Unconstitutional - Japan & America

Hi Everyone,

I have been absent in commenting on the politics of the day for quite some time. Tonight I was moved to write because of the confluence of 2 independent events.

The first event was seeing on PBS TV tonight (WETA Wash. DC 10:00pm) the program "Wide Angle" now hosted by Aaron Brown, the former CNN nightly news anchor. The title of the episode was: "Japan's About Face." Below is the quote taken from the write up for the program as it appeared on the WETA web site:

Granted unprecedented access to Japan's "West Point" -- the National Defense Academy -- "Wide Angle" captures a remarkable window into the millitary's shifting role in post-war Japanese society. Since WWII, Japan's pacifist constitution has mandated a strictly defensive force. But the line between defense and offense has blurred, and Japan's military budget is now the fifth largest in the world. With troops in Iraq and sophisticated new fighter jets, Japan is reconsidering its rules of engagement. This program follows Academy cadets preparing for possible overseas deployment and meets a group of peace demonstrators -- including atom bomb survivors -- on a two-month march dedicated to keeping Japan's troops at home.

What I found most remarkable was the discussion of Article 9 of Japan's constitution which prohibits Japan from having a military for the purpose of waging war. It is apparent that for some time now, under the guise of building a defense force, Japan has been building an offensive force in contradiction to Article 9.

The dichotomy between law and reality is disequilibrating and leading to protests by a large pacifist group. Recognizing the problem, the Diet is considering passing a new law that will give some sort of legitimization to the deployment of Japan's troops and naval ships including aircraft carriers with a more confrontational mission.

Flash now to event 2. I just read in the Washington Post online the following:

By Karen DeYoung

Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 9, 2008; Page A10

The 1973 War Powers Resolution is ineffective, possibly unconstitutional and should be repealed, two former secretaries of state said yesterday in proposing new legislation to govern the war-making powers of the president and Congress.

"The rule of law is undermined and is damaged when the main statute in this vital policy area is regularly questioned or ignored," former secretary James A. Baker III said of the existing law. Baker, along with former secretary Warren Christopher, headed an independent, bipartisan commission that spent the last year examining the issue.

Here we have a bipartisan group of distinguished Americans looking to cut back on the powers given to the president by the War Powers Act of 1973 (Pub.L. 93-148) because it has obviously been abused by this administration and in addition possibly unconstitutional, while in Japan they are looking to give the state more military power through a legislative act that may or may not be constitutional.

What comes to mind is President Eisenhower's warning to "be ware of the military industrial complex." In fact, President Eisenhower actually wrote that as "military-industrial-congressional complex" and dropped "congressional" at the last minute.

I thought about how much we are in the grip of that complex and wondered how much Japan is also in the grip of their military-industrial-Diet complex. Next I thought about how we gave the president the power we thought he needed to keep us safe in the world, and how one man has misused that power. In fact, once such a power is given, it is inevitable that it will eventually be abused.

Finally my thoughts moved to all of the constitutional violations committed by the Bush administration and how "the rule of law is undermined and damaged" when this is done and left legally unchallenged. The outcome of this could well be that future presidents will assume that they have the same immunity as given to Bush/Cheney and that will change our nation.

Michael