Long post title, short post.
Check out this post over on the "Leiter Reports" blog. Several issues here. I'm most interested in the discussion regarding the actual powers of the legislative over the executive regarding war (and that how the legal systems were intentionally set up that way!). Also curious about the on-going debate regarding the very idea of a war on a method (i.e. terror) as well as the related issues of crime fighting vs. war fighting. All very interesting stuff.
I've linked posts from this blog before. Read my warnings from that previous post. I don't endorse anything said over at the Leiter Reports -- but the blog certainly gives good fodder for discussion.
Your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
This is an interesting report. They bring up 2 main issues, the issue of crime versus war, and that of legislative vs. executive powers to declare war. I think that their report is correct in the fact that the U.S. and Britain are not fighting a war on “terror.” Terrorism is not a conflict of war, its isolated incidents by rebel groups. If a country launches a terrorist attack, then it’s an act of war. For years, the IRA terrorized England, but they never called it a war. However, post 9/11; everything against terror is suddenly a war. Terrorists are not warriors, they are criminals. Wars involve fighting a specific enemy, and with terrorism, the enemy is not one specific group, it can be anyone, at home or abroad. The U.S. and Great Britain need to focus more on, as Blair and Bush would probably put it, “the war at home” keeping their own countries safe, and securing their own borders, instead of going out and looking for the terrorists. With a good criminal prevention plan, the terrorists will come to them, and with a good security force, the U.S. and England will catch them.
Their second point is the power of the executive versus the power of the Legislative branch. In the constitution, Congress alone has the power to declare war. So I guess that means that the U.S. hasn’t fought a war since World War II. However, since WWII, the U.S. has had a standing army, something that the constitutional framers feared and avoided in the constitution. So technically, the president is in charge of the military, and technically, congress forfeited a lot of their power to the president in the war powers act. In today’s fast-paced life, its true, the U.S. does not always have time to confer with congress to get approval for every military operation it performs. However, that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t happen, and in fact, it is what the framers of the constitution wanted. That’s why only congress could declare war. Not to say President Bush was wrong about Afghanistan or Iraq, but the precedent has been set for a while now that the President can send troops wherever he wants. So why can’t the President send troops to the capitol building and take over congress? There are checks on the President through Congress for reasons, and while they haven’t been taken advantage of too much at this point, I’d hate to see it happen eventually. Like Huntington said, the military needs three things to remain a non-threat. Apolitical, professional, and respect for civilian authority. The only thing left there is professionalism. But what does the President need? And what’s stopping him from doing whatever he wants right now other than a democratic congress?
The War on Terror is by no means a conventional war, but is focused on fighting a methodology that is manifested in criminal acts in our own country and abroad. Fighting terror, however, is a far more dangerous battle than World War II. The Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor because they wanted to continue to expand and drill oil against our constant barriers. Both Germany and Japan wants world conquest, but not, world anarchy. Our enemies in the fight against terrorism, however, fight and die for the utter destruction of the United States of America and everything we stand for. This mindset must be carefully considered by all those who enjoy freedom. Also, because our international community has become a “global village” in this new era, we can no longer sit back in isolationism as a nation, but we have a duty to uphold the highest moral standard worldwide. Terrorism violates this moral standard. Therefore, we must engage the terrorist at home and overseas. The means and times to engage the terrorist overseas, however, are what lead up to the second aspect of the Bush-Blair posture. I think it would be wise to work with the U.K. to both defensively fight crime on our streets as well as proactively fight terrorist organizations abroad. The means, the time, and the people involved in an aggressive posture against global terror, however, should be determined by the legislative branch instead of the executive branch. The ability of the executive branch to make a decision for swift and decisive military action is a powerful tool for the President, but it is not in line with the spirit of the Constitution or the writers of the Constitution. As de Tocqueville mentions in his observations, behind the forms of the American government are a series of essential checks and balances to slow down the powerful government through a series of processes. These processes are what keep the President and the government from overstepping their ground. Therefore, we should utilize these checks and balances to optimize our nation’s final outcome.
Post a Comment