Do
modern weapons render Congress
obsolete—or more needed than ever?
___________________________________________________________________
NEWS:
Trump leaning toward nuclear warfare
___________________________________________________________________
A
WALL commentary
An
argument made by some who seek to justify presidential wars is set
forth by a member of the War and Law League:
In
challenging people's modern view that the President is “in
charge of war,” I personally have
come across an argument I find difficult to counter, although
I try:
When
the Constitution was established, war was predictable and relatively
slow in coming; therefore, there was ample time
for Congress to deliberate and vote on whether to
engage.
Today,
at the push of a button, entire cities can be destroyed without
warning. There is little time between spy satellites detecting an
oncoming missile and the ability of another
missile being launched to destroy it. Therefore, the subject of
declaring war and the subject of a sudden attack have become
conflated. — Marcy Berry.
In
1787 communication was by mail, and travel by representatives
from the 13 states to their meeting place was rough and slow. An
invasion in those days might have been easier for a foe to
accomplish than such an action today.
Indeed the only
invasion of the United States proper by foreign armed forces after
the American Revolution took place during the War of 1812, a war
declared by Congress.
When
they established the supremacy of the Congress in deciding war and
peace, the Framers of the Constitution understood that the president
might repel a sudden attack on the United States
during a congressional absence. In modern terms, it could involve
shooting down an attacking war plane or missile. So far, it has never
happened.
Setting
aside the War of 1812, the Civil War, and for a moment World War II,
the many conflicts of the United States and acts of war have not been
defensive. The U.S. has gone abroad and attacked other
countries.
On
December 7, 1941, Japanese planes did attack the U.S. Territory of
Hawaii. Yet even then, the president did not fight back until
Congress duly voted to declare war on Japan. (Some say the attack was
no surprise to Franklin D. Roosevelt but encouraged as part of
his plan to plunge the pro-peace U.S. into World War II. Whether war
on Germany and Italy was necessary has also been debated.)
Is
there more justification for a quick, one-man war decision in
modern times — a decision that could take millions of lives —
than there was in 1787? Harry Truman's impulsive decision to send
fighting forces to Korea in 1950 resulted in a three-year war,
millions of fatalities, and a political stalemate. U.S. troops are
still there 67 years later. Vietnam and other presidential wars, in
imitation of Truman’s war, have brought more casualties in the
millions.
George
W. Bush — the self-styled “decider” — decided
the attack on Afghanistan. It was hardly “defensive” as
claimed, after weeks of planning following the 9/11 terror, which had
been perpetrated by Saudis mostly and no Afghans. Sixteen years later
the undeclared war on Afghans goes on.
Bush
Jr. decided also to commit aggression against Iraq in 2003. He
clothed it in lies of “weapons of mass destruction” and
ties to terrorists. U.S. forces are still there 14½ years
later.
Leave all
war decisions to the erratic Trump, and the result may be worse,
perhaps nuclear.
NEWS:
No
sooner was that last sentence written, when news emerged that
the Trump administration leaned toward producing
“tactical” nuclear weapons of an unspecified “low
yield” and letting military commanders decide their use. How such
use would keep from escalating to large-scale nuclear war was not
explained.
Donald
Trump once infamously asked military brass about nuclear weapons, “If
we have them, why don’t we use them?” (That was Harry
Truman’s attitude.)
The
International Court of Justice ruled in 1996 that the use of nuclear
weapons would violate international law, particularly rules of
humanitarian law. Threatening to
use them (i.e. planning to massacre a population as “deterrence”)
was unlawful too, the court found.
What
about little
bombs, which incinerate fewer people — aren’t they OK?
The
court said, “The destructive power of nuclear weapons cannot be
contained in either space or time…. They have the potential
to destroy all civilization….”
|
The
executive decisions are always to attack someone,
U.S.
antiaggression treaties to the contrary notwithstanding. The wars are
so easy to start but so hard to end. And modern wars, which
inevitably involve much of what the military calls “collateral
damage,” i.e. the killing and maiming of civilians, turn
out far worse than 18th century wars, in which soldiers with
muskets fought each other on battlefields.
Could
the U.S. possibly make any worse decisions if presidents truly left
matters of war and peace to Congress, as the Constitution’s
Founders intended?
Nor
can the country depend on electronic devices in making its decisions.
The world came close to annihilation multiple times when warning
systems mistook wild geese, meteor showers, a war-games tape, and a
weather satellite as missile attacks. Thousands of other false alarms
have occurred, as Dr. Helen Caldicott has written. (See
“Our two-faced policy on nuclear weapons,” particularly
the section headed
“A-forces on high alert still peril us all.”)
Letting
one man decide at the spur of the moment whether to cause the
destruction of all human life is the most perilous and the stupidest
possible arrangement for a supposed republic, governed by law, let
alone a flagrant violation of the Constitution.
That potential violation and cataclysmic result is addressed by congressional bills S. 200 and H.R. 669 introduced by Massachusetts Senator Edward J. Markey and Rep. Ted Lieu of California (33rd CD, Los Angeles) in January
2017. Either bill would prohibit a president from conducting “a first-use
nuclear strike unless such strike is conducted pursuant to a declaration of war
by Congress that expressly authorized such strike.” (See
“Don’t let the president
start a nuclear war!”)
Committees
have bogged down both bills. Too many legislators seem to care more
about politics (the bills’ authors are Democrats in a
GOP-controlled Congress) than about a single individual usurping
their war power and possibly extinguishing life on earth.
We
have far more
need for the collective, rational judgment of Congress these days
than they had in 1787.
(See
that proposition argued in excerpts by Fisher,
Javits, and Wormuth & Firmage, especially the last paragraph of
each passage, in “Modern
Commentators on the Constitution’s War Power.”)
By
Paul W. Lovinger, Sept. 14, 2017
|