This letter is associated with the following article:
Letters
Thursday, August 16, 2007 12:00 AM

The Padilla verdict

A guilty verdict on vague terrorism charges reveals how unnecessary the Bush administration's extremism has been.

Read other letters about this article

  • Sunday, August 19, 2007 05:16 PM

    The loosey-gooseyness of war declarations, as well as the revocation of basic rights, is lazy incompetence

    response to Jebbie,

    You asked whether the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, or any of the Gulf war resolutions, could fulfill the constitutional requirement that Congress "declare" war.

    I am not so sure that there is not a higher expectation about what constitutes a war declaration. I suspect the bill passed about war with Germany and Japan said something like, "this is a declaration of war with..." But, let's say that there is no set standard of what declarations of war include, doesn't this show that Congress, the President, and the Courts are negligent on this issue and that any challenge brought by the people about this fact should end with the government ceasing it's unauthorized if not illegal activities, i.e., the war, the draft, the expenditure of tax money, etc.

    The arguments made, as I understood them, were that the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, was based on false information, and hence the actions based on it should have been reviewed and perhaps revoted.

    I am curious to know why neither Johnson nor Nixon, nor Reagan, nor any Bush has asked not just for some "authorization for the use of force," but went for the "declaration of war" instead. I suspect the reason would be that there is a significant difference between the two and they felt they did not want to ask for a vote on such a declaration for those reasons.

    No, I don't think half ass resolutions fulfill the constitutional requirements.

    You also asked about who was going to challenge any of the claims made upon which the wars have been based. Who's going to challenge the Gulf of Tonkin resolution and the arguments behind it?

    Well, we had two Senators who voted against that resolution. My understanding of Morse was that he was not convinced of the evidence and he needed a better argument to let the Government run roughshod over a small country.

    Senator Morse believed Congress had the responsibility to figure these things out on its own so that it could make a reasoned and independent decision about questions of war, and so on. I believe the Congress has generally given up on that responsibility.

Most Active Letters Threads

685

Obama's exceedingly familiar justifications for escalation

The "new" approach to Afghanistan touted by White House officials seems quite old
601

The commendably missing element from Obama's speech

There was no pretense that human rights is our goal, or the likely outcome, in escalating the war
440

The face of rotted Washington

Evan Bayh demands more debt-financed war - fought by others - while boasting that he's a stern "deficit hawk."
317

Yes, it's Obama's war now

An uninspiring speech sells a dubious policy, but progressives who feel betrayed have only themselves to blame
209

Bigotry wins in Switzerland

By voting to ban the construction of minarets, Switzerland apes the most extreme intolerance in the Muslim world

View all »

Letters Help

Currently in Salon