This speech is so important the entire transcript is included, plus highlights regarding sovereignty, transnationalism and "Applied Protocol 1" of the Geneva Convention (you may not know what those last two items are, but you will if you read this entire speech).
U.S. Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyle speech at Nixon Center upon receiving Distinguished Service Award:
http://kyl.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=331787
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl was honored late Tuesday with the Nixon Center’s Distinguished Service Award. The following are excerpts from his remarks:
“I'm grateful to the Nixon Center for this honor. The Center has for years contributed to debates about national security strategy. You have encouraged thinking about large thoughts and long-term perspectives, so tonight, rather than address current events, I want to talk with you about something conceptual and strategically significant: America's national sovereignty. This may sound abstract, but it's a matter of the profoundest practical importance.”
“The essence of the United States is an idea -- that ‘we the people’ should govern ourselves according to rules Americans have designed to preserve and protect our individual rights, endowed by God, to live as free men and women. The chief rules, of course, are those set out in the U.S. Constitution.”
“I'd argue, therefore, that what our national security strategy should aim to secure is not just land and lives, but also America's Constitutional system. That system is built on the belief that our people are sovereign. In other words, the only source of our government's legitimacy -- the only source of all its ‘just powers’ -- is the consent of the American people. ‘Sovereign’ means that we are subject to no earthly authority higher than ourselves as a people and that there are no man-made rules for us that take precedence over our own Constitution -- as Abraham Lincoln put it: ‘a political community without a political superior.’ If our country is not sovereign, we are not free, independent and self-governing.”
“Many of you must be wondering why I'm bothering to review such basic ideas. Didn't we all learn these things in elementary school? (Incidentally, an interesting discussion for another day is whether our kids today are learning these things in school.) Why make such a fuss about concepts that all Americans take for granted?”
“The answer to why the fuss, is that some Americans, including many leading academics and some high-level government officials, view sovereignty as an outmoded notion. They want the United States to accept the authority of so-called transnational legal norms.
They argue that old-fashioned ideas about sovereignty undermine international peace and cooperation and impede the acceptance around the world of progressive ideas about just about everything, from women's rights, to family law, from the environment, to nuclear weapons.”
“In certain American intellectual circles, sovereignty is viewed not as a principle to be upheld, but a problem to be remedied. That view, with roots that reach back decades, is particularly strong among some faculty members at our prestigious law schools.”
“This talk of transnational processes presumably sounds pretty good if, sitting on a law faculty somewhere, you think of yourself as an ‘agent of internalization’ who gets to inject your favorite progressive ideas into domestic law through the judicial system without having to dirty your hands in electoral politics. But such ‘transnationalism’ is contemptuous of the U.S. Constitution and of the idea that the American people should be able to elect -- and to eject from office -- the officials who make laws for us.”
“Many of our friends in Europe believe that national sovereignty itself (including the sovereignty of democratic states) is problematic. They view international agreements as a means to advance progressive ‘norms’ that have little support among democratic publics. And, some view it as a way to constrain U.S. power.”
“[The] Additional Protocol 1 was drafted to amend the Geneva Conventions in the mid-1970s. Unlike the traditional Geneva Conventions of 1949, the Additional Protocol would permit terrorist groups to receive POW privileges even if they hide among civilian populations and do not reveal themselves until just before an attack. This would give terrorists advantages over conventional forces, and puts civilians at greater risk, undermining a major purpose of the laws of war, which is to protect the interests of non-combatants.
Additional Protocol 1 creates new rules that contradict the humane provisions of traditional international law. And, if the United States adopted it, Protocol 1 would hamper American combat operations, increasing risks for U.S. soldiers, as well as for civilians in combat zones. That's why President Ronald Reagan, with the support of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff and of the Secretaries of State and Defense, announced that he had decided not to ratify Protocol 1.”
“Just [on Monday], as part of the administration’s welcome recognition that Guantanamo Bay cannot and should not be closed, the Secretary of State, for whom Mr. Koh works, announced that part of Protocol 1 – Article 75, which deals with so-called ‘fundamental guarantees’ for non-state combatants – would be ‘deemed’ to be legally binding on the United States.”
“Parts of Article 75 may not be problematic for our military commissions and detention polices. Other parts, for example, the proviso dealing with the ‘right’ to examine witnesses, are deeply problematic and have been rejected by Congress. The Senate should be afforded the opportunity to examine completely how Article 75 compares with the Military Commissions Act and current DOD guidance to determine through the Constitutional process whether the U.S. should adopt it.”
“Unfortunately, the State Department’s announcement yesterday made clear the administration’s view that the Constitutional process is an anachronism. The Senate must not permit its Constitutional responsibilities to be eroded. Think about it, if the State Department can just deem treaties, or parts of treaties, to bind the United States, what has become of the checks and balances established by the founders?”
“I think we can resolve this issue since the Obama administration will ask the Senate to ratify additional Protocol II. With some reservations we may decide to do that.”
“…[T]he President may not bind the U.S. to a treaty, in whole or in part, by ‘deeming’ it to be legally binding, or because he thinks it has, or hopes it would become part of the international legal norm. Process matters, and the Constitution is our process.”
“Fashionable as it is in some circles, opposition to traditional principles of national sovereignty is not popular among the American people in general. So efforts to undermine sovereignty are often conducted by means of deceptive language.
Treaties that would erode the American people's ability to make their own rules -- are commonly described as serving American interests and consistent with American values. Proponents contend that we must become a party to a particular treaty or America won't have a ‘seat at the table’ when the other parties meet to draft the implementing rules.
Tying the United States to a transnational institution that removes policy matters from the sphere of democratic politics is commonly described as ‘providing American leadership.’”
U.S. Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyle speech at Nixon Center upon receiving Distinguished Service Award:
http://kyl.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=331787
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl was honored late Tuesday with the Nixon Center’s Distinguished Service Award. The following are excerpts from his remarks:
“I'm grateful to the Nixon Center for this honor. The Center has for years contributed to debates about national security strategy. You have encouraged thinking about large thoughts and long-term perspectives, so tonight, rather than address current events, I want to talk with you about something conceptual and strategically significant: America's national sovereignty. This may sound abstract, but it's a matter of the profoundest practical importance.”
“The essence of the United States is an idea -- that ‘we the people’ should govern ourselves according to rules Americans have designed to preserve and protect our individual rights, endowed by God, to live as free men and women. The chief rules, of course, are those set out in the U.S. Constitution.”
“I'd argue, therefore, that what our national security strategy should aim to secure is not just land and lives, but also America's Constitutional system. That system is built on the belief that our people are sovereign. In other words, the only source of our government's legitimacy -- the only source of all its ‘just powers’ -- is the consent of the American people. ‘Sovereign’ means that we are subject to no earthly authority higher than ourselves as a people and that there are no man-made rules for us that take precedence over our own Constitution -- as Abraham Lincoln put it: ‘a political community without a political superior.’ If our country is not sovereign, we are not free, independent and self-governing.”
“Many of you must be wondering why I'm bothering to review such basic ideas. Didn't we all learn these things in elementary school? (Incidentally, an interesting discussion for another day is whether our kids today are learning these things in school.) Why make such a fuss about concepts that all Americans take for granted?”
“The answer to why the fuss, is that some Americans, including many leading academics and some high-level government officials, view sovereignty as an outmoded notion. They want the United States to accept the authority of so-called transnational legal norms.
They argue that old-fashioned ideas about sovereignty undermine international peace and cooperation and impede the acceptance around the world of progressive ideas about just about everything, from women's rights, to family law, from the environment, to nuclear weapons.”
“In certain American intellectual circles, sovereignty is viewed not as a principle to be upheld, but a problem to be remedied. That view, with roots that reach back decades, is particularly strong among some faculty members at our prestigious law schools.”
“This talk of transnational processes presumably sounds pretty good if, sitting on a law faculty somewhere, you think of yourself as an ‘agent of internalization’ who gets to inject your favorite progressive ideas into domestic law through the judicial system without having to dirty your hands in electoral politics. But such ‘transnationalism’ is contemptuous of the U.S. Constitution and of the idea that the American people should be able to elect -- and to eject from office -- the officials who make laws for us.”
“Many of our friends in Europe believe that national sovereignty itself (including the sovereignty of democratic states) is problematic. They view international agreements as a means to advance progressive ‘norms’ that have little support among democratic publics. And, some view it as a way to constrain U.S. power.”
“[The] Additional Protocol 1 was drafted to amend the Geneva Conventions in the mid-1970s. Unlike the traditional Geneva Conventions of 1949, the Additional Protocol would permit terrorist groups to receive POW privileges even if they hide among civilian populations and do not reveal themselves until just before an attack. This would give terrorists advantages over conventional forces, and puts civilians at greater risk, undermining a major purpose of the laws of war, which is to protect the interests of non-combatants.
Additional Protocol 1 creates new rules that contradict the humane provisions of traditional international law. And, if the United States adopted it, Protocol 1 would hamper American combat operations, increasing risks for U.S. soldiers, as well as for civilians in combat zones. That's why President Ronald Reagan, with the support of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff and of the Secretaries of State and Defense, announced that he had decided not to ratify Protocol 1.”
“Just [on Monday], as part of the administration’s welcome recognition that Guantanamo Bay cannot and should not be closed, the Secretary of State, for whom Mr. Koh works, announced that part of Protocol 1 – Article 75, which deals with so-called ‘fundamental guarantees’ for non-state combatants – would be ‘deemed’ to be legally binding on the United States.”
“Parts of Article 75 may not be problematic for our military commissions and detention polices. Other parts, for example, the proviso dealing with the ‘right’ to examine witnesses, are deeply problematic and have been rejected by Congress. The Senate should be afforded the opportunity to examine completely how Article 75 compares with the Military Commissions Act and current DOD guidance to determine through the Constitutional process whether the U.S. should adopt it.”
“Unfortunately, the State Department’s announcement yesterday made clear the administration’s view that the Constitutional process is an anachronism. The Senate must not permit its Constitutional responsibilities to be eroded. Think about it, if the State Department can just deem treaties, or parts of treaties, to bind the United States, what has become of the checks and balances established by the founders?”
“I think we can resolve this issue since the Obama administration will ask the Senate to ratify additional Protocol II. With some reservations we may decide to do that.”
“…[T]he President may not bind the U.S. to a treaty, in whole or in part, by ‘deeming’ it to be legally binding, or because he thinks it has, or hopes it would become part of the international legal norm. Process matters, and the Constitution is our process.”
“Fashionable as it is in some circles, opposition to traditional principles of national sovereignty is not popular among the American people in general. So efforts to undermine sovereignty are often conducted by means of deceptive language.
Treaties that would erode the American people's ability to make their own rules -- are commonly described as serving American interests and consistent with American values. Proponents contend that we must become a party to a particular treaty or America won't have a ‘seat at the table’ when the other parties meet to draft the implementing rules.
Tying the United States to a transnational institution that removes policy matters from the sphere of democratic politics is commonly described as ‘providing American leadership.’”
“Every generation has the duty to renew appreciation of what our Founding Fathers accomplished in establishing American independence and in crafting our political institutions to secure our individual liberties. Every generation has the responsibility to guard that independence, protect those institutions and continue to secure liberty for ourselves and our posterity. It's a weighty but ennobling responsibility.”
