Washington vs. Bush
George Washington respected and deferred to civilian jurisdiction while he was the commanding general of the continental army. Here are some examples of his deference.
1) Deserters from the army.
While Washington had near-dictatorial powers in 1776 and 1777, he only prosecuted deserters in eastern Pennslyvania and not in New Jersey. The difference? At the time New Jersey had a working government, eastern Pennslyvania did not. Washington trusted the civilian courts to prosecute the deserters. George Washington and American Constitutionalism. Glenn A Phelps. Page 39. Hereafter referred to as Washington. See here.
2) Deference of the Military to Civil Authority
Washington handed over his officers to civilian courts even when he thought the charges were bogus. Washington pages 37-38. A letter to a governor. Here is one to a brigadier general directing him to cooperate with civilian authorities.
4) Title with letter from Howe
British General Howe sent Washignton a letter in 1776 with overtures of peace. Washington refused the first two letters because they did not acknowledge his congressional title of general. He directed that all offers of peace had to be directed to Congress. Washington pages 36-37. Writings that detail the incident. (look on page 274)
These episodes show that Washington only used his power as general when he needed to. Otherwise he deferred to congress. Keep in mind that this is the same congress that couldn't provide him with enough supplies to feed and clothe his army. Unfortunately, this example has not been followed by the Bush administration.
Ways that Bush Administration has expanded Military Authority
1) Jose Padilla
The Bush administratction claims that since we are at war with terrorism, the president can declare whoever he wants an "enemy combatant" and hold them indefinitely and that there should not be any court review of the case. Don't believe me? Look at the links below. What the Cato Institute thinks, Court documents, good summary article with latest ruling
2)The Defense Department now has spies.
See here. Isn't this the area of the CIA, a civilian agency? I have been told that spying came out of the military, but the article talks about how a new special force was created after September 11th. Didn't we just rearrange the intelligence agencies to make them more effective? This seems to be an end run around a civilian agency.
People may argue that because Bush is a civilian commander-in-chief, that the comparison to a military commander is irrelevant. I disagree. My point is that under the Bush administration, the military is encroaching on civilian jurisdiction.
Summary
George Washington went out of his way to not usurp civilian jurisdiction by military authority. The Bush administration seems to usurp civilian jurisdiction at every chance they get. We should follow the course of Washington.
1) Deserters from the army.
While Washington had near-dictatorial powers in 1776 and 1777, he only prosecuted deserters in eastern Pennslyvania and not in New Jersey. The difference? At the time New Jersey had a working government, eastern Pennslyvania did not. Washington trusted the civilian courts to prosecute the deserters. George Washington and American Constitutionalism. Glenn A Phelps. Page 39. Hereafter referred to as Washington. See here.
2) Deference of the Military to Civil Authority
Washington handed over his officers to civilian courts even when he thought the charges were bogus. Washington pages 37-38. A letter to a governor. Here is one to a brigadier general directing him to cooperate with civilian authorities.
4) Title with letter from Howe
British General Howe sent Washignton a letter in 1776 with overtures of peace. Washington refused the first two letters because they did not acknowledge his congressional title of general. He directed that all offers of peace had to be directed to Congress. Washington pages 36-37. Writings that detail the incident. (look on page 274)
These episodes show that Washington only used his power as general when he needed to. Otherwise he deferred to congress. Keep in mind that this is the same congress that couldn't provide him with enough supplies to feed and clothe his army. Unfortunately, this example has not been followed by the Bush administration.
Ways that Bush Administration has expanded Military Authority
1) Jose Padilla
The Bush administratction claims that since we are at war with terrorism, the president can declare whoever he wants an "enemy combatant" and hold them indefinitely and that there should not be any court review of the case. Don't believe me? Look at the links below. What the Cato Institute thinks, Court documents, good summary article with latest ruling
2)The Defense Department now has spies.
See here. Isn't this the area of the CIA, a civilian agency? I have been told that spying came out of the military, but the article talks about how a new special force was created after September 11th. Didn't we just rearrange the intelligence agencies to make them more effective? This seems to be an end run around a civilian agency.
People may argue that because Bush is a civilian commander-in-chief, that the comparison to a military commander is irrelevant. I disagree. My point is that under the Bush administration, the military is encroaching on civilian jurisdiction.
Summary
George Washington went out of his way to not usurp civilian jurisdiction by military authority. The Bush administration seems to usurp civilian jurisdiction at every chance they get. We should follow the course of Washington.
posted by Idealist1776 @ 5:00 PM
3 Comments:
At 11:31 PM,
Anonymous said…
Washington was forging the new way for government in the United States post Aristocracy rule. Perhaps his style of governing (more hands off) reflects the times he was in. The royal influences(and/or pressure) Washington must have felt or not, do not have such an impact on the country now. Bush has had to adapt to the new pressures and influences put upon him by other forces. Perhaps this is the reason for such differencs in their styles of governing
At 7:57 PM,
Anonymous said…
Human nature has not changed. The same principles/truths the Founding Fathers wove into the constitution can help us solves the problems of today. No matter what external pressures exist the truths remain truth.
At 9:19 AM,
Idealist1776 said…
While angela d brings up a good point, I respectfully disagree with the conclusion. I think Washington was trying to establish a precendent where the military deferred to the civilian authorities. In the Roman republic, the military had been used to overthrow their government. In modern times, in South America, it was common for the military to take over in a coup. While I highly doubt such an event would ever happen here, it is nevertheless important to carefully circumscribe what the military can and can't do. It may be a more gradual process, but it seems that the military is taking authority away from the civilian side of the government.
Post a Comment
<< Home