Aaron Bushnell Lifts All Boats

 by Mary W Maxwell, LLB

“A rising tide lifts all boats” is an expression often used to indicate that helping the wealthy get wealthier tends to have a good follow-on effect for everyone, including the poor.

That’s not how I mean it in my statement “Aaron Bushnell lifts all boats.” I mean something that goes beyond wealth — his act of bravery makes everyone braver. He lets the lowliest military man or the lowliest citizen speak up.

No, that’s not quite it either. I mean Aaron broke through much of what we have all humbly absorbed as restrictions imposed on our use of speech, and indeed of thought. He said (this is a paraphrase): “There may be a hundred ways an ordinary individual in the 21st century can be prevented from articulating something that all of humanity feels, but ha ha, I’ve got a way and no one can stop me.”

Airman Bushnell walked briskly and purposefully along a sidewalk in Washington DC, and said “I will no longer be complicit in genocide.” He then stood still, poured petrol on himself — starting at the top of his head — and quickly threw a match (or something) at his feet.  On a video we see the flames starting to work, from his ankles up to his knees. At that moment, some pedestrians begin to notice him. They happen to get between him and the camera, so we do not witness his final fall.

At age 25, Bushnell gave up what may have been, say, 50 more years of life, in exchange for making a contribution to truth and freedom. Caitlin Johnstone, at Consortium News, said Bushnell’s act was “the most American thing that has ever happened.” Thank you, Ms Johnstone. She is Australian, so I was particularly thrilled to hear her recognize that Aaron’s self-sacrifice was quite in keeping with the American ideal.

People are referring to Aaron’s death as a tragedy, but I don’t see it like that. The real tragedy is the one he took aim against. So let us be sure to celebrate his victory, and not cover it up — coverup being a major part of the 21st century tragedy.

The Muteness of the Soldier

The fact that Aaron Bushnell was an active-duty person in the US Air Force makes the event very special for all servicepersons. Generally speaking, soldiers do not have a say in the way their group’s force is to be used. Naturally enough, only the leaders are responsible for choosing if the troops will be used in an ambush, in a cannon-fodder battle, or whatever.

As for the weapons to be used, these tend to be dictated by choices that were made when Pentagon-level personnel arranged to purchase this or that weapon, based on its use in a foreseeable war. A soldier can’t contribute much to that decision-making. (I’ll bet, though, that they have submitted formal complaints about the ridiculous amount of kit they have to wear, often more than a hundred pounds, over their uniform.)

Much less does a private in the army, or even a five-star general, have a say in the choice of which nation we are going to make war against. Per the United States Constitution Article II, foreign policy is in the hands of the president (with the advice and consent of the US Senate), And per Article I, Sec 8, any decision to make war is specifically in the hands of the Congress.

Today, all 535 members of Congress should decide, based on their constituents’ wishes, whether the nation should engage in any proposed war. That’s how the Founding Fathers planned it, explicitly, so that other influences would not control the war decision.

There was no legal podium at which serviceman Bushnell could say “I will no longer be complicit in genocide.” He was not free to make policy, not even as free as the citizens who, protected by the First Amendment, can rail against the going policy. In the military, you don’t have free speech about what is on the drawing board. Disobedience can get you court-martialed, and during war it may get you executed.

The Desperate Lawsuits of Mary Maxwell and Captain Nathan Smith

As an American, I cannot bear the trashing of the Constitution that routinely occurs today by members of our government. In 2006 I filed suit against President George W Bush for making war against Iraq in 2003, with no justification. (He claimed it was to protect us against Saddam Hussein’s nuclear weapons, or something like that.) But the basis of my claim was not the  choice of a target country or the type of action (Remember “shock and awe”?).  My claim was only that no president can, constitutionally, declare a war.

It is Congress’s job and Congress has outrageously abdicated its role, starting with the Korean war in the early 1950s.  After the Vietnam conflict, a very tepid War Powers Act was legislated, so Congress could assert its role in war-making, but Congress doesn’t even conform to that piece of its own authoring. My case, against presidential war-making, was dismissed by the court for “lack of standing.” That’s what typically happens when citizens try to protect the Constitution.

Trust me, it’s knee-jerk. So we are looking at the judicial branch, also, abdicating its role. No judge ever lets a war-powers case reach the merits — not even in the 1991 case of Dellums v Bush, where the plaintiffs consisted of 54 Congresspersons! Their complaint was that Bush Sr’s threat of a war, to aid Kuwait against Iraq, upset the all-important balance of power between the three branches of government, as Congress had not declared war.

In reply, the third branch might have chosen to hide behind the doctrine of “the political question.” That is, the court usually claims it cannot enter into fights between the two elected branches, executive and legislative. But instead, in Dellums, Judge Greene dismissed the case on “ripeness.” He said the case was not yet ripe for adjudication, as Secretary of State James Baker was in Geneva looking for a diplomatic solution.  Dellums v Bush only ever got to the District Court level and soon the war, known as Operation Desert Shield, broke out.

I made a second filing, Maxwell v Trump, when President Trump claimed he would attack North Korea with nuclear bombs (or worse). Dismissed on “standing,” I appealed my case to the First Circuit, but that court did not even require the defendant to file a reply! It simply “affirmed” the decision of the federal district court. This happens to all plaintiffs like myself — the judiciary refuses to take part. No wonder a soldier can’t win if a citizen also can’t get her words heard.

Ah, but luckily Captain Nathan Smith of the US Navy found a way to wiggle himself into court, in regard to the unconstitutional “war on ISIS” in 2017. He asked for a ruling on whether he, having many enlisted sailors under his command, could legally send them into the theatre of war if Congress had not declared war.

Capt Smith wasn’t trying to prevent that war, which he in fact supported.  He wanted an opinion on a constitutional problem, and his moral problem of leadership.  (His case is No 16-5377, decided in the DC Court of Appeals, in 2018.)

I am sad and embarrassed to report how the Appeals Court disposed of the matter. They waited it out till Smith was no longer in the military (his term of enrollment was going to be up in a year). Then, when his service was finished, they dismissed the case as moot.  That is, there was no longer an issue of what a captain should do, in regard to his underlings, was there? What a cheap trick!

Note: That court could have still worked on Nathan Smith’s case. In 1973 there was the famous abortion case of Roe v Wade, which began in a Texas state court.  By the time the US Supreme Court got a hold of it, the fetus in question was already a walking talking toddler — but the Justices did not declare the issue moot. I say it’s obvious that SCOTUS wanted to handle the abortion issue, and that the DC court didn’t want to handle the “Only-Congress-Can-Declare-War” issue.

Lifting the Boats Is Not Limited to Gaza, the Holocaust, Or Any War

Currently we see Israel warring on the Palestinians, even unto Netanyahu’s saying he will wipe them out. The phrase yelled by Aaron Bushnell, as he killed himself was “Free Palestine.” Nonetheless, I choose not to join the chorus of person who, understandably, rejoice in Bushnell’s sticking up for a particular group in a particular war.

I think he could have just as easily said — years and years ago — “I will not continue to be complicit in genocide” in reference to numerous episodes of American military actions. Or today, referencing our ongoing outrages at Gitmo: “I will not continue to be complicit in torture.” Come to think of it, Aaron, while in uniform, had no legal footing on which to oppose torture by his fellow soldiers.

In 2003, while stationed in Iraq, Alyssa Peterson of the US Army, age 27, is said to have killed herself (with her service rifle). This followed her making noise — to the authorities — about US torture practices there. (She was a translator.) It is my guess that she did not kill herself but rather was killed. This could have been to avoid court-martialling her, the publicity of which may have led to changes in the UCMJ, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is a legislative creation.

For purposes of this short article today, I am avoiding the subject of Gaza, but recognize its importance and urgency. I also recognize the harm that the Gaza situation does to Jews everywhere, and I would not put it past the troublemakers-in-high positions to organize a persecution of Jews within the USA. Such as was predicted by Philip Roth in his 2004 novel, The Plot against America.

I have also avoided the issue of censorship that was raised in my paraphrase of Bushnell’s idea: “There may be a hundred ways an ordinary individual in the 21st century can be prevented from articulating something that all of humanity feels, but ha ha, I’ve got a way and no one can stop me.” That is to say, the article at hand has not dug into the question of social control, and of the concomitant phenomenon of self-censorship.

To recap, I assert:

1. Aaron Bushnell lifts all boats.
2. Legally, our soldiers have no say in war-making policy.
3. All three branches betray the Constitution’s balancing of powers, in war matters.
4. Courts deflect attention to this issue, and squelch citizens who rattle the cage.
5. If Congress, the president, or the courts did their job, Aaron would be alive.
6. Someone may now be engineering an unfair backlash against “American Jews.”

Finally, per Caitlin Johnstone, Bushnell’s self-immolation “was the most American thing that has ever happened.”

Thank you, Aaron Bushnell. Godspeed.