I wrote
a diary discussing the possibility of military officers calling for Congress to hold formal hearings on the executive branch asserting rights and powers not authorized by the Constitution. The underlying principle is that military officers are sworn to "support and defende the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic". Large numbers (370, but who's counting?) of dKossers recommended the dairy.
This is the follow-up diary. It contains some modifications of the original idea.
1. The letter should be addressed exclusively to Congress.
2. The letter should allow former officers to sign as well as current officers and retirees.
3. A version of the letter should allow officers to sign anonymously.
Also, the dkosopedia has the current text of the letter. A number of dKossers sought to participate in the editing process. By having the letter on the dKosopedia everyone can participate in the editing process.
Maybe there should be two versions of the letter. One could be narrowly focused on President Bush's claim that he can go beyond the limits set by the courts and Congress in wiretapping. The other could be more general and cite a pattern of behavior that looks illegal, but that Bush has not been held accountable for.
The first version of the letter was addressed to the Supreme Court and Congress. But SCOTUS can't act until a plaintiff with standing brings a case that is ripe. (How could this happen?)
In the earlier thread I was asked if I was still bound by my oath "to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic". I do feel bound by the oath. It seems officers who resigned their commissions should be able to sign the letter too. The signers could be divided into three categories.
1. Retirees
2. Active duty and reserve officers
3. Former officers
How do people feel about allowing officers to sign anonymously? Officers could send a letter to some coordinating organization with a photocopy of their military ID cards. The officers could be identified with incomplete information, like rank, service or state of residence.
Obviously, the organization gathering the information would have to take precautions so that the information did not become compromised. How will it be taken if officers can anonymously sign the letter?
Here's the version of the text of the letter as of posting the diary:
An Open Letter From Individual U.S. Military Officers
To:
Congress
We, the undersigned, are officers who retain our commissions in some branch of the U.S. military. We take seriously our oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Threats to the U.S. Constitution might not be from an external enemy, but from people inside the government who are violating the compact.
We are concerned that President George W. Bush, our Commander-in-Chief, may be violating the Constitution. Specifically, his assertion that he can authorize his subordinates to monitor electronic communications, in a manner authorized by neither Congress nor the courts, appears to invalidate constitutional checks on presidential power.
While it is not our place to evaluate whether President Bush has exceeded his authority, the Constitution provides methods for this evaluation. As we understand the Constitution, Congress could consider whether President Bush is taking power not authorized by the Constitution.
We are troubled that Congress is not formally wrestling with the issue of whether President Bush exceeded his authority. If the issue is not being addressed through Constitutional processes, we are deeply concerned about the health of the Constitution.
Each of us swore to uphold an oath to support and defend the Constitution. We explicitly and formally request that these venerable institutions perform their constitutional duty to formally evaluate whether President Bush has exceeded his authority.