With respect to U.S. Constitutional law, the resolutions in Congress to my knowledge were not even put forth as a declaration of war pursuant to the Constitution. There was no claim to being declaring war on the nation of Afghanistan, rather a "war on terrorism" was declared. But the Constitution does not provide for war on abstract phenomena , rather on other nations.
The UN Charter prohibits waging war except in self-defense. Again the nation of Afghanistan did not attack the U.S. The harboring of criminals is properly dealt with through extradition, not waging war on the nation in which the criminals reside.
Left lawyer should be raising these arguments, and should not surrender this issue as Nathan gives up. The NLG would not be proud of you.
This might be related generally to Bush;s overreaching seizure of authority against due process which even rightwingers like William Safire and reactionary members of Congress have publically objected to. There seems to be a genuine split in the rightwing over the steps Bush has taken ( some even unrelated to the terrorist attack defenses), which is actually scary.
Who are those who doubted that dictatorship could happen in the US of A ? Is anti-fascism still premature ?
Bush the outlaw president.
Note Bush continues to confound and confuse all the headline stories as dumb category "terrorism". But the evidence seems more and more to indicate that the anthrax incidents are domestic terrorists, and the onesided mailings to Democrats in Congress seems to indicate a simple minded rightwing terrorist. Will the implication that enormous force should be used against rightwing , McVeigh-type terrorists ever reach the frontal lobes of a few more patriots ? Where is Bush's vigor against the domestic danger which seems to have no connection to Al Qeida ?
Charles Brown
Arguments for ground war - forget it
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 16:47:39 -0500 From: "Nathan Newman" <nathan at newman.org> Subject: Re:
- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Henwood" <dhenwood at panix.com>
>Ian Williams cited two General Assembly resolutions. I don't have my
>copy of the mag here, so I can't give their numbers.
>Also, didn't Congress pass something very much like a declaration of
>war? I'm a bit confused by people who've said they didn't.
I think the "illegal war" rhetoric is ridiculous, since this is as sanctioned a war by both domestic and international law as they come.
Domestically, Bush sought and received a very broad declaration of war and Congress has specifically allocated funds for the effort.
Internationally, the basic righteousness of US grievances have been recognized by the UN (the resolutions mentioned) and while they did not officially endorse the bombing, righteous acts essentially justify military action ("self defense") as allowed by the UN. The fact that the Northen Alliance is the still recognized government of Afghanistan just strengthens the right to the US to be there.
Which is all a good reason for the left not to harp on "legality" but rather to emphasize justice. By most measures, this is a very legal war which is committing many unjust acts and will have many unfortunate consequences in undermining the long-term security of the US.