Classic Post: The Second Amendment and the Military Industrial Complex

OK, Maybe the coin has dropped and the concept that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with "gun rights", but is related to the prevention of the establishment of a standing army (like its neighbour the Third Amendment) has soaked in.

The US Constitution is pretty much a pacifist document with the original concept being that the military would follow the Swiss Model. That is there would be a small professional army tasked with training and administration that would support the larger amature (part-time/non-professional militia) Militia. The hope was that would prevent the establishment of a standing army.

As the Swiss model shows, that is an excellent defense force. But it's not very good for aggressive purposes. Also, the Swiss model requires a lot of commitment from people in regard to time. It's not just sitting there saying you're a member of some "unorganised militia"--it's actually training, drill, and other military duty.

We can also add in to this whole stew that the Congress has the power To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12).

The real fear was standing armies, or to quote Elbridge Gerry:

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary.

In 1961, President Eisenhower says this in a speech:

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

According to Carl Bogus for nearly a century, the collective right model remained not only widely accepted but uncontroversial. The first article advocating the "individual right" interpretation appeared in 1960. Titled The Right To Bear Arms, A Study in Judicial Misinterpretation, it was a student article in the William and Mary Law Review. Robert J. Spitzer comes to the same conclusion:

"Including these three early articles, a total of eleven articles on the Second Amendment appeared in law journals from 1912 to 1959. All of them reflected what is here labeled the 'court' view of the Second Amendment - namely, that the Second Amendment affects citizens only in connection with citizen service in a government-organized and regulated militia."

Is it coincidence that the "individual" (non-Militia) right interpretation appears at roughly the same time as Eisenhower is warning about the influence of the Military-Industrial complex?

Moreover notice how what Bogus calls "widely accepted" and "uncontroversial" has become controversial--especially on the internet.

Is it a coincidence that this is happening at a time when the Military is being built up to the largest it ever was?

If you've read the primary sources you'll see the founders gave a rat's arse for private ownership of guns. Their prime concern was the possibility of the establishment of a large standing army and the evils such a body brings.

That's what they meant when they were talking about tyranny:

It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people.

See also:

• Bogus, Carl T. THE HISTORY AND POLITICS OF SECOND AMENDMENT SCHOLARSHIP: A PRIMER, Chicago-Kent Law Review, Symposium on the Second Amendment, vol. 76, 2000: 3
• Spitzer,Robert J. "Lost and Found: Researching the Second Amendment"Chicago-Kent Law Review, Symposium on the Second Amendment vol. 76, 2000: 349
• Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
• Documents on the First Congress Debate on Arms and Militia.
• Amendment II
• Amendment III

Smart Bullets

At 4 inches long and a half-inch in diameter, the bullet directs itself like a tiny guided missile and can hit a target more than a mile away.

It's designed to twist and turn, making up to 30 corrections per second.

This isn't the only nifty and costly little toy they're working on.

Defense department researchers and contractors are already developing flying nano-bots that can stream live video, contact lenses that would allow soldiers to focus simultaneously on virtual digital images and their surroundings, and smartphone apps that help with tactical operations.

What's your opinion? Does a report like this help explain why military spending for development is so high? Or does it highlight the absurdity of its excess?

What do you think? Please leave a comment.

The Problem is Not Only Domestic

(click to make bigger)

via Reality Zone

Military Spending or Social Security

via The Huffington Post



There's a fascinating little tidbit that I'd never heard before.  The defense industry contractors have spread their operations out so as to cover as many congressional districts as possible.  Any politician, Republican or Democrat, would be hard-pressed to favor defense spending cuts when it means job losses in his or her district. That's slick.

If the military contractors succeed in keeping the war budget intact, they'll likely do so at the expense of Social Security and Medicare.

I didn't really understand why that is.  Aren't there other programs which can be cut?  In any case, don't you think the military spending is too high? These are some of the most powerful companies in the world and they know how to play the game. That alone should indicate they're already getting more than they need.

What's your opinion?  Wouldn't cutting military spending and cutting back on the foreign wars be the right way to correct some of the country's economic problems?

Please leave a comment? 

Glenn Greenwald sounds like the commenters from the Early American Republic.

What is tyranny and how does it manifest according to the people from the Early republic?

It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people.--Joseph Story

A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny.-Patrick Henry

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.--Elbridge Gerry

Glenn Greenwald expresses very similar sentiment to these in his piece Endless War and the culture of unrestrained power, in particular:

Those who wield true political authority as part of an empire are vested with immense power over other people, but those who exercise that authority as part of wars are more powerful still. That kind of power not only attracts warped authoritarians and sociopaths like moths to light, but it also converts -- degrades -- otherwise normal people who come to possess it. That's not a new development, but rather as old as political power itself.

The founders warned of what would happen when standing armies were established. President Eisenhower warned about unwarranted influence by the military industrial complex. Yet, that has happned despite the warnings

There is nothing more dangerous than allowing militaristic power to be exercised without accountability: without oversight, without transparency, without consequences for serious wrongdoing. Yet this is exactly the state of affairs that prevails in the United States. It's also why there are few things more deeply irresponsible, vapid and destructive than forcing citizens, activists, and journalists to retreat into what has become a Permanent Election Mode.

This system of perpetual electioneering transforms people into partisan cheerleaders who refrain from aggressively criticizing the party that is slightly less awful out of fear that the other party might win an election 14 months away, even when their own party is the one in power. Renouncing the duty of holding accountable political leaders who exercise vast power makes one directly responsible for the abuses they commit.

Ponder this thought:

''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

And remember what President Eisenhower said:

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

But, it is time that the people regained their freedom from the serfdom of the rich and the masters of war.

The Second Amendment and the Military Industrial Complex

OK, Maybe the coin has dropped and the concept that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with "gun rights", but is related to the prevention of the establishment of a standing army (like its neighbour the Third Amendment) has soaked in.

The US Constitution is pretty much a pacifist document with the original concept being that the military would follow the Swiss Model. That is there would be a small professional army tasked with training and administration that would support the larger amature (part-time/non-professional militia) Militia. The hope was that would prevent the establishment of a standing army.

As the Swiss model shows, that is an excellent defense force. But it's not very good for aggressive purposes. Also, the Swiss model requires a lot of commitment from people in regard to time. It's not just sitting there saying you're a member of some "unorganised militia"--it's actually training, drill, and other military duty.

We can also add in to this whole stew that the Congress has the power To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12).

The real fear was standing armies, or to quote Elbridge Gerry:

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary.

In 1961, President Eisenhower says this in a speech:

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

According to Carl Bogus for nearly a century, the collective right model remained not only widely accepted but uncontroversial. The first article advocating the "individual right" interpretation appeared in 1960. Titled The Right To Bear Arms, A Study in Judicial Misinterpretation, it was a student article in the William and Mary Law Review. Robert J. Spitzer comes to the same conclusion:

"Including these three early articles, a total of eleven articles on the Second Amendment appeared in law journals from 1912 to 1959. All of them reflected what is here labeled the 'court' view of the Second Amendment - namely, that the Second Amendment affects citizens only in connection with citizen service in a government-organized and regulated militia."

Is it coincidence that the "individual" (non-Militia) right interpretation appears at roughly the same time as Eisenhower is warning about the influence of the Military-Industrial complex?

Moreover notice how what Bogus calls "widely accepted" and "uncontroversial" has become controversial--especially on the internet.

Is it a coincidence that this is happening at a time when the Military is being built up to the largest it ever was?

If you've read the primary sources you'll see the founders gave a rat's arse for private ownership of guns. Their prime concern was the possibility of the establishment of a large standing army and the evils such a body brings.

That's what they meant when they were talking about tyranny:

It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people.

See also:

• Bogus, Carl T. THE HISTORY AND POLITICS OF SECOND AMENDMENT SCHOLARSHIP: A PRIMER, Chicago-Kent Law Review, Symposium on the Second Amendment, vol. 76, 2000: 3
• Spitzer,Robert J. "Lost and Found: Researching the Second Amendment"Chicago-Kent Law Review, Symposium on the Second Amendment vol. 76, 2000: 349
• Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
• Documents on the First Congress Debate on Arms and Militia.
• Amendment II
• Amendment III

Glenn Beck Isn't Always Wrong

We have more Admirals than we have ships.

What do you think about military spending? Please leave a comment.

Military Spending

Opinione published a wonderful article on Dwight D. Eisenhower.

In a similar manner and almost word for word of the speech he gave to the American people in 1961, in the “Chance for Peace” speech in 1953 Eisenhower warned about the trade-offs:

“The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brink schoolhouse in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway. We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with the homes that could have housed 8,000 people. This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.”

Considering that the speech was given at a time when the Red Scare of Communism was gripping the nation and the United States was involved in a military conflict on the Korean peninsula, the speech by Eisenhower showed the former military general to be a genuine leader of the country. Not only concerned or beholden to the interests of the former institution he spent most of his life in, the “Chance for Peace” speech by Eisenhower in 1953 proved that he was concerned about the interests of all Americans.

What's your opinion? What do you think President Eisenhower would say about the military spending President Obama is continuing?

Please leave a comment.

A Fascinating Article Indeed

As recommended by JadeGold in his comment to American Military Fetish.

Wired reports that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is not getting his way in trying to curtail military spending.

Over the past few years, Congress has approved continued work on an alternate F-35 engine, a move that would break Pratt & Whitney’s lock on the JSF engine market by funding a competing engine made by a GE/Rolls Royce team. Supporters say a second design would ultimately yield some cost savings, but that argument has failed to move Gates, who has said that things don’t need to be any more complicated than they already are for the troubled F-35 program.

Then there’s money for 30 Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet fighters: eight more than the Department of Defense requested. Rep. Todd Akin of Missouri, who introduced the amendment, said the extra aircraft (like the one pictured here) would “help address a looming fighter shortfall for the Navy’s carrier fleet.”

So much for austerity in naval budgets. Gates, as readers will recall, has already suggested that the Navy needs to take a hard look at whether it is right-sized — and whether it needs to keep 11 carrier strike groups for the next three decades. House authorizers, however, said their $65 billion recommendation for Navy and Marine Corps procurement was aimed at “reversing the decline in the Navy battle force fleet.”

What's your opinion? Is this too much? Does the kind of influence that accounts for these contracts, in spite of the Secretary of Defence's opposition to them, also explain the fact that we continue to fight two useless wars?

What do you think? Please leave a comment.

Military Industrial Complex

Angry Bear wrote a wonderful post about the real puppet masters.

The impact of militarization is huge, and the long-term wars we are engaged in currently, and their high costs, surely impact our economy. Surely the military-industrial complex and its demands on the tax system (and its potential threats to our democratic institutions) are viable topics at ataxingmatter, as part of the discussion of tax policy and institutional sustainability.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

So Many Military Bases

Tom Dispatch wrote an article about the secret and not-so-secret military bases the U.S. is constructing. Thanks to Il Principe for the link to this wonderful article which supports his frequent writings about the subject on Opinione.

In 2003, when the Bush administration invaded Iraq, the Pentagon already had on its drawing boards plans for building a series of permanent mega-bases in that country. (They were charmingly called “enduring camps.”) Once Baghdad fell and it turned out that, Saddam Hussein or no, the U.S. was going to have to fight rather than settle in and let the good times roll,hundreds of micro-bases were added to the mega ones -- 106 of them by 2005, more than 300 in all. Then, in 2005, Washington decided to trade in its embassy in one of Saddam’s old palaces for something a little spiffier. In its place, on a 104-acre plot by the Tigris River in the middle of Baghdad, for at least three-quarters of a billion dollars after cost overruns, it built the largest,most expensive embassy on the planet. It was planned for a staff of 1,000 “diplomats” with all the accoutrements of the good life and plenty of hired help. (Even now, despite much discussion about “ending” the American role in Iraq, further plans are reportedly being made for the embassy’s staff to double.) This was clearly to be U.S. mission control for the Greater Middle East.

The article goes on to describe the incredible proliferation of bases in Afghanistan, naturally at staggering cost. Meanwhile, at home things have not been so good.

What's your opinion? Is this unprecedented military expansion necessary for the security of America? Do you think some of this money could be used better at home?

Please leave a comment.

Military Academic Complex

Opinione published an article about the little-know facet of the Military Industrial Complex which ensures future generations of "leaders."

As American students return for another semester at universities around America, Opinione thought it would be an excellent time to discuss how the Pentagon’s influence in higher education has contributed to the militarization of American society and perpetual wars waged by a callous and inept political establishment. Although the average American is not even aware of the power and influence of the larger military industrial complex, most Americans would be shocked to learn how much money the Pentagon contributes to America’s research universities and Ivy League Schools. Known as the “Golden Triangle”, a group of military agencies, the high technology industry, and research universities, the military academic complex is influencing the bright young minds in America to develop the next generation aerial drone, stealth destroyer, and other items related to death and destruction.

What's your opinion? Is this something to worry about? Certainly we need good minds involved in military development and spending in the future, but do you think it's gone too far? Even our current administration has increased military spending. Will this be the real source of our eventual bankruptcy? What do you think?

Please leave a comment.

Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave

On the great site called Opinione, Il Principe has written a piece on freedom, which follows nicely on the Richie Havens video I posted yesterday.

As mankind has progressed over the centuries and into the 21st century, the meaning of freedom is viewed differently by people around the world and is measured in various ways. Should freedom be measured by economic, free speech, the type of government, or the level of civil rights its citizens enjoy? It is interesting to note that the only category that America is number one is the level of defense spending and gun violence.

Most of the time when an American politician talks about freedom in a speech, they are usually talking about a quantitive measure of freedom rather than a qualitative measure of freedom.

Yet, as the Grand Prince points out, even popular rankings like the number of millionaires and other measurements of quantitative freedom, America is behind the rising powers of Asia. The United States "does not even rank as the leading country in a World Bank report on doing business, which is ironic considering how much pride most Americans take in being a country with a capitalistic based economy."

Americans do not see the correlation between the half trillion defense budgets of the US government and an Empire of Bases around the world, which allow other countries to invest more in their social welfare programs, to being a factor in why their own citizens have less domestic services available like health care for the poor and less fortunate. The military industrial complex or just simply put the Pentagon’s budget, is like the 800-pound gorilla in the room no one wants to discuss. It used to be a 300-pound gorilla but just as the average American has gotten more obese, so has our old friend the gorilla.

What's your opinion? Does the Prince have a point here about defense spending? Has our country gone too far with the business of policing the world? Is it often just a smoke screen for the oil business and other private interests?

If these suggestions are true, how could those responsible possibly get away with such a thing. Here's how.

Part of the reason why most Americans do not see the correlation between the lack of health care and the huge military defense budgets and all is related expenditures is due to the low ranking of the American press. In the latest Reporters without Borders analysis of press freedoms around the world, America is considered the 41st best in the world for press freedom. Countries like Taiwan, South Africa, and Ghana have better press freedoms and a better variety of news sources than America does.

What do you think about that indictment? Wouldn't the O'Rielly and Beck nonsense which is countered by folks like Keith Olbermann indicate there is great freedom in the American press? Or are they all just examples of a big charade designed to keep people from seeing what's really going on? What's your opinion?

Please leave a comment.

Less Defense Spending = More COPS

On the wonderful site called Opinione, Il Principe talks about Military spending.

The power of the military industrial complex in America and its related cousin the national security state apparatus is lost on the American people. Why is that more Americans do not see the huge amount of expenditures going to the military while their standard of living and economic prosperity decline?

As The Grand Prince points out, it's not only the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that drain the public coffers; it's the maintenance of hundreds of military bases throughout the world. He's often written about how many there are here in Italy and how unnecessary they seem to be.

Il Principe spells it out for us:

According to the 2008 official Pentagon inventory of our military bases around the world, the military wing of the American Empire consists of 865 facilities with over 190,000 troops in 46 countries and territories. The cost to maintain these military outposts is estimated to cost over 102 billion dollars a year. Most of these troops and military installations are positioned to protect the sources and movement of oil.

One side-effect of this tremendous diversion of resources is that "police forces in America are under staffed leading to higher rates of fatal shootings by police officers."

The correlation is easy to make if you consider the tendency that some law enforcement officers have to shoot first and ask questions later due to the high rate of gun ownership and availability of firearms in America.

What do you think about that? Is that why cops shoot people? To me it makes perfect sense. Policemen, whose departments are understaffed, while trying to cope with an increasingly armed criminal element would tend to be a bit trigger happy.

A partial solution is coming in the form of a recent federal grant program known as COPS, short for Community Oriented Policing Services. This program is an attempt by the Obama administration and the Democratic leadership to direct more funds into local American communities. Part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 allocated $1 billion to the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) for the COPS Hiring Recovery Program (CHRP). Approximately 5,500 additional sworn law enforcement officers will be added to agencies across the country through funding provided by this program.

The funding of more law enforcement officers with the COPS grant is a proactive approach to addressing the proliferate amount of illegal handguns on the streets of America, respecting the rights of legal gun owners, while also keeping the safety of police officers in mind.

What's your opinion? Do you agree that the understaffing of police departments in many places is part of the problem and that hiring additional cops will help? What about the bigger question of military spending and unnecessary military bases throughout the world? Is that something we need to change?

Please leave a comment.

The New Boss

It's been about six months. Is there any indication that Obama will be significantly different than his predecessors? According to Il Principe, no. In a wonderful article, in which he highlights the Protestant theologian Reinhold Niebuhr who warned Americans against what he called “our dreams of managing history,” the Prince pulls no punches in pointing out that Obama is indeed a new boss, just like the old boss.

One only has to look at the abysmal record of trying to manage the future of two foreign countries the United States invaded and has since occupied to see that the future cannot be certain or managed.

Incredibly, most Americans do not see the connection between the annual half trillion-defense budget and open-ended wars in two foreign countries, to the demise of America as an economic world power.

Forget about drawing a line in the sand like the Bush administration said in 1991 and the First Gulf War, more Americans need to get their head out of the sand and realize the drag on the economy the trillions of dollars spent on the Pentagon is having on the American economy.

What's your opinion? Do most Americans have their head in the sand about military spending? In the beginning of Obama's term we talked about it: Is Afghanistan going to be just another Iraq? What do you think? Are you hopeful that we can pull out of Iraq eventually and manage Afghanistan without going completely bankrupt?

Please leave a comment.

Military Spending

Over at Opinione there's a great article, We have met the enemy and he is us. It's all about military spending.

It is virtually impossible for a member of Congress or an ordinary citizen to obtain even a modest handle on the actual size of military spending or its impact on the structure and functioning of our economic system. Some $30 billion of the official Defense Department (DoD) appropriation in the current fiscal year is “black,” meaning that it is allegedly going for highly classified projects.

I remember some years ago it came out that the Pentagon had budgeted huge sums on simple tools that had been marked up to twenty or thirty times their usual cost. The scandal was such that everyone was outraged, but was anything done? Are things different today?

For fiscal year 2006, Robert Higgs of the Independent Institute calculated national security outlays at almost a trillion dollars - $934.9 billion to be exact - broken down as follows (in billions of dollars):
Department of Defense: $499.4
Department of Energy (atomic weapons): $16.6
Department of State (foreign military aid): $25.3
Department of Veterans Affairs (treatment of wounded soldiers): $69.8
Department of Homeland Security (actual defense): $69.1
Department of Justice (1/3rd for the FBI): $1.9
Department of the Treasury (military retirements): $38.5
NASA (satellite launches): $7.6
Interest on war debts, 1916-present: $206.7

Totaled, the sum is larger than the combined sum spent by all other nations on military security.

Do you find these numbers excessive? Have they increased over the last eight years, or does this kind of thing predate the last administration's bumbling attempts at running the world?

Another way to describe the impact of this spending on the average person is this:

According to calculations by the National Priorities Project, a non-profit research organization that examines the local impact of federal spending policies, military spending today consumes 40% of every tax dollar.

Is this something we can expect the new administration to do something about? Is it something that they should do something about, in your opinion? What do you think?

I've heard lots about leaving Iraq, but at the same time they were talking about building up Afghanistan? What gives with that? It seems to me that the underlying element is that a huge chunk of everybody's money must go for military spending, once that's a given, then we can discuss what wars and what operations get funded? Does that sound too cynical?

What's your opinion?