[Previous entry: "Debate Results"] [Next entry: "Success in Samarra"]
10/02/2004: "Global Test"
From a Command Post post: So, Kerry is saying that if we preemptively strike, we need to first make sure that we can justify our strike to the world.
I can accept that if the U.S. does something, we should do it for the right reasons. We should not attack banana republics just because we want cheap bananas. It would be problematic to attack a banana dictatorship to free enslaved banana pickers. It would be less problematic to attack a banana republic to shut down the production of long rang bananas of mass destruction.
But determining whether or not an attack is justified or not does not strike me as a world test. It strikes me as a morality test or, perhaps, a God test. To call it a world test makes me think less of the test itself and more of the graders. And consider the Senator's actual words:
But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you’re doing what you’re doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.
It is one thing to do the right thing; it is quite another to prove that you are doing the right thing. One must share knowledge to provide proof. Knowledge is power, and in the war on terror, loose lips blow up buildings.
There should be a middle ground where President Bush could have explained the situation in general terms and asked congress for permission to use force before he invaded Iraq. Oh wait, there is such a situation, and he did get congressional permission to use force. Perhaps the problem is with congressmen that say it's ok to use force when they mean to say that we should negotiate more.
Addendum-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Thanks to Alex for prompting this line of thought).
I believe strongly in the seperation of powers; that congress should declare war and that the president should wage war. So when Alex said that the declaration to go to war was actually an invitation to negotiate, I just had to go to the source to prove him wrong.
So I found out when the bill was passed and went to the official U.S. House of Representatives site to get the text of the bill (they have pdf too). Lo and behold, here is the relevent section (reformatted for readability; also, emphases added):
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
- (a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
- (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
I support the war on Iraq in part because it was a growing threat, not an imminent threat or a continuing threat.
- (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
A little bit safer ground for the President here; U.N. resolutions called for Saddam to demonstrate that he was destroying his WMDs. This clause justifies our invasion; it was only by invading thet we could demonstrate that he had disarmed.
- (b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
- (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
Kerry seems to win there; he can claim that he expected better efforts to negotiate. Then again, how do you test for that? Remember the oil for palaces scandal, after all.
- (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Hmmm, so while this clause mentions 9/11 specifically, it does not limit our responses to nations that supported the 9/11 attacks.
- (c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
- (1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
- (2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
I suppose I'm disappointed we had to water it down so much to get agreement. I'm more disappointed that no one else goes back to the source material like this (yes, including myself; what took me so long?).
And I don't harbor any illusions that I will have changed anyone's mind here. My only goal is to try to maintain a high minded level of debate.
