Hi Dave B; Re: "There are right ways and wrong ways to fight wars. If we're going to have a war, everyone (or at least a majority) should agree we're going to be fighting it. The end does not always justify the means."
The real issue with the executive branch violating the law during the Reagan administration was the division of power between the Republican executive branch, and the Democratic legislative branch. The executive branch is supposed to be responsible for foreign affairs, but the legislative branch kept passing laws restricting the actions of the executive branch. Those laws were what were what were at issue. The executive branch never agreed that those laws were legal, and proceeded to ignore them. Then their boys got in trouble.
Reagan got elected and reelected with very high percentages of the vote. For that reason it is pretty clear that a majority agreed that he was the guy to make those decisions. In short, when Reagan supported the contras, he was undoubtedly doing exactly what the people who voted for him (i.e. Republicans and conservative Democrats) wanted. Heck, a lot of us wanted him to do a lot more.
The other thing to remember is that this was during a war. Not the tiny, unimportant, and not particularly violent [except to those involved, but compare them to Vietnam or the war of the Triple Alliance] civil wars in South America, but the huge, long and potentially devastating conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union.
To suggest that laws are more important than expediency in wartime is approaching silly. Was it legal for Truman to atomic bomb the Japanese? For Roosevelt to fire bomb the Germans (and Japanese, as well as deport Japanese-American citizens from their homes? How about the unrestricted submarine warfare conducted by the US? Mining Vietnamese harbors and bombing their country during an undeclared war? Heck, would it even be legal for the United States to use its nuclear weapons on China, or would that be a violation of genocide laws? War is knee deep in legal violations (and worse), but war is supposed to be hell. Far more important than the legal niceties are the death and suffering involved, and the leadership knows it.
Now the cold war is over, and we should return to a peace time economy. Excuses that applied to wartime don't apply anymore. And anyway, what are you going to say next, that Clinton's activities were okay because Lt. Calley shot all those villagers dead? Lieutenant Calley at least supposedly thought he was doing what he was told to do, Clinton was just trying to avoid embarrassment.
I have to suspect that one reason the Democrats have kept the white house for eight years is because the American public prefers the Democrats to run foreign affairs in peace time, but the Republicans to run them in war time. Now that the cold war is over, maybe we will see a long run of Democratic Presidents. (Maybe starting in the 2000 election, or maybe the 2004.)
-- Carl
P.S. Re brutal wars in South America: MORE THAN HALF of Paraguay's population died in the brutal War of the Triple Alliance, which Paraguay waged against neighboring Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay from 1865 to 1870.
abcnews.go.com |
