Letters to the Editor
-
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.
-
Senators could challenge the information used, so could the American people.
This is fro an article written by Normon Soloman about Sen. Morse's opinion about who could challenge the President.
"...The black-and-white TV footage is grainy and faded, but it still jumps off the screen – a portentous clash between a prominent reporter and a maverick politician. On the CBS program Face the Nation, journalist Peter Lisagor argued with a senator who stood almost alone on Capitol Hill, strongly opposing the war in Vietnam from the outset.
"Senator, the Constitution gives to the president of the United States the sole responsibility for the conduct of foreign policy," Lisagor said.
"Couldn't be more wrong," Wayne Morse broke in. "You couldn't make a more unsound legal statement than the one you have just made. This is the promulgation of an old fallacy that foreign policy belongs to the president of the United States. That's nonsense."
Lisagor: "To whom does it belong then, senator?"
Morse: "It belongs to the American people.... And I am pleading that the American people be given the facts about foreign policy."
Lisagor: "You know, senator, that the American people cannot formulate and execute foreign policy."
Morse: "Why do you say that?... I have complete faith in the ability of the American people to follow the facts if you'll give them. And my charge against my government is – we're not giving the American people the facts."
In early August 1964, Morse was one of only two senators to vote against the Tonkin Gulf resolution, a resolution remarkably similar to the one the U.S. Senate just passed. It served as a green light for the Vietnam War. While reviled by much of the press in his home state of Oregon as well as nationwide, he persisted with fierce oratory for peace.
Over the next four years Oregon's senior senator was remarkable because he challenged the morality – not just the "winability" – of the war. He passionately asserted that the United States had no right to impose its will on the world. In the process, he made enemies of many fellow Democrats, including President Lyndon Johnson...."
http://www.webcom.com/hrin/magazine/tonkin.html
According to Morse, anyone could challenge the drive to war. The problem is that government has been put together to prevent its people from mounting any challenge on these matters.
-
Thanks Sysprog
That clip was awesome. Inspiring, really. It's tough trying to come up with a country that judge could belong to today, if his ideals are supposed to be representative of his country...
-
-- steven andresen
Please know that I am not disputing what you have presented.
I would enjoy a good discussion on this subject here and would enjoy it even more if it were to take place on the floor of the Senate.
Alas, SWMBO is ranting something about dinner being ready to do it now and Senators are too damned worried about their re-elections to do it ever.
I'd like to continue but it will have to be later tonight. You've brought up some interesting thoughts. Thank you.
-
N.Y. Times, on the "real innovation" in the case
On the front page of Saturday's NY Times is a news analysis about the "innovative" ways this case was prosecuted.
http://nytimes.com/2007/08/18/us/nationalspecial3/18legal.html
The New York Times; Saturday August 18, 2007; Page A1
News Analysis
Padilla Case Offers New Model of Terrorism Trial
By ADAM LIPTAKThere were two perfectly predictable schools of thought being expressed after the conviction of Jose Padilla on Thursday on terrorism-related charges. Supporters of the Bush administration said the conviction justified the more than three years Mr. Padilla spent in military detention before his criminal prosecution, while the administration’s opponents said the verdict proved that the criminal justice system should have handled the case in the first place.
But the real innovation in Mr. Padilla’s case, some legal experts said yesterday, was more subtle than those dueling talking points suggested. The Justice Department’s strategy in the trial itself, using a seldom-tested conspiracy law and relatively thin evidence, cemented a new prosecutorial model in terrorism cases. [...]
- - New York Times, 8/18/2007