James M. Redwine

United States

D-Day

by Leave a Comment

“Throughout the 200-year history of the United States the American nation has been at war.” That was how author William Koenig led into his 1980 book, Americans at War. Although ostensibly a study of American warfare from about 1775 at Lexington and Concord to 1975, the end of the Viet Nam War, Koenig actually starts with the arrival of the Mayflower in 1620 and Native Americans meeting the ship. Had he waited until today to publish he could have included another fifty years of Americans at war, right up to Ukraine.

In general, we Americans view our involvement in foreign wars, that is, non-Native American warfare, as justified by the belligerence of others who have forced us reluctantly into “making the world safe for democracy.” The beginning of our provision of armaments, intelligence and training to Ukraine dates back to soon after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the “breakup” of the Soviet Union. The current U.S. commitment of over 50 billion dollars is only a fraction of our huge military and economic support for Ukraine over many years. Russia has often taken note.

George Soros, the Hungarian born American billionaire, stated on May 24, 2022 that the Russia-Ukraine war may be the start of World War III and result in the end of human civilization. Such doomsday statements are not a new phenomenon. Ever since the days of The Flood people have warned that human behavior, usually by someone other than the Jeremiad of the moment, was going to lead to the end of the world. They mean the end of homo sapiens’ short 200,000-year reign on our 4.5-billion-year-old planet. Earth will survive, but without us.

I have no estimate how many predictions of mankind’s demise have been made from the time of our common really great-grandmother, Lucy, in Africa until 1945. Until America came up with and used the atom bomb, the philosophers who had previously cried wolf were doing just that. However, now with numerous countries possessing nuclear weapons and itching to use them, we may have finally made honest men out of Noah and all the other survivalists. I am not going to address climate change and pollution as doomsday machines as I only have about three pages of print available. I will stick with nuclear war in this column.

With nuclear powers, such as Russia, North Korea, China, America and Israel all claiming they fear for their survival, I am reminded of my onetime acquaintance who told me in 1973 that if Egypt were about to destroy Israel that Israel would be justified in destroying the whole world to avenge itself. Fortunately, he was not an Israeli and Egypt stood down. I do wonder if Putin might feel so threatened he would believe Russia would be justified in starting the nuclear daisy chain.

These thoughts of World War III came scrambling into my brain when I thought about June 06, 1944 and D-Day. Americans and many others thought the World War of 1914-1918 with its inane carnage, over no one knew what, was going to end world-wide war. Then the courage and sacrifice of 150,000 American soldiers on D-Day was touted as the beginning of the end of totalitarian regimes. Later we thought we had learned something from Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, George Soros, hardly a war monger, fears we may be at the beginning of WWIII raging in Ukraine.

As for me, I will place my confidence in that part of human nature that has pulled us back from self-immolation many times. History leads me to have faith we will not self-fulfill such a dire prophecy. Of course, if I am right everyone will be around to say so, and if I am wrong, what difference will it make?

A Legal Revolution

by Leave a Comment


Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) was a Frenchman who studied American society during a nine-month tour in 1831 when the United States were still simmering with vitriolic political animus from the 1824 and 1828 elections between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson. Adams was elected by the House of Representatives in 1824 and Jackson won via the Electoral College in 1828. After neither election did the United States fall into chaos, even though Jackson won both the popular vote and a plurality, but not a majority, of the Electoral College vote yet Adams grabbed the presidency in 1824.

Four men ran for president in 1824, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay and William Crawford. Because the Electoral College vote was split in such a way that none of the four received a majority, as required to be elected President, under the Twelfth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution a “contingent” election was held in the House of Representatives. Each state’s delegation was given one vote and Adams was elected. Jackson and his supporters alleged that Adams and Clay had entered into a “Corrupt Bargain” to shift Clay’s votes to Adams. Regardless, Adams was elected by the House and the country moved on until 1828 when Jackson ran against Adams again.

In his treatise on American democracy de Tocqueville defined America’s presidential election as “a revolution at law” and described it as follows:

“Every four years, long before the appointed (presidential election) day arrives, the election becomes the greatest, and one might say the only, affair occupying men’s minds…. As the election draws near intrigues grow more active and agitation is more lively and widespread. The citizens divide up into several camps.… The whole nation gets into a feverish state.”

De Tocqueville’s ultimate verdict on America’s democracy was encapsulated in his general verdict on how political controversies were ultimately resolved. His observation was that:

“In America there is hardly a political question which does not sooner or later turn into a judicial one.”

De Tocqueville’s opinion was that the American manner of resolving political issues without bloodshed worked because, unlike European monarchies, the United States citizens respected the law and they did so because they had the right to both create it and change it. Since we get to choose our legislators who write our election laws and because we can change the laws by changing whom we elect if we are unhappy, we accept the laws as written including who is ultimately declared the winner of a current election.

The laws we have the right to create and the right to change include filing for an elected office, running for that office, who counts the votes, how they are counted, as well as how and when someone can legally contest an election. That legal procedure applies to all facets of an election cycle. Each state’s legislature has the authority to establish its own procedures in this regard as long as they do not violate federal law.

As an Indiana Circuit Court Judge I was involved in a recount of a congressional race, a county clerk general election, a county council general election, a town council election and a county council primary election. The Indiana legislature had enacted and published a clear statutory procedure for each type of election contest, including what role each public official should play in any recount. The statutes demanded total openness and media access to ensure the public could have confidence that if all involved followed the law a clear winner would be fairly determined. There were time limits, controls and transparency. After a recount result was certified in each contest life moved on and the eventual losers and their supporters accepted the results because they had had their “day in court”; that is, democratically enacted law was followed not the arbitrary or partisan activity of individuals.

De Tocqueville compared America’s hotly contested democratic elections to a surging river that strains at its banks with raging waters then calms down and carries on peacefully once the results have been properly certified. From my own experience with several elections and after the recounts of some of them, I agree with de Tocqueville’s analogy.

That is not to say I am for or against any type of recount for any office. I absolutely have no position on whether any candidate for any office should concede or contest anything. My position is simply that as long as the law is properly followed our democracy can handle either circumstance.

High Crimes And Misdemeanors

by Leave a Comment

Old Cadet Chapel, West Point

If you visit our country’s most hallowed military institution at West Point you will find America’s most infamous traitor, Benedict Arnold, is as reviled today as he was in 1780. Arnold had been one of General George Washington’s closest colleagues and was in command of Fort West Point when he plotted with British Major John André to surrender West Point to the British.

André was caught and hanged but Arnold escaped to England where he joined the British Army as a general and then engaged in battles against America. Such treachery is not easily forgiven. When you enter the venerable old Cadet Chapel at West Point you will find there is no mention of Arnold; his name has been removed from where others are displayed with honor.

Interior of Old Cadel Chapel

If even now America has not forgotten what treason truly is you can imagine how the Framers of our Constitution felt when they wrote our Constitution only seven years after Arnold’s betrayal. When Article II, section 4 of the Constitution was drafted treason was the first reason given for impeachment:

“The President, Vice-President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Article I, section 5 gives the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment and Article I, section 3, subsection 6 gives the Senate the power to try the charge of impeachment with a conviction, and subsequent removal from office, requiring a two-thirds vote.

We have had forty-five Presidents of which three have been impeached: Andrew Johnson (1865-1869); Richard Nixon (1969-1974); William Clinton (1993-2001); and now perhaps, Donald Trump (2017-?). Andrew Johnson and William Clinton were not convicted. Richard Nixon resigned. And Donald Trump’s situation is yet to be determined.

I do not know the significance of why America went from George Washington (1789-1797) to 1973 with only one presidential impeachment then has had two, and perhaps three, since then. My speculation is the bar for impeachment has been lowered from the behavior of a Benedict Arnold to a standard based on personality. Have we transitioned from treason to Tricky Dicky, Slick Willy, and, perhaps, Dodgy Donnie? If so, the cautionary statements of then Representative Gerald Ford and the Founding Father and main architect of the Constitution James Madison may be worth considering. “An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives says it is” (Ford); and we should be aware “Maladministration” [or its kin] is, “so vague a term [as] will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate.” (Madison).

A short-hand interpretation of these admonitions is that America should not allow itself to become a nation based on the fluctuating opinions of those in Congress but only upon a system of law as sought by those who crafted our Constitution.

 

Sticks and Stones

by Leave a Comment

“Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.” A catchy nursery rhyme but a dangerous belief for political leaders. Language matters. Other animals may communicate but only humans have developed language to the point we can engage in international trade and send rockets into space.

One problem we have not solved is completely understanding what someone who speaks a language different from our own truly means. While it is possible someday the whole world will once again speak one language, the last time that was true was three million years ago when all the humans on Earth lived in Africa’s Olduvai Gorge. Somehow we managed to create an actual Tower of Babel (Genesis, 11:1-9) as we clawed our way all over the globe.

Almost everyone has experienced being both misunderstood and misunderstanding others. They hear one thing when we intended something else or we thought they meant something by their words that was not what they intended. If you are married you will not need any specific examples from me. The situation is exacerbated by leaders of foreign countries trying to reach a meeting of the minds while using separate languages.

When I taught other judges from Palestine, Ukraine or Russia the system we used to convey my English language thoughts to the foreign judges was: I would speak, or write, an idea then a translator fluent in both English and Arabic, Ukrainian or Russian would repeat to the foreign judges what I just said or wrote. I could often tell from the reactions of the foreign judges that even with the best-intentioned and diligent translators what I meant often was not exactly what the translator conveyed and/or the audience understood.

If we apply this principle to international relations, say between the United States and North Korea, we and they should probably proceed with extreme caution when we make statements which might unintentionally convey disrespect or challenge.

Perhaps another old childhood saying might be worth keeping in mind as countries deal with one another where either or both could easily misinterpret the other’s true intent: “Be careful what words you spew out to others as you might be eating them later.”

Right now many in our country are using language about North Korea and its leader Kim Jong-un that might make any person fear we are going to attack them. Irrational responses often result when one is placed in fear and doubt about another’s intentions.

Many in our government and in the news media are sounding the war tocsin and claiming Kim Jong-un is dangerously irrational. As for our own leaders much of the media is so offended by President Trump’s criticism of the media that it is in a constant attack mode. For example, this past Sunday edition of The Reno Gazette-Journal devoted three pages to calling the President of the United States a liar. It would not be surprising if North Korea were emboldened to attempt military action due to a false conclusion that Americans are weak and divided.

I am not suggesting the media or anyone else ignore poor decisions or bad policies. Our democracy has lasted over two hundred years in large part because we need not fear to speak out against what we perceive to be ill-advised actions. However, the country chose President Trump. It is much like a spouse who denigrates his or her mate. Whose judgment is flawed?

And when our politicians and media continually describe Kim Jong-un as a dangerous fool he might be misled to believing we are about to launch an attack. Perhaps both countries and their leaders may wish to ratchet back the invective with both keeping in mind another ancient aphorism: “When one is dealing with a fool he should make sure the fool is not similarly engaged”.

With Charity For Some, With Malice For Others

by Leave a Comment

James Mattis is President-Elect Trump’s choice for Secretary of Defense. According to former Secretary of Defense William Cohen, Mattis is a student of history who understands the dangers of Thucydides’ Trap. Thucydides (471 – 400 B.C.) was an Athenian historian who lived through the Peloponnesian War (431 – 404 B.C.), which exhausted both the loser, Athens, and the eventual winner, Sparta. This thirty years of internecine carnage sowed the seeds of Greece’s vulnerability to Roman conquest.

Thucydides observed it was the rise of the upstart Athenians and the fear and resentment of that rise in the more powerful Spartans that led to war. Archidamus, the Spartan king, had cautioned his citizens to not be hurried into conflict out of any sense of offended honor or an attitude of superiority. However, hotter heads prevailed.

The United States is unquestionably the strongest nation on Earth militarily and economically. We may have the power to dictate terms to most other countries. We are the Sparta of our time.

On the other hand, we may wish to learn from history, not repeat it. If Russia attempted to influence our elections, we should address this serious issue with all due diligence. Due diligence is not a euphemism for dueling.

If China builds artificial islands in international waters and declares them China, we need not make a bellicose response. Maybe negotiation from strength might be better.

If the United Nations Security Council passes a unanimous resolution that calls for Israel to follow international law, due diligence does not require that Congress withhold funds from the United Nations unless Israel gets a retraction.

Now that Secretary Clinton and President-Elect Trump have ended their election cycle neither they nor their supporters should precipitate a Pyrrhic Victory for our country by continuing to attempt to delegitimize their opponents or their opponents’ positions by the technique of circular firing squads.

Perhaps it is time to once more look to the wisdom of some of those marvelous ancient Greeks and even our own President Lincoln and not let a misguided sense of offended honor or an overestimation of our own righteousness lead us to another long series of self-destructive attitudes and actions.

{This article relied heavily on an article dated May 6, 2015 by Leon Whyte that drew upon the scholarship of Harvard Professor Graham Allison and appeared in The Diplomat. Click here to go to referenced article ->}