Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (45871)	9/21/2002 1:12:18 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

American Historians Speak Out 'Consulting' Congress On Iraq Is Not Enough Published: Sep 16 2002 tompaine.com Joyce Appleby is Professor of History Emerita and Ellen Carol DuBois is Professor of History at the University of California in Los Angeles (UCLA). The nation stands on the verge of war with Iraq and American historians are speaking out. Consultation with Congress is not enough. A congressional resolution authorizing military action falls short. We believe the Constitution is clear: Congress must debate and vote on whether to declare war on Iraq. Over 1,200 historians have signed our petition to that effect. We believe the president is flouting the Constitution, which explicitly gives to Congress, not the president, the power to declare war. "We ask our senators and representatives to do this," the petition reads in part, "because Congress has not asserted its authority to declare war for over half a century, leaving the president solely in control of war powers to the detriment of our democracy and in clear violation of the Constitution." At noon today, Sept. 17, Constitution Day, we are delivering our petition to Congress. Historians who have signed the petition include: Sanford Levinson of the University of Texas, Jack Rakove of Stanford University, David Beito of the University of Alabama, David DeLeon of Howard University, Melani McAlister of George Washington University, David Levering Lewis of Rutgers University; and Teresa Meade of Union College. Read the complete text of the petion and the full list of signers at HistoryNewsNetwork.org. The Constitution is not a document to be selectively observed. Its provisions support each other. The balancing of powers was the device the Founding Fathers hit upon to prevent the tyranny of concentrated power. In writing Article I, Section 8, they balanced the president's power as commander-in-chief against the authority of the people's representatives to determine whether or not to commit the nation to war. There is no ambiguity of original intent here. After weeks of resistance, the president finally said he would consult Congress and seek a resolution authorizing the use of military force. The announcement quieted many critics and media commentators, but it should not have. It is a deceptive distraction. A resolution might be only a vaguely worded affirmation of the dangers of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. By contrast, a vote on a declaration of war would involve Congress in a sober assessment of the costs, risks, and wisdom of a preemptive strike at Iraq. Inadequate as mere consultation is, President Bush has undercut even its limited value by telling audiences he doesn't expect any debate on Capital Hill to alter his position. This imperious response does not sound like a man who once swore to uphold the Constitution. A preemptive attack on Iraq is not like invading Grenada or Panama. The stakes are much higher, the risks far more serious for the nation and the world. That's why Congress must debate whether or not to declare war and then take a vote. A resolution that is less than a declaration of war might satisfy those people who think Congress should have a say in the matter, but it would not satisfy the Constitution. Either Saddam Hussein has pursued a path that requires us to wage war against him, or he has not. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution is not about police actions or interventions -- it is about war. Congress must debate whether to declare war and then take a vote. The last time a president asked Congress to declare war was on December 8, 1941, the day after the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. Presidents since then have preferred the flexibility of undeclared wars, proxy wars, covert wars, and United Nations action -- a trend that has eroded congressional authority. While the clandestine nature of Cold War operations helps explain this, it in no way justifies a further expansion of executive power at the expense of the legislative branch. Who remembers America's past ways of conducting foreign policy? Historians do. We cultivate the memory of our nation's principles and practices. In this spirit, over 1,200 American historians have turned to an old tradition -- petitioning Congress for redress of grievances. We hope to call members of Congress back to their duty and contribute to a rejuvenation of civic culture in this, the oldest democracy on Earth. We stand at a historical crossroads -- the nation will either return to its constitutional provision for making war or continue the baleful practices of the Cold War and its for-us-or-against-us mentality, its imperial presidency, and the suppression of dissent. At the very time that people around the world are restive under despotic governments, we should show them how democracy works. Whatever position individual Americans may take on a preemptive attack on Iraq -- for, against, or undecided -- they should urge their Congressional representatives to muster the facts and arguments and bring them to bear in open debate: Should we or should we not declare war on Iraq? If we must consider the untested doctrine of preemptive war, let us rely on the well-tested Constitution to guide our decision. That course alone can give legitimacy to the initiative. * * * TomPaine.com Independent, Commercial-free Public Affairs Reporting and Commentary

To: JohnM who wrote (45871)	9/21/2002 1:17:24 PM
From: Eashoa' M'sheekha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>>My concern is the great turn in American foreign policy<< Liked your " He hasn't checked in with me lately." Too funny. Yep! This certainly is a shift of cosmic proportions,eh?So much so that the First Strike at Pearl Harbour could now be called justified when using the same doctrine. The last time this was considered " JFK's First Strike Plan," .......... >>>forty years ago serious tensions over Berlin and Germany and the danger of world war clouded Moscow-Washington relations. Fred Kaplan's article in the October 2001 issue of The Atlantic Monthly, "JFK's First Strike Plan," shows that key White House officials and the President himself briefly considered proposals for a limited nuclear first strike against Soviet military targets in the event that the Berlin crisis turned violent.<<<< gwu.edu Now there might be a " list " of first strike targets considered when this policy was being drafted. Iran reactor may test first-strike doctrine >>Whatever path the administration chooses could be overshadowed by a key U.S. ally in the region: Israel. Although a preemptive strike appears to be supported by only a minority in the Bush administration and has not been discussed at the top levels of government, Israel has suggested it will not allow the plant to open.<< iht.com Things may " heat up " if this new policy carries. Peace - KC

To: JohnM who wrote (45871)	9/21/2002 1:19:25 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Raines is at it again. Check out today's headlines: Washington Post: Bush Shifts Strategy From Deterrence to Dominance washingtonpost.com New York Times: From Full Steam to Stalled: March to Iraq Turns at U.N. nytimes.com

To: JohnM who wrote (45871)	9/21/2002 1:48:58 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

My concern is the great turn in American foreign policy as witnessed by the strike first doctrine and the arguments which lie beneath it. Hey, we agree on something! I'm not convinced that W needed to make a sweeping and controversial doctrinal statement about issues which can be handled on an ad hoc basis. The statement comes off as being much too arrogant and highhanded, despite the language about going through the UN before initiating action. International law gives every state the right to essentially unhindered self-defense. I think that there was no need to make the statement, which is bound to upset allies, when preemptive strikes can be justified as self-defense. Ironic, huh? Using this logic, there is no objection to the Israeli strike against Iraq's reactors, which I applauded at the time for its boldness and foresight.