so I don't have much stake in society, but the fact is that a majority of people prefer societal living to remove the stress of basic risks, such as fire, police and medical/dental as well as basic services like electricity, water and sewer, cable, etc.

Things like that don't exist "affordably" without societies, and that doesn't happen without a form of governance to protect the ORIGINAL investment, something you often neglect from almost all economic observances dealing with property or profit.

I have no problem with LIMITED government, but we don't see those anymore, and that is why people like you and I have no choice left unless we refuse to let that choice be outlawed.

I can't speak on all governments, but I can speak on ours. Ours had a noble intention, that exceeded its goals before it was undone from within. It wasn't perfect, and wasn't intended to be, just better than what else existed. Our government attempted to equalize government and make it of the people, providing a level field for economic liberty as well as social liberty, for even the most basic farmer or laborer to the wealthy industrialist or land owner.

I don't know what you consider yourself Gramps, politically, but I haven't met many people that visualize anything as you do as far as "ideal". I like to learn more though, which is why I ask.

What is your alternative to government of some type? Anarchy?

Gramps said: This is true of any system of power, to my knowledge--including the one here first established to enslave and wipe out the native population, bring in black slaves and establish obedience to conditions of "wage slavery" among poor whites.

Those are your views Gramps. Show me some evidence to support that theory. I have a lot of views too, but I do some research and provide food for thought that shows motive, means and methods.

I don't see a lot of propositions from you on alternatives, but I do see a lot of accusations and unfollowed leads. I am not saying there is no merit, or reason for question, but I don't see anything to tie all of the loose ends you sight into one intelligeble line of reasoning. Teach me, show me.

Gramps said: We live in a regimented society for a reason--certain groups can't help but dominate when everything. America is on its way to becoming an elite society by itself--including even the poor, so long as cheap slave-like labor is used to feed us. The "white man's burden" is translating to other skin colors now, seeing as to how we no longer have chattel slavery.

In a lot of ways I agree, but we see different powers at the center, and different reasons for the ends.

Gramps said: That's colonialism from within, which somewhat effectively attempts to justify our external behavior (foreign policies).

Again, I agree yet disagree as to why, how and what is the end goal.

(sorry this post drifted so far off topic)

[grandpa]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready You are far too quick to dismiss the fact that SOCIETY hinges upon governance of some type. I am pro-individualist, so I don't have much stake in society, but the fact is that a majority of people prefer societal living to remove the stress of basic risks, such as fire, police and medical/dental as well as basic services like electricity, water and sewer, cable, etc.

None of those things require the kind of society we have. I don't have a fatalist understanding of the world.
People needn't a single type of vehicle to get to a destination in life. Alternative means could be utilized, so long as an effort is made to even consider restructuring society. If we are going to take seriously the idea of "free minds and free markets" then we should move toward freeing minds from market totalitarianism, which is taking shape quite clearly in the world (scandal after scandal, genuine oil interests in the Middle East, the bureaucratic hierarchy of the wokplace which renders workers expendable, placing profits before the public health, etc).
In our current society people who are most likely to seek promotion into management positions still may not be concerned much with what they end up managing. I remain wary of this state of affairs for reasons that should be obvious.
here's an approach that I basically endorse:
Anarcho-syndicalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rudolf Rocker was quite accurate in saying:
"Political rights do not originate in parliaments; they are rather forced upon them from without. And even their enactment into law has for a long time been no guarantee of their security. They do not exist because they have been legally set down on a piece of paper, but only when they have become the ingrown habit of a people, and when any attempt to impair them will meet with the violent resistance of the populace."

As for this country having origins in slavery, that's just common knowledge.

History of slavery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The first recorded slaves in the United States, in 1619 twenty Africans were brought by a Dutch soldier and sold to the English colony of Jamestown, Virginia as indentured servants. The transformation from indentured servitude to racial slavery happened gradually. It wasn't until 1661 that a reference to slavery entered into Virginia law, directed at Caucasian servants who ran away with a black servant. It wouldn't be until the Slave Codes of 1705 that the status of African Americans as slaves would be sealed. This status would last for another 160 years, until after the end of the American Civil War with the ratification of the 13th Amendment in December 1865."

It goes back to the Encomienda era:
Encomienda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica the most common forms of slavery were those of prisoners-of-war and debtors. People unable to pay back a debt could be sentenced to work as a slave to the person owed until the debt was worked off. Slavery was not usually hereditary; children of slaves were born free. In Tahuantinsuyu (or Inca Empire), workers were subject to a mita in lieu of taxes which they paid by working for the government. Each ayllu, or extended family, would decide which family member to send to do the work."

Grandpa h.

[xyzer]

Well why don't you do some expounding on "the military of the law" then, x? You can start by explaining that term. You can then go on and refute Moyers's statements. Mind yer facts now.

OK As a graduate of the Military Justice School in Newport Rhode Island I had more than a casual aquaintance with the UCMJ (Uniform code of Military Justice) which is the rule of law for the military establishment. I claim more expertise than Bill Moyers that media mouthpiece who is so leftward leaning that he is about to fall over on his left side.
There are a myriad of laws in the Code prohibiting certain types of illegal acts by member of the military and prescibing procedural and evidentiary controls for the legal processes in the military establishment..... but this does not protect military members from civilian justice. Nor does the Code allow torture and some of the other acts for which our Sec Def, President and even senior military officers have been so scurrilously accused of? If that doesn't give you a general idea of the UCMJ search for it with Google!
If you ask me specifics I can probably explain their application to the process of military law.
As a preface...I would like some showing that any US citizen has been prosecuted for conversations detected by the electronic surveillance program which made so many headlines a while back? Some showing that it isn't a logical defensive measure in the war on terrorism? Moyers alludes to some extra constitutional actions by Bush in this matter? I would also like some assurance from Moyers that there was anything underhanded in the Congressional vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq. Congress was afforded the same intelligence info that the President received. And it was not to my knowledge intimidated by Bush?
I would like to hear Moyers definition of "chickenhawks" And of course whether nbeing called that nasty name by a media mug somehow brands the person as untruthful or unable to reason properly?
It is easy for a biased shill like Moyers to make all sorts of generalized claim off a few questionable specifics...and it is illogical!

[Nono]

Quote by: x If you ask me specifics I can probably explain their application to the process of military law.

For starters, why were only the small fry convicted over Abu Graib? It was like seeing only corporals in the dock at Nuremberg.

[Osborn F Enready]

Gramps, I'll start a new thread, because what you said deserves a reply and I don't want to derail this thread anymore than it has been.

[xyzer]

Hey grandpa!

We live in a regimented society for a reason--certain groups can't help but dominate when everything. America is on its way to becoming an elite society by itself--including even the poor, so long as cheap slave-like labor is used to feed us. The "white man's burden" is translating to other skin colors now, seeing as to how we no longer have chattel slavery

Don't you think we live in a 'regimented'(law governed)society to prevent societal chaos? Don't you think our constitutional form of government gives us controls on the so called elitest society? I was of the opinion that the laws were made by the duly(popularly) elected Congress which reflects public opinion by its membership?
If you define elitist as including certain specifically designated 'victim classes'. I would agree that there is an attempt in recent times to justify unequal treatment under the law..contravene the XIV Amendment? One of the 'burdens' is that skin color and even behavioral preferences have become markers for special(elitest ) treatment under the law? e.g. affirmative action and so called racial diversity?
Is that what you are talking about?

[xyzer]

Nono...

For starters, why were only the small fry convicted over Abu Graib? It was like seeing only corporals in the dock at Nuremberg.

Because there was no legal culpability at the upper levels.No evidence was offered that any in command outside the group gave orders for these bozos to do these things. Power corrupts some people? There are and were no orders to be found authorizing the hazing of POWs. The only culpable person higher in command was the woman, a BGeneral, in charge of the prison. Her offense was being neglectful, not issuing direct orders prohibiting such behavior.. It doesn't hurt to CYA in such situations. It doesn't hurt to be vigilant and keep close touch on what goes on. She didn't but she was not complicit! A good commander would have been omni present and questioning subordinates as to what was going on..any suspicious behavior should be promptly stopped.
By the way the press accusations agains Rumsfeld and even Bush were bunco! Illogical, uninformed nonsense!

[Zeebadee]

Someone barely literate is claiming to have more expertise than Bill Moyers??
That's a knee-slapper, tell us another!

[grandpa]

Quote by: xyzer Hey grandpa! Don't you think we live in a 'regimented' (law governed) society to prevent societal chaos?

No, I don't. States have created and exaggerated far more chaotic conditions than they've prevented. Have you ever heard of a place called Lebanon? Israel?
The United States? Nigeria? China?

Grandpa h.

[Nono]

Quote by: xyzer There are and were no orders to be found authorizing the hazing of POWs.

Just as there were no orders from Hitler to be found authorizing the death camps (Wannsee conference or no Wannsee conference), and so we have to conclude that he wasn't involved.

Do I believe either proposition? No. And neither should you, xyzer.