A RE-POST FROM LAST JANUARY
January 22 / 24, 2005
No One Wants to Talk to Cindy Sheehan on Inauguration Day (Or Any Other)
(Well, what was true in January has changed somewhat now, hasn’t it?)
THE SPECTACLE
By STAN GOFF (Originally published in Counterpunch)
Back in Raleigh now, and I can’t shake the feeling that I’ve spent the last two days in a dream.
Arrive in DC on the morning of the 19th, and we are hit with horizontal snow and a Siberian wind chill, worse because we are standing in LBJ park taking cover on the leeward sides of the big oaks while our Gold Star families talk to the press. Military Families Speak Out has gathered ten family members  widows, sisters, dads, aunts, grandmothers of those killed in Iraq. One was killed a year later when he pulled his own trigger at the end of a post-traumatic spiral. His sister said he couldn’t quit talking about a fellow troop who slit the throat of an Iraqi girl. Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in an ambush last April, seems positively normal until she is asked to relive the moment she first saw the military sedan in front of her house with the three men in uniform. Then her breath is taken away again by that moment of terrible recognition, and she sobs.
Across the foot bridge is the North parking lot of the Pentagon. The Gold Star families have written the Secretary of Defense time and again requesting a meeting. They want to ask him to explain why their loved ones had to die. No reply, of course.
So today they — with a few others of us who still have living family members in the service — will walk across that foot bridge and keep going toward Rumsfeld’s office until we are stopped.
We are halfway across the bridge before we can see through the driving snow that there is a phalanx of black clad, armed and body-armored police waiting for us, the blue lights whipping around on top of their cruisers. Someone has monitored our emails. When the treacherous dads and grandmothers approach and attempt to negotiate entry, the burly African American police spokesperson seems embarrassed and discomfited by the little drama. He’s been sent out here to the far reaches of a giant, empty parking lot in a snow storm to handle a situation that is pregnant with “political sensitivity,” and he’s been given not an ounce of useful guidance. At one point, he apologetically dissembles, saying that they didn’t even know we were coming. Our delegation can’t suppress a little sardonic laughter over that one.
The bereaved finally leave a stack of 8 x 10 color photos of the dead boys — taken while they were alive, posed in uniform — and ask the cop to try and ensure the delivery of the snow-wet portraits to the Office of the Secretary of Defense of the United States of America.
Later, at St. Aloysius Church, as we shake the snow off our outer garments and the blood rushes back into our frozen peripheries and we settle into chairs with hot coffee, a kind of sleepy thaw-torpor comes over us.
The next day — inauguration day — I give a brief speech at Malcolm X Park. My comment that war-supporting John Kerry can go straight to hell with this administration hits two nerves, and a grumble harmonizes with the wild shrieks of approval, the former coming from David Cobb and his entourage of feint-hearted Greens. The “go to hell, John” crowd is far and away the majority, and the best sign I see all day is there: “I voted for Kerry, and now I’m carrying this fucking sign.” The DC Anti-War Network (DAWN), who organized the rally, is almost three thousand strong when they march away. At the end of the march they carry dozens of flag-draped coffins.
I begin working my way back to a checkpoint at D Street and 7th, where I will try to join the “Turn Your Back on Bush” contingent of military families and vets who have staked out a position along the parade route near Mellon Memorial Fountain.
On the way, I drop into Harry’s Hotel to grab coffee and a sandwich at the bar. The place is infested with expensively clad white people, and brown people are waiting on them. Today is a good day for both. The white people have their leader to celebrate, and the brown people are making out on tips. On the television above the bar, though, CNN plays. CNN was almost in the direct employ of Donald Rumsfeld in the past, and is trying today to pretend that this inauguration is some momentous event. Still they get a report from Christiana Amanpour in Iraq, in which the British-Iranian airline heiress and CNN war-zone correspondent uses two D-words to describe the situation there — disaster and debacle.
The crowd in the restaurant-bar become momentarily still. It’s like someone farted. When the smiling reporters reappear on the big screen to cover the coronation again, everyone relaxes, and they go back to their five-dollar bottles of exotic beer and their coffee and their Pinot Noir.
I leave having caught bits and pieces from the TV of the whole weird spectacle. Encrypted in the speeches is a state of general war on all who fail to obey. Caligula.
There is to be an Uncle Tom Gala featuring Armstrong Williams, where the Party of White Supremacy can take a moment to fawn over beaming black reactionaries and trump the brain-dead “cherish diversity” liberals of “the opposition.” “Massa loves my ass” confronts the cherish-diversity liberals with a stark fact of history; the planter aristocracy cherished the fuck out of diversity. It was the plantation demographic.
In the street, a smug triumphalism emanates from the wind-bitten Anglo-Saxon cheeks of Republican patriarchs in their thousand dollar coats. Clutching their arms to balance on spiked heels are their chinchilla and mink clad mates — the Prozac and anticipation of the days events have given them a slightly crazed and euphoric look. I remember that look from my youth when my siblings and I would hide in the woods to watch Pentecostal tent revivals. But the country women at the tent revivals had no minks, and they couldn’t match the hair products that are in evidence here today. I’m thinking that the hair of Republican women… and men… could stop a nine-millimeter round. Maybe it’s an additional security measure.
There is a cordon around the parade route to keep back any threats to the spectacle. There is a personal cordon around each of the intoxicated participants; little force fields that filter their backgrounds. They can hear the marching bands and the tittering of their fellow white nationalists, but they can’t seem to hear that incessant backdrop of helicopters and sirens that — for me, at least — gives the whole scene an air of apocalyptic science fiction. They see the capital dome in the distance, but they don’t see the freezing beggars they bypass or the sleeping homeless bodies buried under mounds of cast-off clothing in the alcoves.
There is no way I’m getting through the checkpoint. There are thousands waiting at the little bottleneck, many with inauguration tickets that won’t magic-carpet them through the team of over-worked cops who are checking every jacket, every bag, every pair of shoes. This has forced the exultant Republicans to mingle with legions of protesters. Outside the cordon, the numbers of protesters almost match that of the Buffoon-worshippers.
Ever so often, something about being logjammed together with the protesters inexplicably penetrates and disrupts the happy-happy force-field, and one of them will snap. Then their eyes flash with the strange breathless rage that only an assault on illusion engenders. A blue-haired matron seems suddenly overcome with it when she marches straight up to a 30-ish woman standing in an unobstructed and unobstructing spot with a sign that says, “Bush Lied.” The old woman’s eyes are alight with frustration (and fear!) when she scolds the younger woman for “violating my right to see my president.” The younger woman says she isn’t stopping anyone from doing anything  that the police are  but the invisible armor comes back up and the blue-hair suddenly can’t hear anything but marching bands again as she stalks away. Perhaps she had eaten earlier at Harry’s and is still seething about Amanpour’s less than glowing description of her Idiot Prince’s liberty-bearing crusade in Mesopotamia.
I’ve seen enough. I have another speech to give to a collection of lefties tonight, where I will ask them to come to Fayetteville on the 19th of March. But I’ve hit the wall in some sense, watching that unstable little old woman and these insufferably ignorant and arrogant white men in their thousand dollar coats, and the dead chinchilla parade, and the whole spectacle that now unaccountably calls up the image in my head of fat growing around someone’s heart.
Everyone hates a party-pooper.
No one wants to talk to Cindy Sheehan. No one wants to see her weep. No one wants to smell the bodies under the rubble in Fallujah. No one wants to know about the furious masses around the world that will make a mockery of this whole futile exhibition.
That’s our job now, I’m thinking. To make them see what they don’t want to see.
Targe Lindsay:
Stan, You have the clearest insight into the workings and failings of the so called elite who strive for empire. You have articulated the end result and the need for everyone to wake up and do something. You have been talking truth to power for years just as Cindy Sheehan has tried to do for this past year. Hopefully, now that she has provided the spark that will fire up the majority who now oppose the war, the two of you and others in your vanguard can keep it going until it becomes the perfect storm that blows away the war mongers. Tom Paine did it before the American Revolution, and now you are the pamphleteer and author that has come closest to his clarity and persuasion. You da man, Stan.
18 August 2005, 4:05 pmCyndi Garcia:
I read this article when it was first published in Counterpunch, around January (or so) 2005. I have since followed her story which has led me to the daily activities taking place at Camp Casey. I have volunteered to be a stand in for Cindy until her safe return. Of course it will take many Cindys to fill her shoes so I have also suggested a call out to all Cindys willing and able to stand in for Cindy while she is gone. Waiting to hear back, but making travel arrangements.
18 August 2005, 5:20 pmCyndi
Consumer:
It was even more of a kick in the soul this time around than it was the first time. Mr. Goff, thank you.
18 August 2005, 6:03 pmPJ:
An actual response from a relativeof mine to the “Talk To Cindy” thread from this blog, which I forwarded to everyone I know last week (an anti-abortion Texas Republican, if you need a li’l background):
I personally will not do this as I do not condone what she is doing. Her son went into the military knowing the risks involved. She is not in the right here. She probably is only trying to make up for “sending” him “off” to the military to help him “grow up” and now is sorry for it.
19 August 2005, 9:03 amjohn steppling:
Worth another read….good one Stan.
20 August 2005, 8:14 amNote that edwards wife (you know Kerry’s running mate’s spouse) has just written an open letter in support of Cindy Sheehan. Interesting — how come John doesnt do the same?
nuttymango:
Just in case some somebody hasn’t seen it yet, here’s the outstanding 48″x18″ poster (PDF) by NewCon06, American Stands With Cindy!
http://www.5forward.com/Stand_WCindy.pdf
NewCon06 is his dkos handle. I don’t know his real name. You can save the file and take it to Kinkos for printing. You can buy laminating sheets at Staples to make it waterproof. I’t worth looking at just to how nice a job he did.
20 August 2005, 12:48 pmDevlin:
Sorry to use this area but I have an unrelated question in regards to an article you wrote a few months ago for FTW. I figured this would be the quickest way to get a response.
In your article “Back-Door Law, Back-Door Draft”, you state that the National Emergencies Act does not give the President the authority to unilaterally declare a National Emergency. However under 50 U.S.C. 1621, it says the following:
(a) With respect to Acts of Congress authorizing the exercise, during the period of a national emergency, of any special or extraordinary power, the President is authorized to declare such national emergency. Such proclamation shall immediately be transmitted to the Congress and published in the Federal Register.
(b) Any provisions of law conferring powers and authorities to be exercised during a national emergency shall be effective and remain in effect (1) only when the President (in accordance with subsection (a) of this section), specifically declares a national emergency, and (2) only in accordance with this Act. No law enacted after the date of enactment of this Act shall supersede this title unless it does so in specific terms, referring to this title, and declaring that the new law supersedes the provisions of this title.
Please explain how Bush’s 9/14/01 proclamation was illegal when the NEA seems to say nothing about obtaining congressional approval.
20 August 2005, 4:52 pmStan:
Because it has never undergone its six month review by Congress… and because it does not supercede the UN Charter which was violated in Iraq.
20 August 2005, 8:29 pmDevlin:
In your article you say “his proclamation of September 14 has all the legal validity of a Shakespeare sonnet. … Only Congress is legally authorized to make such declarations.” But from everything I’ve seen this is not true, unless you’re contending the Constitutionality of the NAE itself.
After six months the declared National Emergency became illegal, but not any sooner.
Now, those who join the military agree to paragraph 9c of the enlistment contract, which states:
“In the event of war, my enlistment in the Armed Forces continues until six (6) months after the war ends, unless my enlistment is ended sooner by the President of the United States.”
You’re right that Bush had no legal justification to initiate “Stop-Loss” orders on 9/14/01 using the NAE as his authority. However it seems once the military is involved in any type engagement, not just officially declared wars (examples include the Gulf War, Bosnia deployments, and the Kosovo Air Campaign), each branch has the right to initiate stop-loss on their own.
The war in Iraq is illegal, which means stop-loss is illegal. From what I gather the NEA is not being used as the current legal justification for stop-loss. Can you contend to that?
20 August 2005, 11:45 pmDevlin:
Listen to this…
The following is from July 31, 2003:
CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO IRAQ
On August 2, 1990, by Executive Order 12722, President Bush declared a national emergency with respect to Iraq pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States constituted by the actions and policies of the Government of Iraq — the Saddam Hussein regime. By Executive Orders 12722 of August 2, 1990, and 12724 of August 9, 1990, the President imposed trade sanctions on Iraq and blocked Iraqi government assets. Additional measures were taken with respect to this national emergency by Executive Order 13290 of March 20, 2003. Because of the continued instability in Iraq, the United States and Coalition partners’ role as the temporary authority in Iraq, and the need to ensure the establishment of a process leading to representative Iraqi self-rule, the national emergency declared on August 2, 1990, and the measures adopted on August 2 and August 9, 1990, and March 20, 2003, to deal with that emergency must continue in effect beyond August 2, 2003. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency with respect to Iraq.
This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.
GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE, July 31, 2003.
I’m sure you won’t be too surprised when you read the following from 50 U.S.C. 1622(d) of the NAE, from which Bush claims the authority to continue his father’s National Emergency from the Gulf War.
(d) Automatic Termination of National Emergency; Continuation Notice from President to Congress; Publication in Federal Register. Any national emergency declared by the President in accordance with this title, and not otherwise previously terminated, shall terminate on the anniversary of the declaration of that emergency if, within the ninety-day period prior to each anniversary date, the President does not publish in the Federal Register and transmit to the Congress a notice stating that such emergency is to continue in effect after such anniversary.
Exactly where does it say the President has the authority to [i]re-declare[/i] a National Emergency over a decade after it has been terminated?
21 August 2005, 1:22 amJohn Togs Tognolini:
Hi Stan,
21 August 2005, 6:13 amYour web site is great. Look I’ve just about finished transcribing the interview I did with you in Sydney at Easter. I want to check the spelling on a few of the people you mentioned. Also I’ve read your book Spectrum and nearly finished Hiddeous Dreams. I’ll talk to you more when I’ve finished the transcription
Yours comradely
Togs
Devlin:
Jumped the gun last night. The National Emergency declared in 1990 was continued through the 90s.
21 August 2005, 5:00 pmDevlin:
I hate to do this because I really admire you, Stan, but I’m pretty sure you got it wrong in regards to your Stop-Loss article. From what I gather, Bush’s 9/14/01 declaration is not being used as the current legal justification for Stop-Loss.
However, for not undergoing a single six-month review, the National Emergency declared on 9/14/01 and all the powers Bush is assuming under it, are invalid. I would like to know what those powers are.
Secondly, Bush did have the authority to call up troops using a National Emergency as his justification, at least until 3/14/01. This blogger has listed the codes from Title 10 and Title 14.
Can you dispute any of this?
23 August 2005, 12:03 amStan:
Devlin, this is very confusing. You are posting these questions related to a completely separate article under the Sheehan post.
I am buried in work right now aqnd may not do your question justice, but the executive order in question was issued not during the Bush I administration, but in September 2001 ibn direct response to the WTC-Pentagon attacks. The order is at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010914-5.html .
My hyperbolic language about Shakespeare sonnets, etc., (in the spirit of self-criticism) does create the impression that I am stating therte is no Presidential authority to unilaterally declare (where I would have been more accurate to say “maintain”) a national emergency. The authortiy does exist, but ever since the laws passed in the wake of the Church Committee herarings of the 1970s, that poswer is NOT unilateral except on a very contingent basis. That continegncy is to (1) gain a joint resoution from Congress (which makes it NOT unilateral and (2) to submit said state of emergency to a public Congressional review every six months. Stop-Loss orders continued well beyond that date (which would have been March 2002, a whole year (!) before the invasion of Iraq).
The powers delegated to Bush under his specific decalration of September (14?) 2001 are laid out in the link above.
There has never been any doubt that the NEA authorizes Stop-Loss (though until the 9th Circuit upheld Rumsfeld this year, not for 26 years!). The legal minutiae herein is related to the failure to seek the 6-month Congressional review, which technically nullifies the state of emergency. This is actually a real-world demonstration of how a dominant class can run roughshod over its own laws.
The problem is not with discrete bits of the law, however, as I tried to describe in “The Global Battlefield.” It is in the way the administration can create a self-referential and self-justifiactory web of legal findings to establish various aspects of martial law (which the prez is authorized to do under the NEA, but which would be politically very sensitive). Two of the points I hope I have made in both those pieces is that (1) this administration has a near absolute contempt for both the letter and the spirit of the law (and everyhone knows that I am very critical of liberal legal edifices anyway, but this is a different issue given the motives of the Bush regime) and (2) that the Democrats have proven their absolute craven uselessness in challenging this adminisration’s extension of executive and military power — partly because they themselves have used these powers in legally questionable ways.
The other legal question afoot is one that is very difficult to challenge, but needs to be challenged to expose the hypocrisy of bourgeois law, is that national emergencies are being declared not in response to real emergencies — 9-11 was over before the declaration was made — but to make war by bypassing a Congressional delcaration of war. So in a real sense, Bush has admitted that this is the case here — unlike the cautions exercised by the Johnson and nixon adminsitration during Vietnam, where they referred to it as a “police action” and “conflict” — because Bush repeatedly calls this a war, calls himself a “war president,” etc. The legal trickery they are attempting inside this clear substitution of executive for Congressional authority is not only to call this a “war” (which then should be challenged because there was no Congressional declaration) is to claim that the location of this war is… everywhere on the planet, meaning they can extend military authority anyplace they wish. This is what I mean by a self-referential web. They are propping up their own quasi-legal edifice above existing national and international law to create a de facto state of war wherever they want, and eventually to extend military law into the domestic civil sector.
I know I am rambling a bit, but again I have to disclaim… I am up against multiple organizing and writing tasks, falling behind, and obliged to engage in hit-and-run responses… no disprespect intended to posters.
23 August 2005, 6:39 am