Full Archive of Video Presentations at 2017 Harvard Conference: "Presidential First Use of Nuclear Weapons"

Below are links to resources from the November 4, 2017, conference at Harvard, "Presidential First Use of Nuclear Weapons: Is it Legal? Is it Constitutional? Is it Just?"

Six-minute summary video of "Presidential First Use of Nuclear Weapons: Is it Legal? Is it Constitutional? Is it Just?"

Full text of "Presidential First Use of Nuclear Weapons: Is it Legal? Is it Constitutional? Is it Just?" presentations on Public Books website.

Event summary: Nuclear weapons strategy in the United States is designed around “presidential first use,” an arrangement that enables one man, the president, to kill and maim many millions of people in a single afternoon. What legal or philosophical principle differentiates the moral harm or moral wrong that would be attributed to a terrorist, non-state actor or hacker who delivered a nuclear weapon from a presidential launch of a nuclear weapon? The conference will bring together international and constitutional scholars and statesmen to examine the nature of presidential first use in the United States, as well as parallel arrangements in the other eight nuclear states.


Videos of full proceedings

(Links to video of full panels and individual presentations.)

Elaine Scarry, “Introduction: Presidential First Use of Nuclear Weapons”

Panel One: Presidential First Use: An Overview

Chair: Jonathan King
Bruce Blair, “The Nuclear Doomsday Machines”
William Perry, “Can the President’s Cabinet Act as a Constraint on Presidential First Use?
Sissela Bok, “The Use and Misuse of the Language of Self-Defense”
Audience questions and comments

Panel Two: Presidential First Use vs. the U.S. Constitution

Chair: Richard Fallon
Bruce Ackerman, “Presidential Lawlessness: The Case for Fundamental Reform”
Rosa Brooks, “Nuclear Weapons and the Deep State: Can Bureaucracy Constrain Nuclear Weapons?”
John Burroughs, “International Law and First Use of Nuclear Weapons”
Audience comments and questions

Senator Ed Markey: Comments 

Panel Three: Presidential First Use vs. Congress and the Citizenry

Chair: Elaine Scarry
Congressman Jim McGovern, “Presidential First Use vs. Congress”
Kennette Benedict, “Congress and the Citizenry”
Hugh Gusterson, “Democracy, Hypocrisy, First Use”
Audience comments and questions

Panel Four: Parallel Executive Arrangements in the Other Nuclear States

Chair: Joseph Gerson
Zia Mian, “Nuclear Weapons Use in South Asia”
William Perry, “Nuclear North Korea: 1999 and 2017”
Bruce Blair, “The Protocol for Nuclear First Use by the United States, Russia, and China”
Audience comments and questions

Speaker profiles:

Bruce Ackerman, named one of the top 100 global thinkers by Foreign Policy in 2010, is Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale and author of We the People.

Kennette Benedict is former executive director of Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, senior advisor to Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, and lecturer at University of Chicago’s Harris School of Public Policy.

Bruce Blair is a former missile launch officer, the co-founder of Global Zero, and a professor at Princeton.

Sissela Bok is senior visiting fellow at Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies and author of A Strategy for Peace (1989) and Lying: Moral Choice in Private and Public Life (1978).

Rosa Brooks is Georgetown University Law Center professor and author of How Everything Became War and the Military Became Everything.

John Burroughs is executive director of the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy and director of the UN office of International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms. He is the author of the Legality of Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons: A Guide to the Historic Opinion of the International Court of Justice (1998).

Richard Fallon is Rhodes Scholar and Story Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and author of The Federal Courts and the Federal System, as well as The Dynamic Constitution.

Joseph Gerson is disarmament coordinator of American Friends Service Committee, director of Peace and Economic Security Program, author of Empire and the Bomb, and founder of the Campaign for Peace, Disarmament, and Common Security.

Hugh Gusterson is professor of international affairs and anthropologist at George Washington University, president of American Ethnological Society, and author of works on executive weapons, Nuclear Rites and Drone: Remote Control Warfare.

Jonathan King is emeritus professor of molecular biology at MIT, past president of the national Biophysical Society, chair of the Nuclear Disarmament Working Group at Mass Peace Action, and co-chair of this conference on Presidential First Use.

Ed Markey has served in Congress for four decades, first as US Representative of Massachusetts 7th District (1976-2013), then as Senator from Massachusetts (2013-present). Throughout that time, he has been a leading voice on the nuclear peril and is currently co-author of the Markey-Lieu bill (S200, HR669), the “Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act.”

Jim McGovern is US Representative of Massachusetts 2nd District, first co-sponsor of the Markey-Lieu bill restricting presidential launch of a nuclear weapon, and a leading advocate in Congress for peace.

Zia Mian is physicist and co-director of Princeton’s Program on Science and Global Security, co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, and co-author of Unmaking the Bomb: A Fissile Material Approach to Nuclear Disarmament and Nonproliferation.

William Perry, senior fellow at Stanford University, is Former US Secretary of Defense, author of My Journey at the Nuclear Brink (2015), and co-founder of the Nuclear Security Project.

Elaine Scarry is Cabot Professor of Aesthetics at Harvard and the author of Thermonuclear Monarchy. She is co-organizer of the “Presidential First Use” conference

Jonathan King
Professor of Biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

This event was cosponsored by Harvard Mahindra Humanities Center, Harvard’s Office of the Dean of Arts and Humanities, Mass Peace Action, Mass Peace Action Education Fund, American Friends Service Committee, Council for A Livable World, Future of Life Institute, World beyond War, Union of Concerned Scientists, and Boston Review.

Seven Days in May (2018)

Movie poster for Seven Days in May

I have been quietly thinking about and awaiting the events of "Korea Spring" - particularly the meeting between the leaders of South Korea and North Korea, and the meeting between the leaders of the US and North Korea.

"Korea Spring" has the potential to contribute substantially to global peace and denuclearization . . .

 . . . but only if sovereignty, diplomacy, and constitutionality are respected.

The news today that the Trump Administration has renounced the Iran Deal throws those values very much into question.

A few nights ago I watched a movie from the '60s: Seven Days in May.  It's about a US government effort to implement a peace treaty, and to eliminate nuclear weapons . . . and about an attempt to seize power by those who oppose those goals.

It is a worthy complement to the other film I recently mentioned here: Dr. Strangelove. (See Doomsday Machine: Same As It Ever Was . . . .)

Could something like this really ever happen? Well, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was concerned enough about who's taking orders from whom, and how our leaders interpret the US Constitution, that it held a hearing on these issues at the end of 2017:  "Authority to Order the Use of Nuclear Weapons," November 14, 2017.

Do you ever wonder who's running the show?


Please share this post . . . .

Doomsday Machine: Same As It Ever Was . . . .

Dr. Strangelove . . . Strangelove . . . Strangelove . . .

We've got to try a thousand different ways of getting people to wake up to the danger posed by nuclear weapons, and to do something about it.

I was reminded of the fact that no one is in possession of the one solution today while reading Joan Didion's essays in the collection Slouching Towards Bethlehem. I come across a long riff on Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove.

Didion is loaded for bear on the perceived presumptuousness of auteurs ("Ask what [filmmakers] plan to do with their absolute freedom, with their chance to make a personal statement, and they will pick an 'issue,' a 'problem.' The 'issues' they pick are generally no longer real issues . . . . ") and films that failed to hold her attention ("Dr. Strangelove was essentially a one-line gag, having to do with the difference between all other wars and nuclear war"), and in this essay dated 1964 I can't help suspecting that she wrote it fresh from a screening of Kubrick's film, which was released that year.

By the time George Scott had said "I think I'll mosey on over to the War Room" and Sterling Hayden had said "Looks like we got ourselves a shootin' war" and the SAC bomber had begun heading for its Soviet targets to the tune of "When Johnny Comes Marching Home Again," Kubrick had already developed a full fugue upon the theme, and should have started counting the minutes until it would begin to pall. (Picador edition, p. 226-7)

The essay in which this review appears is called, "I Can't Get That Monster out of My Mind," and it is notable that the "monster" Didion is referring to is the Hollywood establishment, the alleged-by-some-to-be-inhibiting studio system. In other words: maybe she's not giving Kubrick's art a chance because she's not really focused on how challenging the issue of nuclear weapons really is.

And maybe I'm just touchy because I watched Dr. Strangelove again a few weeks ago, and thought, "My God, what more could we have asked for? Why, in 2018, do we still need to have a "Virtual Roundtable on Presidential First Use of Nuclear Weapons," why does the Senate Foreign Relations Committee still need to hold hearings on the nuclear weapon command structure? Kubrick laid it all out for us in 1964!"

And don't just take my word for it: Daniel Ellsberg describes seeing Dr. Strangelove with a colleague when it first came out in 1964:

We came out into the afternoon sunlight, dazed by the light and the film, both agreeing that what we had just seen was, essentially, a documentary. (We didn't yet know -- nor did SAC -- that existing strategic operational plans, whether for first strike or retaliation, constituted a literal Doomsday Machine, as in the film.) (The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner, p. 65))

This was written at a time when Ellsberg was investigating in minute detail exactly the kind of command issues for nuclear bomb delivery that are the material of Dr. Strangelove.

We couldn't ask for it to be much more explicit or obvious.

So: what's it gonna take? What next? What is to be done?

Obviously, we need to try the thousand-and-first way of getting people to wake up to the danger posed by nuclear weapons, and to do something about it.

For my part, I'm working on a screenplay about a guy working on a screenplay about the dangers of nuclear weapons and he goes to see a retired nuclear planner and is told that the story has already been told with perfect precision by Dr. Strangelove and then . . . .


Please share this post . . . .

To Do This Week: More letters to Congress

Last week's plan -- a letter a day to Congress to support HR.669/S.200 "Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017" -- turned out pretty well.

At a busy time of year, it's helpful to set a few simple priorities and get those tasks done.

I'm going to try it again this week, focusing on senators I watched in the video of the November 14 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on "Authority to Order the Use of Nuclear Weapons." In that hearing . . .

* There was strong affirmation from everyone in the room that Congress (not the president) has the sole authority to authorize a (non-defensive) nuclear first strike through its power to declare war, AND/BUT continuing silence by Congress about its authority tends to have the practical effect of leaving the president completely in control.

* The three experts who testified were deeply knowledgeable and answered all questions to the best of their ability. But, when it was all said and done, as pointed out by Senator Markey, they could not provide satisfactory assurance that the president -- particularly the current president -- could not unilaterally cause the launch of a (non-defensive) nuclear first strike i.e. without Congressional authorization.

Below are the tasks I have set myself for the week. Each is a letter to a senator on the Foreign Relations Committee.

What would happen if a large number of people picked up their pens and took control of this issue?


Monday: Sen. Bob Corker (TN)

Senator Corker chairs the committee. He showed a great deal of leadership in calling the hearing, and he is to be commended. Now ... given the conclusions cited above, what does being a leader call for him to do now?

Tuesday: Sen. Ben Cardin (MD)

Senator Cardin is the ranking member on the committee (i.e. the senior member from the Democratic Party).  I noticed that he zeroed in on the shakiness of any real constraint on the president. (See minute 58:00 of the hearing.)

Wednesday: Sen. Tom Udall (NM)

Viewing the hearing, I got the distinct impression that Senator Udall is not satisfied with what he was hearing. I hope he'll move to support for S.200. (See minute 1:13:00 of the hearing.)

Thursday: Sen. Tim Kaine (VA)

Senator Kaine's exchange with the witnesses zeroed in on the key point: Congress (not the president) has the sole authority to authorize a (non-defensive) nuclear first strike through its power to declare war, AND/BUT continuing silence by Congress about its authority tends to have the practical effect of leaving the president completely in control. (See minute 1:44:00 of the hearing.)

Friday: Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (NH)

I found it very noteworthy that Senator Shaheen focused on the phrase "civilization-threatening consequences" in the testimony of the witnesses. (See minute 2:03:00 of the hearing.)


It's time for Congress to re-assert its rightful power over nuclear weapons. S.200 is a critical first step.

Who will you be writing to?


Related posts

Notes on how to talk to your representatives in Congress

"Nuclear Citizenship" by Elaine Scarry in Harper's

On Nuclear Weapons: We Need Tenacity


Please share this post . . . .

To Do This Week: One letter a day to Congress

Does anybody think we no longer have to worry about Donald Trump's unilateral authority to use nuclear weapons?

This week I will be writing letters to representatives and senators in the US Congress to urge their support of  HR669 "Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017" (corresponding Senate bill: S200).

Last winter I suggested people call and write Congress on this vital issue. As of today, there are 73 co-sponsors of the bill in the House of Representatives and 13 in the Senate. We need more.

Two weeks ago the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held hearings on the issue. (You can watch the hearings here.) This is a startling step in a Republican-controlled Congress and a major step forward in moving this bill forward.

Below are the tasks I have set myself for the week.

What would happen if a large number of people picked up their pens and took control of this issue?

For people in California, the consequences of nuclear conflict
seem just a little bit too real, as the publication of this image
on the front page of The San Francisco Chronicle suggests.

✔ Monday: Sen. Kamala Harris (CA)

I will urge the second of my two senators, Kamala Harris, to co-sponsor S200. (Senator Feinstein was one of the first co-sponsors.)

✔ Tuesday: Rep. Scott Peters (CA-52)

My district is represented by Barbara Lee, who was the first of the eighteen (18) other California congressmen supporting the House version of the bill (HR669), introduced by her colleague from Los Angeles, Rep. Ted Lieu.

Now I will be writing to Scott Peters, who represents San Diego, to encourage him to join his California colleagues in co-sponsoring the bill.

✔ Wednesday: Rep. Mike Quigley (IL-5)

During my years in Chicago, I frequently communicated with Rep. Quigley. (See, for instance, this letter from two years ago.) It's time to write to him again to urge him to join his Chicago-area colleagues in the House, Bobby Rush, Jan Schakowsky, and Luis Gutierrez, in co-sponsoring HR669.

✔ Thursday: Sen. Cory Booker (NJ)

Senator Cory Booker sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. His support for S200 -- together with committee members Ed Markey (the original sponsor), Jeff Merkley, and Chris Murphy -- is vital.

✔ Friday: Sen. Rand Paul (KY)

Senator Rand Paul also sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He is an independent voice within the Republican party, and a strong advocate for Congress' war authority under the U.S. Constitution. His support for S200 will all so be vital.


Who will you be writing to?


Related posts

Notes on how to talk to your representatives in Congress

"Nuclear Citizenship" by Elaine Scarry in Harper's

On Nuclear Weapons: We Need Tenacity


Please share this post . . . .

Congress, Experts Question Trump’s Nuke Authority

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

What: Public forum on constitutionality of presidential first use of nuclear weapons
Where: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA (Science Center Hall C)
When: Saturday, November 4, 2017


Contact: Prof. Elaine Scarry, Harvard University --  m 617-519-9735, escarry@fas.harvard.edu
   or    Cole Harrison, Mass Peace Action -– m 617-466-9274, cole@masspeaceaction.org
   or    Prof. Jonathan King, MIT -– m 617 803 8683, jaking@mit.edu

Congress, Experts Question Trump’s Nuke Authority

Long-held Doctrine May Be Unconstitutional

As President Donald Trump travels to China and other Asian countries, where his first priority will be negotiations over handling of the confrontation with North Korea over threats of nuclear strikes, a crescendo of voices in the US is questioning the constitutional authority of the US president to conduct a nuclear first strike.

On Saturday, November 4, at Harvard University, Congressman Jim McGovern (co-sponsor of “H.R.669 - Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017”) will join former Secretary of Defense William Perry, former missile launch officer Bruce Blair, constitutional scholar Bruce Ackerman, and other experts for a public forum on “Presidential First Use of Nuclear Weapons: Is it Legal? Is it Constitutional? Is it Just?”

“This event is intended to bring together the range of voices that will be required to rein in the nuclear threat – members of Congress, defense experts, legal scholars, philosophers, activists … and the general public,” said Harvard professor Elaine Scarry, conference co-chair and author of Thermonuclear Monarchy: Choosing Between Democracy and Doom.

The conference takes place Saturday, November 4, 2017 (9:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.) at Harvard University, Science Center Hall C, Cambridge, MA, and is co-sponsored by Harvard’s Mahindra Humanities Center,  Harvard’s Office of the Dean of Arts and Humanities, and MassPeaceAction Education Fund.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Full conference program at:
http://mahindrahumanities.fas.harvard.edu/content/presidential-first-use-nuclear-weapons-it-legal-it-constitutional-it-just
http://masspeaceaction.org/event/presidential-first-use/

H.R.669 - Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/669/

S.200 - Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/200

Time to Call the Question: Is Presidential First Use of Nuclear Weapons Constitutional?

"CNN BREAKING NEWS . . . .
Trump: If N Korea keeps threatening, will be met with 'fire'."

Adam Liptak wrote in the New York Times several days ago that law schools are preparing to delve into numerous Constitutional questions that have been brought to a head by the Trump presidency, not the least of which is:

"Must Congress authorize a nuclear strike against North Korea?"

(See "New on This Fall’s Law School Syllabus: Trump.")

Case in point: a conference taking place in Cambridge on November 4 will address the question, "Presidential First Use of Nuclear Weapons:  Is it Legal? Is it Constitutional? Is it Just?"  The affiliations of the speakers -- including Yale Law School, Georgetown University Law Center, University of Chicago’s Harris School of Public Policy, Princeton, Harvard, Stanford, MIT -- tend to affirm Liptak's suggestion that this is a question that is being taken up in law schools and on campuses nationwide.

Also speaking at the Cambridge conference will be Massachusetts member of Congress Jim McGovern, a co-sponsor of HR669 "Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017." Central to HR669 are the principles that . . .

"The Constitution gives Congress the sole power to declare war";

"By any definition of war, a first-use nuclear strike from the United States would constitute a major act of war"; and

"A first-use nuclear strike conducted absent a declaration of war by Congress would violate the Constitution."

Of course, breathing life into HR669's steely logic requires the participation of actual members of Congress, and in turn by the life-and-blood people they represent. It is worth noting that HR 669 now has forty-seven (47) co-sponsors in the House, including representatives from . . .

Arizona
California
Connecticut
Hawaii
Illinois
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Texas
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin

Food for thought: how many law schools and universities will avail themselves of the opportunity to invite their member of Congress to participate in a discussion of this vital question? As the list above indicates, "Presidential First Use of Nuclear Weapons:  Is it Legal? Is it Constitutional? Is it Just?" has now become the question people are asking everywhere.


Related posts:

Nuclear Weapons: People Power Over Trump Power

"Thermonuclear Monarchy: Choosing Between Democracy and Doom" by Elaine Scarry


Please share this post . . . .

Donald Trump: The Great Clarifier

Ever since nuclear weapons were first invented and the United States used them against Japan, ordinary citizens have been subjected to an unrelenting campaign of obfuscation and confusion about their true nature and what's at stake. If any of us stopped long enough to think about nuclear weapons, we realized that everything possible must be done to get rid of them, and to make sure no one is every able to cause them to be used. But our ability to think has been challenged by a smokescreen of state propaganda: the state needs them, the state has everything under control, the state will take care of it. (Just feel lucky you're a citizen of such a big, strong state.)

Now along comes Donald Trump, who has sole authority to order a nuclear first strike and is tossing out threats left and right against North Korea.

People are waking up. Nuclear war is not an abstraction. It is a real possibility, and it is in the hands (right now) of a single person.

There are now forty-four (44) co-sponsors on Rep. Ted Lieu's House bill to rein in presidential first use of nuclear weapons. (And nine (9) co-sponsors on the corresponding bill in the Senate sponsored by Ed Markey.) Now is the time to demand a tidal wave of support for this bill, and get the unilateral authority over these weapons out of the hands of a single person.

Please use this script to call and get YOUR representative on that list! 

"Problems from Hell" and Real Options Under Democracy

The unending crisis in Syria has underlined the lack of processes in the US system for pursuing options other than military intervention . . . .

Petitions bearing over 1 million signatures being delivered to Congress.
I was struck by this photo when I saw it hanging in the cafeteria of the Hart
Senate Office Building. It underlines for me that representatives take direction
from the citizenry. This specific image relates to the demand for bonuses for
former service members c. 1922. (You can read more about it on Washington
Area Spark Flickr page from which I accessed the image.)

As we consider how we can move towards a world beyond war, it is obvious that one key is to change the way we make decisions about communal action:

The inflection point will come when our systems of group decision-making begin to include norms of "more wisdom, less violence" in proportion to the scope and size of the decision-making forum.

Our thinking about what to do about education and about infrastructure can be helpful in focusing our thinking about the process question. We're trying to imagine a world beyond war, and to work backwardsf rom there, and to imagine what exertions (spending, training) might be rendered moot by the arrival of such a new state of affairs, and what might advantageously be put in the place of those exertions.

It is somewhat more difficult to consider political process (and the exertions involved) because we often don't think of process in terms of the preparation required. We tend to think of it as something that merely happens in the moment.

I think this is what my sister, Elaine Scarry, was challenging in her book Thinking In An Emergency.  The practical lesson for me from the book is: making and carrying out the best decisions for communal action -- particularly in a pinch -- can and does happen . . . and/but . . .  intentional design and rehearsal are necessary prerequisites.  (You can see Elaine, herself, briefly introduce the book in a video greeting to incoming students at Evergreen College.)

Best decisions for communal action -- design and rehearsal -- how might this be applied to transitioning to a world beyond war?

One possibility is to consider articulating a broader set of options for communal action within the US Constitution itself.

Right now, there are two main provisions for process related to military action abroad. (Congress also has power over military action in the "homeland" setting: "[Clause 15] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.")

Under Article I, Section 8, of the US Constitution, the Congress shall have Power...:

* [Clause 10] To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

* [Clause 11] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

I would assert that today the public understands the "to declare war" part - if that. The rest is obscure to almost everyone, and murky at best.

And so, in the murk, we plod along. The president conducts foreign policy; the Senate ratifies treaties; the US conforms (or not) with international law and collaborates (or not) within international bodies of which it is a member; the media vets the nuances of the US approach within selected arenas; and the citizenry (principally) twists in the wind.

If we seriously intend to hasten our arrival at a world beyond war . . . we need something better.

Shouldn't the US Constitution affirmatively (and clearly) articulate processes for entering into a range of possible actions in the international arena? For instance:

* participate in negotiations

* enter into / support multilateral conventions that provide for conflict resolution

* withdraw aid/funding

* contribute peacekeepers (personnel, funding, other support)

* impose economic sanctions ("economic war")

* declare war

As we process through the options, greater and greater levels of participation would be required. Participating in negotiations is currently within the authority of the executive branch. Perhaps the opposite extreme -- a declaration of war, in absence of a direct attack on the homeland -- should require a plebiscite? The intermediate options could require ascending amounts of formal vetting and deliberation.

This is not necessarily the best list; the process by which large numbers of people participate in coming up with the best list will be, itself, a valuable first step.

Of equal importance is what is omitted from the list. On the one hand, I would suggest, our governments should de-emphasize expressions of support or censure. Of much greater importance will be the ability of civil society to mobilize itself around such expressions from the people. On the other hand, we recognize that supplying weapons is just a subset of declaring war. Finally, once we have taken the step to support multilateral conventions that provide for conflict resolution (the NPT and the IAEA, for instance), the emphasis should be on honoring our promises and recognizing the authority granted thereunder, rather than actively trying to influence the direction of the related activities.

(And in the course of doing so, let us focus on moving toward processes that can be seen to be equally legitimate no matter what country carries them out -- i.e. learn to comprehend and then transition away from American exceptionalism. What we're talking about is a worldwide transition.)

A simple way to test what I am proposing: consider it in light of the widely-read book by Samantha Power, "A Problem from Hell": America and the Age of Genocide. To the best of my understanding, this book has come to stand for the proposition that it is unacceptable to stand idly by when armed conflict creates a humanitarian crisis, and that military force is a legitimate response to such situations.

In my view, "A Problem from Hell" succeeded in unsettling people, but failed to interest people in truly participating in choosing from among possible solutions when the next crisis arose.

So the question is: accepting that there are "problems from hell," does process like the one above, or one like it -- involving a ladder of options -- create a better framework for deciding about communal action?


Related posts

US Army Capt. Nathan Michael Smith has sued the commander-in-chief, President Obama, for ordering war in violation of the US Constitution. Therein lie 5 lessons . . . .

(See Confronting Permawar: 5 Lessons from Captain Smith)








"Humanitarian intervention" -- the great pretext for US intervention in Africa. Glenn Greenwald gave an outstanding talk in Chicago in May, 2012, in which he warned against humanitarian interventions: "The US -- no, everybody -- always says the reason for military intervention is 'humanitarian.'  . . . "

(See Greenwald Was Right: "Humanitarian" War in Syria? It's Just More War)





It's way too easy to launch U.S. missiles. (Maybe if it were a little more costly, challenging, or painful to carry out these attacks, they would at least require someone to give an explanation that makes sense first.)

(See AMERICANS: Happy As Long As They're Blowing Something Up )

A CIA Critic in the White House?

Trump NSC appointee Michael Flynn is a critic of the CIA, and of the Osama bin Laden killing. And that makes sense to me . . . .

I read the other day that Donald Trump's choice for national security advisor, Michael Flynn, is highly critical of the CIA, and of the way the Obama administration trampled the law. In fact, it got my attention because he expressed almost exactly the same opinions that I have expressed in this blog.

Michael Flynn, Trump's national security advisor pick (Source: NBC)

It caused me some cognitive dissonance because just a few weeks ago I wrote a piece expressing my deep opposition to Flynn's statements about Islam. (REFLECTION: When people say "the Muslim faith itself is the source of the problem")

And yet here we have Flynn tearing into the CIA:

“They’ve lost sight of who they actually work for,” Mr. Flynn said in an interview with The New York Times in October 2015. “They work for the American people. They don’t work for the president of the United States.” He added, speaking of the agency’s leadership: “Frankly, it’s become a very political organization.”

(Scarry: Here's an idea: SHUT IT DOWN! (Reading the Report on CIA Torture))

Flynn zeroing in on the Osama bin Laden killing:

In killing Bin Laden, he said, “we created a new version of Allah.”

(Scarry: Why Have We Built A Monument To Bin Laden?)

Flynn on the benefit of applying the law:

“What we should have done is shown him to be a decrepit old guy, put him in a freaking cage, in a cell, and put him on trial,” Mr. Flynn added. “Make it a big messy trial, make it global.”

(Scarry: TRIAL OF THE CENTURY: United States v. Bin Laden )

The lesson for me is: in the Age of Trump, we'll have to learn to work with people who speak their minds, and deal with their opinions one by one. We may actually find points of agreement. And opportunity.


Related posts

In the film "The Response," as military judges are debating the fate of a detainee at Guantanamo, one of them says, "Okay, if 9/11 is the measuring stick, are we a great nation because of the blow we took? Or because how we, as a country, respond to that blow? The response matters. Our response defines us . . . . "

(See Why Have We Built A Monument To Bin Laden?)


The U.S. government and its military talk constantly about the new world of "asymmetric warfare" -- which basically boils down to how "unfair" it seems to them that individuals can wield any meaningful amount of power, given how minuscule their numbers or the firepower available to them. But what what we should spend much more time focusing on is "asymmetric policing" -- i.e. the overwhelming power that the U.S. state wields in every encounter with individuals.

(See Too Much State Power? (Asymmetric Warfare and Asymmetric Policing))








The story of the past decade-plus has been the story of the assertion by some that the conception of law that our society has is not sufficient. Simply put, there are those who say that there is a third, "in-between" category of behavior -- and legal status -- that is not civilian (subject to criminal law) and not military (subject to military law and the laws of war). And since there are no rules about how to deal with that third category . . . .

(See Using the Good, Old Criminal Justice System: Worth a Try?) 

PRESIDENTS AND NUKES: Time for some polling

Has Donald Trump's candidacy woken people up to the risk of nuclear weapons? Good! Even better will be when they realize the risk Hillary Clinton poses, too.

It seems pretty clear that the candidacy of Donald Trump is waking a lot of people up to just how much power the US president has, acting alone, to subject the world to nuclear holocaust.

"Our founding Fathers would be rolling over in
their graves if they knew the President could
launch a massive, potentially civilization-ending
military strike without authorization from
Congress.... The current nuclear launch approval
process, which gives the decision to potentially
end civilization as we know it to a single
individual, is flatly unconstitutional. I am proud
to introduce the Restricting First Use of Nuclear
Weapons Act of 2016 with Sen. Markey to realign
our nation's nuclear weapons launch policy with
the Constitution."
- Congressman Lieu, September 27, 2016
(Share this message on Twitter!)

I think it's time for a reality check: it's not just Donald Trump that's the issue. The other major candidate (and currently predicted winner) in this campaign uses words like "obliterate" to describe what the US could do to other countries.

Today's New York Times had stark words about Hillary Clinton:

Hillary Clinton made it abundantly clear Wednesday night that if she defeats Donald J. Trump next month she will enter the White House with the most contentious relationship with Russia of any president in more than three decades, and with a visceral, personal animus toward Vladimir V. Putin, its leader.

That's right, that Russia -- the other country in the world besides the US that is sitting on a massive nuclear arsenal. (See "The Hawk on Russia Policy? Hillary Clinton, Not Donald Trump.")

Now that Congress has legislation in front of it to take the power to act alone to launch a nuclear first strike out of the hands of the US president, it would be a good time for somebody with a name like Gallup or Pew (or ...? ... ) to double-check with the public. "Are you only concerned about Trump?"

I predict that if the US public was asked, they would demonstrate a clear preference for NO president having unilateral authority to start a nuclear war.


A poll might sound something like this . . . 

Under current procedure, the US president may, acting alone, give the order for a nuclear first strike.

Do you consent to the fact that, as US president, Donald Trump could, acting alone, with no questions asked, give the order for a nuclear first strike?

(5) Definitely not
(4) Probably not
(3) No opinion, don't know
(2)  I suppose . . .
(1) Yes, I feel totally confident giving President Donald Trump complete authority to order a nuclear first strike.

Do you consent to the fact that, as US president, Hillary Clinton could, acting alone, with no questions asked, give the order for a nuclear first strike?

(5) Definitely not
(4) Probably not
(3) No opinion, don't know
(2)  I suppose . . . (1) Yes, I feel totally confident giving President Hillary Clinton complete authority to order a nuclear first strike.

Do you consent to the fact that, under current procedure, any US president could, acting alone, with no questions asked, give the order for a nuclear first strike?

(5) Definitely not
(4) Probably not
(3) No opinion, don't know
(2)  I suppose . . . (1) Yes, I feel totally confident giving any person elected US President complete authority to order a nuclear first strike.

Legislation has been proposed that would require the US Congress to first make a declaration of war, and explicitly authorize a nuclear first strike, before any US President could carry out a nuclear first strike. How in favor would you be of such a change?

(5) Very much in favor: I think a nuclear first strike should never happen without everyone in Congress being required to debate it.
(4) Somewhat in favor
(3) No opinion, don't know
(2) Somewhat opposed
(1) Very opposed:  I feel totally confident letting the US President continue to have the power, acting alone, with no questions asked, to give the order for a nuclear first strike.

I know how I would respond. (How about you?)

Let the polling begin!


Related posts

Representative Ted Lieu and Senator Ed Markey have introduced the "Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2016."  Here's how you can get on the phone to your member of Congress to demand their support . . . .

(See NUKES: Your Call to Your Congressman Matters)



In a recent Huffington Post article, John Carl Baker discussed the current state of affairs in the US -- one that many US citizens are finally waking up to: "In the United States, the president has the absolute authority to launch a nuclear attack. He or she doesn’t have to seek approval from the legislative branch, the public, or anyone else. If the president wills Armageddon, there’s effectively no way to stop it from happening."

(See Summary Edition of "Thermonuclear Monarchy")










So now it occurs to you that there's a problem? Up until now, you've assumed the US president would always be self-controlled enough, reflective enough, consistent enough . . . foolproof enough . . . that the nuclear thing would just kind of stay safely under wraps where it belongs?

(See Trump? Maybe the problem is the NUCLEAR ARSENAL itself ...)

Is There Space for Anything Besides War in the US Constitution?

Devote some of your "100 hours for peace" to a better understanding of the fundamental US document on war and peace: the US Constitution.

The Quartet: Orchestrating the Second
American Revolution, 1783-1789,
by Joseph J. Ellis

I suggested people take back control of (at least some of) the time that the election 2016 circus is stealing from all of us, and put it to work thinking deeply about how to work better for peace.

An example of something US people who want peace need to think deeply about: does the US Constitution help us or hurt us?

My sister's book, Thermonuclear Monarchy: Choosing Between Democracy and Doom, makes strong arguments about what the Constitution really intends, and what it should cause us to do differently if we really intend to follow it.

The case of US Army Captain Michael Nathan Smith should force all of us to go back to the Constitution and try to understand what kinds of military structure and actions are permissible under the law of the land.

And, like or not, this is also going to force us all to really confront what our national agreement has been in the past -- and needs to be in the future -- about guns.

I have spent the last several days readying a wonderful book, The Quartet: Orchestrating the Second American Revolution, 1783-1789, by Joseph J. Ellis, about how the U.S. Constitution came into being. It's at your local library. If your eyes glaze over when you hear "Constitution" and "Federalist Papers," this book will rescue you. (Extra incentive, if musical theater inspires you: one member of "the quartet" is Alexander Hamilton; the others are George Washington, James Madison, and John Jay.)

For instance, The Quartet makes clear that, first and foremost, the impetus for the U.S. Constitution was (a) to assure that funds would be available for carrying out war, and (b) to enable the unimpeded occupation of much greater amounts of territory [see (a)].

The story only begins there, and, as one would expect, the eventual course of events has been conditioned on the diverse attentions and interests and moods of the leaders involved and the public that has acquiesced in their leadership.

It seems to me that it is necessary for all of us to step up and understand what the US Constitution is about. Like it or not, it creates the ground for dialog with a greatly expanded circle of people about the direction of warmaking and peacemaking by the US and its citizens.


Related posts

"I am investing these 100 hours in thinking deeply about what it will take to change the war-like ways of this country I live in. I am going to ask hard questions, confront what's really standing in the way, think creatively, and come up with new ways to be an effective peace worker. This is my time and I am going to make the best use of it."

(See The Election 2016 Diet: Invest 100 Hours for Peace)








US Army Capt. Nathan Michael Smith has sued the commander-in-chief, President Obama, for ordering war in violation of the US Constitution. Therein lie 5 lessons . . . .

(See Confronting Permawar: 5 Lessons from Captain Smith)








Elaine Scarry demonstrates that the power of one leader to obliterate millions of people with a nuclear weapon - a possibility that remains very real even in the wake of the Cold War - deeply violates our constitutional rights, undermines the social contract, and is fundamentally at odds with the deliberative principles of democracy.

(See Reviews of "Thermonuclear Monarchy: Choosing Between Democracy and Doom" by Elaine Scarry )










If you're really interested in effective harm reduction, the solution is a drastic reduction/elimination of the instruments of harm

(See ORLANDO SHOOTINGS: Start with the obvious (guns)

To Grab the Win, Might Trump or Hillary Surprise Us?

Election 2016: hijinks at the Democratic and Republican conventions notwithstanding, it's gonna be Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton . . . and it's still about ISIS and Black Lives Matter.

It's time to ask again: where are you on #war and #BlackLivesMatter?
(Please retweet this message.)

A year ago, I suggested that election 2016 will come down to how the candidates proposed to deal with ISIS, and whether they could respond to the urgency of the Black Lives Matter movement.

Well, if what I meant was that by this time, we would have heard substantive, coherent, memorable proposals from Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, then I was wrong. But I still stand by my prediction that these are the two issues that will matter.


Trump and Hillary on Foreign Policy

ISIS control areas and US-led coalition air strikes
(Through Feb 2016, BBC graphic)

The question for Donald Trump is whether he can say anything on foreign policy that will lead the Republican establishment to support him. He's in a terrible position right now because (a) he's let on that he's starting from zero on foreign affairs; and (b) his opponent sounds like a Republican on foreign affairs.

Furthermore, Hillary Clinton has been handed a present by the State Department, where a group of career foreign affairs staffers, using the "dissent" channel, have filed a memo basically saying that the Syria situation is being mishandled and there should be more military force used -- against the Assad government mind you, not against ISIS. It sounds like a situation that only a real expert -- someone who has served as Secretary of State, perhaps? -- can sort out.

But there is an out for Donald Trump. All he has to do is say, "This comes down to a question of war and peace. Under the US Constitution, it falls to the Congress to decide if war is to be declared. So the first thing that will have to happen is Congress will have to do its job. After that, my role would be as commander-in-chief, and I would be well advised by the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the military conduct of any war."

Now, it may seem impossible to believe that Donald Trump might be able to say those words. Nonetheless, it must be admitted that if he were to adopt this position, it would be difficult for Republicans to ignore him. After all, the Republican Party is the one that has the utmost respect for the fundamentals of the Constitution, and for the military, right?

The only thing that could possibly trip up Trump? If Hillary says it first . . . .

[Related story: May 31, 2016, "U.S. House rejects Rep. Barbara Lee's push to end war authorization" ]

Trump and Hillary on Domestic Policy

Challenge in Chicago: clean up racist police force

The question for Hillary Clinton is whether she wants to be President enough to swallow her pride and acknowledge the position of the Black Lives Matter movement.

Of course, Trump has no hope of getting black votes. It is simply a question of whether black voters will turn out for Hillary.

Take a look at how Hillary comes off to people of color: the "super predators" speech and subsequent interactions, and Bill Clinton's response. She has saddled herself with an aura of "I'm blameless." I don't think that passes muster. Certainly not coming from a leader of the power establishment in a country with interlocking systems of institutional racism.

But there is an out for Hillary Clinton. All she has to do is say, "I've heard the Black Lives Matter movement. We need to make sure nobody is subject to racism at the hands of the police. The Justice Department is currently investigating the Chicago Police Department -- a department characterized as racist by the city's own review a few months ago. My first act as President will be to support the Justice Department investigation of racist policing in Chicago, and expand the investigation to other racist police forces nationwide."

It's a layup. No one can disagree with the proposition that racist police forces should be investigated. And no one can demand that Hillary Clinton have all the answers today about which ones are the biggest problems. What's important is that she will have the entire Justice Department at her disposal once she's elected.

The only thing that could possibly trip up Hillary? If Trump says it first . . . .

[Related story: March 31, 2016, "Hillary Clinton’s Support Among Nonwhite Voters Has Collapsed" ]


To be continued . . . .


Related posts


US Army Capt. Nathan Michael Smith has sued the commander-in-chief, President Obama, for ordering war in violation of the US Constitution. Therein lie 5 lessons . . . .

(See Confronting Permawar: 5 Lessons from Captain Smith)








We can't imagine that anti-racism work is just about specific police officers or even specific departments. Entire institutions of racist law enforcement need to be brought to heel in real time. It's a task worthy of a society-wide, national, federal effort. And it's top priority. No leader can ignore this reality . . . .

(See "If elected . . . ." (The Election 2016 and #BlackLivesMatter Nexus) )

Confronting Permawar: 5 Lessons from Captain Smith

Captain Nathan Michael Smith -- US Army photo

 
US Army Capt. Nathan Michael Smith has sued the commander-in-chief, President Obama, for ordering war in violation of the US Constitution. Therein lie 5 lessons.


(1) What we've got: permawar

"Permawar" (who benefits?)

The US is making war in so many places, and so continuously, that it not longer makes sense to speak of this war or that war; it is a state of permanent war -- "permawar."

George W. Bush's "Mission Accomplished" stunt only serves to underline the fact that it's never mission accomplished -- the US rolls from conflict to conflict to conflict -- Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Iraq . . . .

The next war is always just around the corner (e.g. Iran) or being carried out by a proxy (e.g. in Palestine).

Many people seem to have forgotten this is not the way it's supposed to be. But Capt. Smith hasn't. (He remembers the Constitution he's sworn to to uphold.)


(2) Why we've got it: Congress is asleep

One explanation for the
Congressional coma . . .

People can disagree over Congress' performance in general, but there can be no disagreement that Congress has failed to do it's job with respect to war. Under Article I, Section 8, of the US Constitution, the Congress shall have Power...:

* [Clause 10] To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

* [Clause 11] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

* [Clause 12] To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

* [Clause 13] To provide and maintain a Navy;

* [Clause 14] To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

* [Clause 15] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

* [Clause 16] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

(3) PS: WE're asleep!

Tell Congress: say NO to war!

And before we ordinary citizens get all huffy, we need to remember: Congress works for us!

Ask yourself:

* do you know the details of Congress' war powers under the US Constitution?

* when was the last time you told your congressman in detail how you wanted her/him to represent you in war deliberations?

* which advocacy group(s) do you work with on issues of war and peace?

(4) It's not hopeless

FLASHBACK:
On Syria, It's Time for Congress
to Remember Who They Represent

It's important to remember that there is a very recent example of the People telling Congress, and then Congress telling the President, that the US should not go to war.

In summer/fall 2013, President Obama was on the verge of going to war in Syria. Congress debated the issue and the US public resoundingly told their members of Congress they opposed war.

The US finds all kinds of ways to contribute to war and violence in places like Syria. But there's no question that US citizens and the US Congress can slow it and stop it when they try.


(5) It will take courage

I am (I will become) Bradley Manning

I can't imagine the courage that Capt. Nathan Michael Smith has mustered to challenge his commander-in-chief.

However, I've noticed we're seeing more and more people come forward to put the truth and justice above their own personal convenience and comfort.

For those of us who lack the opportunity and/or courage to make such big contributions, we can still ask: what can I do to lift up and support the work of such citizen leaders?



Related posts

In four hundred and thirty-five Congressional districts, there is an inseparable relationship between campaign funding for Congressional races and the military contractors. How do we push back?


(See IT'S A LOCK: Why the US Can't Break Its Addiction to War)





Anyone who has had to write a speech knows that the hardest part is to land on the main idea. Once you've got that right, the rest practically writes itself.

(See "The way to respond to ISIS is not through violence." )





First Reps. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-AZ) and Keith Ellison (D-MN) called the U.S. on the carpet for dodging the call from the international community to come clean about its drone killings. Then Reps. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Walter Jones (R-NC) submitted a bill calling for drone transparency. So ... are we finally going to get the truth?

(See REAL Progressives Demand that the U.S. Come Clean on Drone Killings) 

#Nuclear #President (Clinton?) (Cruz?) (Sanders?) (Trump?)

It has seemed to me that people are oblivious to the question that matters most in the 2016 presidential election: what happens if    (fill in the blank)    is in final control of the massive US nuclear arsenal??

I experimented with a Twitter poll yesterday. The small sampling yielded interesting results:

"Which candidate would you be LEAST scared
to see holding the nuclear controls?"
(Participate in current poll here.)

So now I want to give a larger number of people a shot at answering the question. The poll asking "Which candidate would you be LEAST scared to see holding the nuclear controls?" will run for one week. Please participate in the poll, and share the poll with others so they can weigh in, too.

Please use these hashtags for this issue: #nuclear #president.


Related posts

Elaine Scarry demonstrates that the power of one leader to obliterate millions of people with a nuclear weapon - a possibility that remains very real even in the wake of the Cold War - deeply violates our constitutional rights, undermines the social contract, and is fundamentally at odds with the deliberative principles of democracy.

(See Reviews of "Thermonuclear Monarchy: Choosing Between Democracy and Doom" by Elaine Scarry )










The clock is ticking. If Barack Obama is going to make a difference in stopping the threat that nuclear weapons pose to the world, there is one (and only one) thing to do.

(See Putin and Obama: #talk)