Presidential War Powers
by Gus diZerega, Ph.D.
Sept. 14, 2001
Senator Patty Murray
173 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Murray,
Reading the New York Times today troubled me. I am incredibly impressed with the
excellent job of investigation that appears to be going on to uncover the culprits
and their supporters. I am equally alarmed at some of our President's statements
as to what he wants to do next.
I am not one who thinks that a strong military response is inappropriate. I think
such a response is highly appropriate if, once convincingly identified, the culprits
are not handed over immediately upon our request to their host governments - and
have no problem with those governments (as differentiated from the civilian populations)
themselves being targeted as well if they do not. So I may well be relatively hawkish.
However, if what I read is true, President Bush is planning to request power to do
far more than that. He wants to wage an open-ended "war" on terrorism -
and he wants to do it while being granted open-ended war powers, which is alarming.
A crisis such as we are now enduring is not a time to grant a leader open-ended war
powers to pursue a vague goal, tempting as it is to do so and then get on with our
lives. "Fighting terrorism" is open ended because there can always be a
threat of terrorist acts. Linking large grants of power to such vague goals is very
troubling from a Constitutional perspective as well as from that of our own historical
experience.
War powers should only be granted under strictly defined circumstances. That our
President is inexperienced and untested in this area is obvious. We can all hope
he performs well during these dark times while still being leery of giving such a
grant. But the same principle would hold for even a deeply experienced leader well
acquainted with the horrors and uncertainties of war.
James Madison emphasized that our government should be biased in favor of deliberation,
not action. The Founders were probably unanimous on that point. The branch of government
empowered to act - the Presidency - was to be kept dependent on other branches. War
powers are of such magnitude that they make it possible in the name of national security
for the President to do things that would normally be forbidden to him.
The incarceration of Japanese Americans is an example of an excess taking place when
war powers were appropriately granted, and when feelings were running high. No decent
person now defends that decision. In retrospect, it stands as an example of what
can happen when we have great unity, strong feelings, and great (and justified) anger.
Deliberation is replaced by action - and the actions are later regretted.
Today we are united, with strong feelings, and also have great and justified anger.
But the target of our anger is vague. It is not a country such as Japan or Germany.
If war powers can be misused when their target is clear, as in WW II, they are even
more likely to be misused when the target is vague and the victory that would lead
to their being removed hard to define.
Our Constitutional system has plenty of leeway to grant great power to pursue limited
and well defined goals - such as destroying the organization and government allies
of those who destroyed the World Trade towers and damaged the Pentagon. We should
not let our pain and anger allow us to grant such power on any wider and vaguer basis.
I realize that political pressures to go along with whatever is requested can be
very very strong. But I urge you to think about the precedents that would be set
and the dangers to constitutional government that would arise from an open ended
grant of power to pursue a vague and ill defined goal.
Sincerely,
Gus diZerega, Ph.D.
The English newspaper The Guardian has some excellent coverage.
Check out
www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/ and snoop around. Lots of very thoughtful
stuff - far better than most of what has appeared over here.
|