See other War, War, War Articles
Title: Violating the Constitution With an Illegal War
Source:
http://www.lewrockwell.com
URL Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul57.html
Published: Oct 3, 2002
Author: Rep. Ron Paul, MD
Post Date: 2007-04-03 20:34:01 by robin
Keywords: None
Views: 4621
Comments: 267
Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, October 3, 2002 The last time Congress declared war was on December 11, 1941, against Germany in response to its formal declaration of war against the United States. This was accomplished with wording that took less than one-third of a page, without any nitpicking arguments over precise language, yet it was a clear declaration of who the enemy was and what had to be done. And in three-and-a-half years, this was accomplished. A similar resolve came from the declaration of war against Japan three days earlier. Likewise, a clear-cut victory was achieved against Japan. Many Americans have been forced into war since that time on numerous occasions, with no congressional declaration of war and with essentially no victories. Today’s world political condition is as chaotic as ever. We’re still in Korea and we’re still fighting the Persian Gulf War that started in 1990. The process by which we’ve entered wars over the past 57 years, and the inconclusive results of each war since that time, are obviously related to Congress’ abdication of its responsibility regarding war, given to it by Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. Congress has either ignored its responsibility entirely over these years, or transferred the war power to the executive branch by a near majority vote of its Members, without consideration of it by the states as an amendment required by the Constitution. Congress is about to circumvent the Constitution and avoid the tough decision of whether war should be declared by transferring this monumental decision-making power regarding war to the President. Once again, the process is being abused. Odds are, since a clear-cut decision and commitment by the people through their representatives are not being made, the results will be as murky as before. We will be required to follow the confusing dictates of the UN, since that is where the ultimate authority to invade Iraq is coming from – rather than from the American people and the U.S. Constitution. Controversial language is being hotly debated in an effort to satisfy political constituencies and for Congress to avoid responsibility of whether to go to war. So far the proposed resolution never mentions war, only empowering the President to use force at his will to bring about peace. Rather strange language indeed! A declaration of war limits the presidential powers, narrows the focus, and implies a precise end point to the conflict. A declaration of war makes Congress assume the responsibilities directed by the Constitution for this very important decision, rather than assume that if the major decision is left to the President and a poor result occurs, it will be his fault, not that of Congress. Hiding behind the transfer of the war power to the executive through the War Powers Resolution of 1973 will hardly suffice. However, the modern way we go to war is even more complex and deceptive. We must also write language that satisfies the UN and all our allies. Congress gladly transfers the legislative prerogatives to declare war to the President, and the legislative and the executive branch both acquiesce in transferring our sovereign rights to the UN, an un-elected international government. No wonder the language of the resolution grows in length and incorporates justification for starting this war by citing UN Resolutions. In order to get more of what we want from the United Nations, we rejoined UNESCO, which Ronald Reagan had bravely gotten us out of, and promised millions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer support to run this international agency started by Sir Julian Huxley. In addition, we read of promises by our administration that once we control Iraqi oil, it will be available for allies like France and Russia, who have been reluctant to join our efforts. What a difference from the days when a declaration of war was clean and precise and accomplished by a responsible Congress and an informed people! A great irony of all this is that the United Nations Charter doesn’t permit declaring war, especially against a nation that has been in a state of peace for 12 years. The UN can only declare peace. Remember, it wasn’t a war in Korea; it was only a police action to bring about peace. But at least in Korea and Vietnam there was fighting going on, so it was a bit easier to stretch the language than it is today regarding Iraq. Since Iraq doesn’t even have an Air Force or a Navy, is incapable of waging a war, and remains defenseless against the overwhelming powers of the United States and the British, it’s difficult to claim that we’re going into Iraq to restore peace. History will eventually show that if we launch this attack the real victims will be the innocent Iraqi civilians who despise Saddam Hussein and are terrified of the coming bombs that will destroy their cities. The greatest beneficiaries of the attack may well be Osama bin Ladin and the al Qaeda. Some in the media have already suggested that the al Qaeda may be encouraging the whole event. Unintended consequences will occur – what will come from this attack is still entirely unknown. It’s a well-known fact that the al Qaeda are not allies of Saddam Hussein and despise the secularization and partial westernization of Iraqi culture. They would welcome the chaos that’s about to come. This will give them a chance to influence post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. The attack, many believe, will confirm to the Arab world that indeed the Christian West has once again attacked the Muslim East, providing radical fundamentalists a tremendous boost for recruitment. An up or down vote on declaring war against Iraq would not pass the Congress, and the President has no intention of asking for it. This is unfortunate, because if the process were carried out in a constitutional fashion, the American people and the U.S. Congress would vote "No" on assuming responsibility for this war. Not only is it sad that we have gone so far astray from our Constitution, but it’s also dangerous for world peace and threatens our liberties here at home. Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas. 
Transferring authority to wage war, calling it permission to use force to fight for peace in order to satisfy the UN Charter, which replaces the Article I, Section 8 war power provision, is about as close to 1984 "newspeak" that we will ever get in the real world.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 52.
#1. To: robin, ALL (#0)
Can anyone point out to me the form that the Constitution says a declaration of war must have?
http://supreme. lp.findlaw.com/documents/constitution.html War Powers While the President is the Commander in Chief, Congress holds the power to declare war, to raise and support armies, to provide and maintain a navy, and to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. Read more in Article I, Section 8 and Article II, Section 2. http: //supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/article01/index.html#1.8 U.S. Constitution: Article I Section 8. The Congress...To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. http: //supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/article02/index.html#2.2 U.S. Constitution: Article II Section 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;
But none of that defines the FORM the declaration must take.
No specific form is required. But any Congressional act which fails to assert aht a state of war exists falls short of a declaration of war. An example of a valid declaration comes to us from 11 December 1941: "The War Resolution Declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Germany and the government and the people of the United States and making provision to prosecute the same. Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States"
BINGO. In your OPINION. Apparently Congress and the Supreme Court don't agree with you.
Did the Supreme Court rule on the legality of the Iraq War?
*************** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_of_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq On October 3, 2002, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) submitted to the House International Relations committee a proposed declaration which read, "A state of war is declared to exist between the United States and the government of Iraq." It was rejected[12], as all such suggestions since World War II have been. The first Circuit Court of Appeals stated that "...the text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an 'authorization' of such a war." The Court of Appeals decision goes on to cite Massachusetts v. Laird stating "The court found that other actions by Congress, such as continued appropriations to fund the war ... provided enough indication of congressional approval" [47]. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution provides that treaties of the United States, along with federal law and the Constitution itself, are the supreme law of the land (U.S. Constitution). The UN Charter is a treaty ratified by the United States and is therefore the law of the land in the United States on equal footing with acts of legislation. The Supreme Court stated in Whitney v. Robertson, "By the constitution, a treaty is placed on the same footing . . . with an act of legislation. . . . if the two are inconsistent, the one last in date will control the other".[13][14] The authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq was passed in 2003, many years after the UN Charter.[15] **************** Now what's stopping the anti-war movement from going before the Supreme Court to get them to declare the war illegal according to the Constitution? Perhaps what the Constitution does not do? Define the form of a declaration of war?
Sean D. Murphy. "United States Practice in International Law Volume 2, 2002–2004", Cambridge University Press. Now what's stopping the anti-war movement from going before the Supreme Court to get them to declare the war illegal according to the Constitution? Perhaps what the Constitution does not do? Define the form of a declaration of war? a. You've quoted the judgement of a lower court and the opinion of lawyer. The Supreme Court did not state that the Iraq War was legal - as you suggested in your previous posts - if truth be known, the Supreme Court has not considered the legality of the Iraq War. Isn't that correct? b. It costs a lot of money to attempt to get a case heard by the Supreme Court. Anti-war groups are grass roots organizations - they don't have Israel's foreign aid budget, for example, with $ to burn. Besides this is not a case that needs a Supreme Court judgement. This is a matter of Congress needing and wanting to assert its authority in matters of war declaration. Congress should revoke the temporary power it passed to GWB in October 2002 to use force against Iraq and then it should defund the Iraq War. But because both political parties are beholden to AIPAC, the Israel Lobby group, and not to American voters, Congress refuses to assert its authority. FYI, here's what Americans want in terms of foreign policy based on the latest latest prestigious poll conducted by Public Agenda and Foreign Affairs. What Americans want is totally opposite to what GWB and Congress are doing. It must please you that the Israel lobby is calling the shots with our elected representatives regarding foreign policy in the ME because your beliefs are the same as AIPAC - by golly - quelle coincidence.
I never suggested any such thing. I said that the Supreme Court hasn't declared it illegal. And they haven't. You folks claim more than half the country is adamantly against the war and you can't come up with a few million $$$ to take a case before the Supremes? Don't insult our intelligence. ROTFLOL! I agree. But they haven't, have they. Hence, you can't say the war is illegal. Oh that's right. 4umers believe it is *all about Israel and Jews*. ROTFLOL! Then they should put their money where their mouth is and go to the Supremes.
BAC: Oh that's right. 4umers believe it is *all about Israel and Jews*. ROTFLOL! It's what has been concluded by researchers who are far smarter and better qualified in research and scholarship than you or I are. Drs. Mearsheimer and Walt from U of Chicago and Harvard studied the influence of the Israel Lobby on US foreign policy and based on their research there would not have been an Iraq War were it not for the considerable influence brought to bear on Congress and the White House to invade Iraq by the Israel Lobby. You might want to read their study, BAC. Then you wouldn't have to look like such an ill-informed cheap shot artist who makes ignorant remarks like "Oh that's right. 4umers believe it is *all about Israel and Jews*. ROTFLOL!" Furthermore, BAC, so you don't go around presenting yourself as a red neck bigot ( though my advice is probably too late in that regard), you should not lump together Jews with IsraelFirster lobby groups or with Israelis themselves. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? abstract_id=891198 "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" March 2006
********** http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n10/letters.html From Philip Zelikow In their essay ‘The Israel Lobby’, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt invoke comments made by me as evidence for a controversial assertion of their own concerning the motives for the US invasion of Iraq (LRB, 23 March): Readers may find it interesting to know what I actually said and how Mearsheimer and Walt appear to have misused my comments. My talk was on 10 September 2002 at a 9/11 anniversary symposium. I argued that possession of nuclear (or biological) weapons by Saddam Hussein would be very dangerous. Reflecting on my White House work during the Gulf War in 1990-91, I did point out that I believed then, and later, that the most likely direct target of an Iraqi WMD attack would be Israel, but that policymakers had no wish to emphasise this. That said, any US or European government, in 1991 or later, would rightly have regarded an Iraqi nuclear attack on Israel – or on any other country – as a horrific prospect they would do much to prevent. Neither of these conclusions – that Saddam’s possession of nuclear weapons would be dangerous, or that Israel might be most directly threatened by such weapons – was especially remarkable. These things were understood in 1991. Iraq tried very hard to pull Israel into that war and its politics, ultimately even bombarding Israel with ballistic missiles. The coalition laboured successfully to thwart Saddam and keep Israel out of that war. None of this, though, bore on the question of what to do about a possible Iraqi WMD programme in 2002. On that issue – whether or when the US ought to go to war with Iraq – I expressed no view in my September 2002 talk, or on any other public occasion during those years. Nor did I try to explain why the Bush administration went to war, either in 2002 or after the invasion in 2003 or 2004. And in those years I had little special knowledge of those motives. My work on the president’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (from which I resigned in February 2003) had not involved Iraq. So how did my views wind up in Mearsheimer and Walt’s essay as evidence that Bush went to war in part for Israel? In 2004, local reports of my September 2002 comments were discovered by the Inter Press Service. To put it mildly, that body has a strong political point of view. It circulated on the web an article headlined ‘War Launched to Protect Israel – Bush Adviser’. Without any evidence other than the old September 2002 quotes, the article’s lead was: ‘Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to the United States but it did to Israel, which is one reason why Washington invaded the Arab country, according to a speech made by a member of a top-level White House intelligence group.’ The claim has bounced around the internet ever since. Mearsheimer and Walt cite this article, which they found in Asia Times Online, as their source for my comments. The original slur did not deserve a response, but the situation is different when it is repeated by two accredited scholars, and endorsed by publication in the LRB. The claim still has three holes. First, like most of the world, I did think that, if Saddam Hussein possessed nuclear weapons, this would endanger the interests of America and the world in several ways, including the direct threat of a possible strike on Israel. Second, I did not state an opinion about whether this should be a cause for war in 2002-03. Third, I did not state an opinion – or even have any special knowledge – about the motives of the Bush administration in going to war in 2003. I hope that readers will contrast these points with what Mearsheimer and Walt wrote in the passage quoted above. Readers will also notice that the passage leads with a reference to the ‘Lobby’, of which I am clearly presumed to be a part. There is no evidence for that either. Philip Zelikow *********** http://slate.msn.com/id/2138741/ Overstating Jewish Power Mearsheimer and Walt give too much credit to the Israeli lobby. By Christopher Hitchens Posted Monday, March 27, 2006, at 1:47 PM ET It's slightly hard to understand the fuss generated by the article on the Israeli lobby produced by the joint labors of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt that was published in the London Review of Books. My guess is that the Harvard logo has something to do with it, but then I don't understand why the doings of that campus get so much media attention, either. The essay itself, mostly a very average "realist" and centrist critique of the influence of Israel, contains much that is true and a little that is original. But what is original is not true and what is true is not original. Everybody knows that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and other Jewish organizations exert a vast influence over Middle East policy, especially on Capitol Hill. The influence is not as total, perhaps, as that exerted by Cuban exiles over Cuba policy, but it is an impressive demonstration of strength by an ethnic minority. Almost everybody also concedes that the Israeli occupation has been a moral and political catastrophe and has implicated the United States in a sordid and costly morass. I would have gone further than Mearsheimer and Walt and pointed up the role of Israel in supporting apartheid in South Africa, in providing arms and training for dictators in Congo and Guatemala, and helping reactionary circles in America do their dirty work—most notably during the Iran-Contra assault on the Constitution and in the emergence of the alliance between Likud and the Christian right. Counterarguments concerning Israel's help in the Cold War and in the region do not really outweigh these points. However, Mearsheimer and Walt present the situation as one where the Jewish tail wags the American dog, and where the United States has gone to war in Iraq to gratify Ariel Sharon, and where the alliance between the two countries has brought down on us the wrath of Osama Bin Laden. This is partly misleading and partly creepy. If the Jewish stranglehold on policy has been so absolute since the days of Harry Truman, then what was Gen. Eisenhower thinking when, on the eve of an election 50 years ago, he peremptorily ordered Ben Gurion out of Sinai and Gaza on pain of canceling the sale of Israeli bonds? On the next occasion when Israel went to war with its neighbors, 11 years later, President Lyndon Johnson was much more lenient, but a strong motive of his policy (undetermined by Israel) was to win Jewish support for the war the "realists" were then waging in Vietnam. (He didn't get the support, except from Rabbi Meir Kahane.) If it is Israel that decides on the deployment of American force, it seems odd that the first President Bush had to order them to stay out of the coalition to free Kuwait, and it is even more odd that the first order of neocon business has not been an attack on Iran, as Israeli hawks have been urging. Mearsheimer and Walt are especially weak on this point: They speak darkly about neocon and Israeli maneuvers in respect to Tehran today, but they entirely fail to explain why the main initiative against the mullahs has come from the European Union and the International Atomic Energy Authority, two organizations where the voice of the Jewish lobby is, to say the least, distinctly muted. Their theory does nothing to explain why it was French President Jacques Chirac who took the lead in isolating the death-squad regime of Assad's Syria (a government that Mearsheimer and Walt regard, for reasons of their own, as a force for stability). As for the idea that Israel is the root cause of the emergence of al-Qaida: Where have these two gentlemen been? Bin Laden's gang emerged from a whole series of tough and reactionary battles in Central and Eastern Asia, from the war for a separate Muslim state in the Philippines to the fighting in Kashmir, the Uighur territories in China, and of course Afghanistan. There are hardly any Palestinians in its ranks, and its communiqués have been notable for how little they say about the Palestinian struggle. Bin Laden does not favor a Palestinian state; he simply regards the whole area of the former British Mandate as a part of the future caliphate. The right of the Palestinians to a state is a just demand in its own right, but anyone who imagines that its emergence would appease—or would have appeased—the forces of jihad is quite simply a fool. Is al-Qaida fomenting civil war in Nigeria or demanding the return of East Timor to Indonesia because its heart bleeds for the West Bank? For purposes of contrast, let us look at two other regional allies of the United States. Both Turkey and Pakistan have been joined to the Pentagon hip since approximately the time of the emergence of the state of Israel, which coincided with the Truman Doctrine. Pakistan was, like Israel, cleaved from a former British territory. Since that time, both states have carried out appalling internal repression and even more appalling external aggression. Pakistan attempted a genocide in Bangladesh, with the support of Nixon and Kissinger, in 1971. It imposed the Taliban as its client in a quasi-occupation of Afghanistan. It continues to arm and train Bin Ladenists to infiltrate Indian-held Kashmir, and its promiscuity with nuclear materials exceeds anything Israel has tried with its stockpile at Dimona. Turkey invaded Cyprus in 1974 and continues in illegal occupation of the northern third of the island, which has been forcibly cleansed of its Greek inhabitants. It continues to lie about its massacre of the Armenians. U.N. resolutions have had no impact on these instances of state terror and illegality in which the United States is also partially implicated. But here's the thing: There is no Turkish or Pakistani ethnic "lobby" in America. And here's the other thing: There is no call for "disinvestment" in Turkey or Pakistan. We are not incessantly told that with these two friends we are partners in crime. Perhaps the Greek Cypriots and Indians are in error in refusing to fly civilian aircraft into skyscrapers. That might get the attention of the "realists." Or perhaps the affairs of two states, one secular Muslim and one created specifically in the name of Islam, do not possess the eternal fascination that attaches to the Jewish question. There has been some disquiet expressed about Mearsheimer and Walt's over-fondness for Jewish name-dropping: their reiteration of the names Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, etc., as the neocon inner circle. Well, it would be stupid not to notice that a group of high-energy Jews has been playing a role in our foreign-policy debate for some time. The first occasion on which it had any significant influence (because, despite its tentacular influence, it lost the argument over removing Saddam Hussein in 1991) was in pressing the Clinton administration to intervene in Bosnia and Kosovo. These are the territories of Europe's oldest and largest Muslim minorities; they are oil-free and they do not in the least involve the state interest of Israel. Indeed, Sharon publicly opposed the intervention. One could not explain any of this from Mearsheimer and Walt's rhetoric about "the lobby." Mearsheimer and Walt belong to that vapid school that essentially wishes that the war with jihadism had never started. Their wish is father to the thought that there must be some way, short of a fight, to get around this confrontation. Wishfulness has led them to seriously mischaracterize the origins of the problem and to produce an article that is redeemed from complete dullness and mediocrity only by being slightly but unmistakably smelly. *************** http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/28/AR2006082801178.html Pronouncing Blame on the Israel Lobby By Dana Milbank Tuesday, August 29, 2006; Page A02 It was quite a boner. University of Chicago political scientist John Mearsheimer was in town yesterday to elaborate on his view that American Jewish groups are responsible for the war in Iraq, the destruction of Lebanon's infrastructure and many other bad things. As evidence, he cited the influence pro-Israel groups have on "John Boner, the House majority leader." Actually, Professor, it's "BAY-ner." But Mearsheimer quickly dispensed with Boehner (R-Ohio) and moved on to Jewish groups' nefarious sway over Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who Mearsheimer called " Von Hollen." Such gaffes would be trivial -- if Mearsheimer weren't claiming to be an authority on Washington and how power is wielded here. But Mearsheimer, with co-author Stephen Walt of Harvard's Kennedy School, set off a furious debate this spring when they argued that "the Israel lobby" is exerting undue influence in Washington; opponents called them anti-Semitic. Yesterday, at the invitation of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), they held a forum at the National Press Club to expand on their allegations about the Israel lobby. Blurring the line between academics and activism, they accepted a button proclaiming "Fight the Israel Lobby" and won cheers from the Muslim group for their denunciation of Israel and its friends in the United States. Whatever motivated the performance, the result wasn't exactly scholarly. Walt singled out two Jews who worked at the Pentagon for their pro-Israel views. "People like Paul Wolfowitz or Doug Feith . . . advocate policies they think are good for Israel and the United States alike," he said. "We don't think there's anything wrong with that, but we also don't think there's anything wrong for others to point out that these individuals do have attachments that shape how they think about the Middle East." "Attachments" sounds much better than "dual loyalties." But why single out Wolfowitz and Feith and not their non-Jewish boss, Donald Rumsfeld? "I could have mentioned non-Jewish people like John Bolton," Walt allowed when the question was put to him. Picking up on the "attachments" lingo, Mearsheimer did mention Bolton but cited two Jews, Elliott Abrams and David Wurmser, as "the two most influential advisers on Middle East affairs in the White House. Both, he said, are " fervent supporters of Israel." Never mind that others in the White House, such as national security adviser Stephen Hadley, Vice President Cheney and President Bush, have been just as fervent despite the lack of "attachments." This line of argument could be considered a precarious one for two blue-eyed men with Germanic surnames. And, indeed, Walt seemed defensive about the charges of anti-Semitism. He cautioned that the Israel lobby "is not a cabal," that it is "not synonymous with American Jews" and that "there is nothing improper or illegitimate about its activities." But Mearsheimer made no such distinctions as he used "Jewish activists," "major Jewish organizations" and the "Israel lobby" interchangeably. Clenching the lectern so tightly his knuckles whitened, Mearsheimer accused Israel of using the kidnapping of its soldiers by Hezbollah as a convenient excuse to attack Lebanon. "Israel had been planning to strike at Hezbollah for months," he asserted. "Key Israelis had briefed the administration about their intentions." A questioner asked if he had any "hard evidence" for this accusation. Mearsheimer cited the "public record" and "Israeli civilian strategists," then repeated the allegation that Israel was seeking "a cover for launching this offensive." As evidence that the American public does not agree with the Israel lobby, the political scientist cited a USA Today-Gallup poll showing that 38 percent of Americans disapproved of Israel's military campaign. He neglected to mention that 50 percent approved, and that Americans blamed Hezbollah, Iran, Syria and Lebanon far more than Israel for the conflict. Walt kicked off the session with a warning that we face a "threat from terrorism because we have been so closely tied to Israel." This produced chuckles in the audience. Walt allowed that this was "not the only reason" for our problems, but he did blame Israel supporters for the hands-off position the Bush administration took during the Lebanon fighting. "The answer is the political influence of the Israel lobby," Walt said. He also hypothesized that if not for the Israel lobby, the Iraq war "would have been much less likely." Up next, Mearsheimer ridiculed U.S. leaders for "falling all over themselves to express support for Israel." And he drew groans from the crowd when he spoke about a lawmaker who, after questioning Israel's policy, "met with various representatives from major Jewish organizations, who explained to him the basic facts of life in American politics." When the two professors finished, they were besieged by autograph- and photo-seekers and Arab television correspondents. Walt could be heard telling one that if an American criticizes Israel, "it might have some economic consequences for your business." Before leaving for an interview with al-Jazeera, Mearsheimer accepted a button proclaiming "Walt & Mearsheimer Rock. Fight the Israel Lobby." "I like it," he said, beaming. *************** http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/013507.php March 23, 2006 Professor Mearsheimer's first sip The English-language weeekly Forward catches up with the execrable "Israel lobby" paper by University of Chicago Professor John Mearsheimer and Kennedy School of Government Dean Stephen Walt: "Scholars' attack on pro-Israel lobby met with silence." Professor Mearsheimer spoke with the Forward, but he was not particularly forthcoming: I'd say Professor Mearsheimer revealed the full potential of saying the wrong thing here in the paper. It's too late to stop now. He continues with the Forward: In a separate Forward story, we gain a little more insight into the mind of Professor Mearsheimer: "Professor says American publisher turned him down." See if you can reconcile his many invitations to elaborate on his thesis in major newspapers, radio and television networks with this: I don't understand how the publisher who commissioned the paper -- could we have his name please? -- found it "virtually impossible" to get the piece published in the United States. Professor Mearsheimer is a notable member of the "realist" school of international relations; he appears to be the kind of realist who can't see the hand in front of his face. The Forward story continues: In yesterday's Best of the Web Today, James Taranto provided another glimpse into the mind of Professor Mearsheimer: ------------------ Blogger Ed Lasky notes a fascinating piece that appeared in the Jan. 10, 2003, issue of the Chicago Maroon, a student newspaper at the University of Chicago: Mearsheimer, of course, is a co-author, with Stephen Walt, of the infamous Harvard paper arguing that there is no moral or strategic basis for America's support of Israel and concluding that such support is explained by "the unmatched power of the Israel Lobby." As we noted Monday, their paper has drawn praise from David Duke. The claim that Israel would expel Palestinians from the disputed territories had a familiar ring to it, and after some digging through our archives, we figured out why. On March 14, 2003, less than a week before coalition troops crossed the Iraqi frontier, we quoted a reader e-mail responding to our mystification at the idea--then being propounded by figures as diverse as Edward Said, Pat Buchanan, David Duke and Rep. Jim Moran (D., Va.)--"that the impending liberation of Iraq is the result of a conspiracy by a Zionist 'cabal,' as Buchanan calls it, that is 'colluding with Israel' to 'ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America's interests.' " Our reader wrote: We are not cruel enough to reveal the identity of this silly missive's author, but we will say that the person is at the University of Chicago and is not Mearsheimer. Apparently this idea was very much in the air among Windy City savants in early 2003. Three years later, Israel not only has not expelled the Palestinian Arabs; it has withdrawn from Gaza. The prediction not only was not "obvious" but was flat wrong. We said so at the time: There is actually one more assumption implicit in the 2003 prediction of imminent "ethnic cleansing" in the disputed territories: that Israel would not observe any moral constraint against such an action. In other words, those who predicted mass expulsion of Palestinians assumed both (a) that Israel is wicked and (b) that carrying out the imagined plan would be practicable. We'd argue that both (a) and (b) are false, but clearly they cannot both be true. It may be that a conviction that Israel is evil blinded advocates of this theory to its practical shortcomings. --------------------- The Jerusalem Post tracked down Alan Dershowitz for additional comments on the paper: "AIPAC study is ignorant propaganda." Professor Dershowitz states: "There is no scholarship here what so ever." In their paper, Professor Mearsheimer and Dean Walt sound a little like alcholics who have taken a sip of a bad brew and can't stop. The 2003 letter to the Maroon suggests that Professor Mearsheimer took that first sip a few years back. Posted by Scott at 06:47 AM **************************
Look we've been down this road before, BAC. a. For every smear on Mearsheimer and Walt by known IsraelFirsters, the 2 esteemed professors have rebuttals in the London Review of Books, which you pointedly omit. For example - take their response to Philip Zelikow: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n10/le tters.html From John Mearsheimer & Stephen Walt Philip Zelikow claims he did not say in September 2002 that the present war in Iraq was motivated in good part by concerns about Israel’s security. He suggests that our reference to his remarks came from an unreliable source and says we ‘misused’ his comments. He implies that he was talking mainly about the 1990-91 Gulf War, not the US decision to invade Iraq in March 2003. Furthermore, he maintains that he ‘expressed no view’ on ‘whether or when the US ought to go to war with Iraq’. None of these assertions is correct. Emad Mekay, who wrote the Asia Times Online article we referenced, is a well- regarded journalist who worked for Reuters and the New York Times before moving to Inter Press Service, a legitimate news agency. He did not rely on ‘local reports’ in writing his story, but had access to a complete and unimpeachable record of Zelikow’s talk. He repeatedly tried to contact Zelikow while writing his story, but his inquiries were not returned. Below are excerpts from Zelikow’s remarks about Iraq on 10 September 2002 (we have the full text). It shows that 1. he was focusing on the possibility of war with Iraq in 2002-03, not the 1990-91 Gulf War; 2. he supported a new war with Iraq; and 3. he believed Iraq was an imminent threat to Israel, but not to the United States. Finally. . . I wanted to offer some comments on Iraq. . . . I beg your patience, but I think there are some points that are worth making that aren’t being made by either side in the current debate. The Iraq situation this administration inherited is and has been unsustainable. Ever since 1996 the Iraqi situation has basically unravelled. . . . So then the real question is, OK, what are you going to do about it? How are you going to end up fixing it? And if you don’t like the administration’s approach, what’s the recommended alternative? Another thing Americans absorb, and this administration especially, is the lesson of Afghanistan. Because remember we knew that international terrorist groups were plotting to kill Americans in a sanctuary called Afghanistan. . . [I]n retrospect, it is perfectly clear that only . . . an [American] invasion could reliably have pre-empted the 9/11 attacks, which relied on people who were being trained in that sanctuary . . . So what lesson does one take from that with respect to Iraq? Well you can see the lesson this administration has taken from that example. And so contemplate what lesson you take. Third. The unstated threat. And here I criticise the [Bush] administration a little, because the argument that they make over and over again is that this is about a threat to the United States. And then everybody says: ‘Show me an imminent threat from Iraq to America. Show me, why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us?’ So I’ll tell you what I think the real threat is, and actually has been since 1990. It’s the threat against Israel. And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don’t care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it’s not a popular sell. Now . . . if the danger is a biological weapon handed to Hamas, then what’s the American alternative then? Especially if those weapons have developed to the point where they now can deter us from attacking them, because they really can retaliate against us, by then. Play out those scenarios . . . Don’t look at the ties between Iraq and al-Qaida, but then ask yourself the question: ‘Gee, is Iraq tied to Hamas, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the people who are carrying out suicide bombings in Israel?’ Easy question to answer, and the evidence is abundant. Yes, there are a lot of other problems in the world . . . My view, by the way, is the more you examine these other problems and try to put together a comprehensive strategy for America and the Middle East, the more I’m driven to the conclusion that it’s better for us to deal with Iraq sooner rather than later. Because those other problems don’t get easier . . . And the Iraq problem is a peculiar combination at the moment, of being exceptionally dangerous at a time when Iraq is exceptionally weak militarily. Now that’s an appealing combination for immediate action . . . But . . . if we wait two years, and then there’s another major terrorist attack against the United States, does it then become easier to act against Iraq, even though the terrorist attack didn’t come from Iraq? No. . . . [A]t this moment, because of the time we bought in the war against terror, it actually makes it easier to go about Iraq now, than waiting a year or two until the war against terror gets harder again. In sum, it is Zelikow, not us, who is attempting to rewrite history. He was admirably candid in 2002, but not in 2006. John Mearsheimer & Stephen Walt b. As for the likes of Alan Dershowitz - HAHAHA - don't insult our intelligence at 4um by using quotes from that alleged plagiarist. Perhaps you should read what Dr. Finkelstein has shown to be the MO of Dershowitz - please, Dershowitz doesn't deserve to be spoken of in the same breath or to be listed in the same thread as esteemed scholars, Drs. Mearsheimer and Walt: http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=4&ar=1 c. Drs. Mearsheimer and Walt were listed in the top 25 ranking of American political science research and scholarship. They didn't get there by lying or by bigotry. d. Drs. Mearsheimer and Walt have recently signed a book contract with the prestigious publishing house, Farrar and Strauss,to expand on their thesis of the Israel Lobby and its influence on US foreign policy. Farrar and Straus do not publish trash. e. If you were such a true pro-American patriot as you claim to be, you would be incensed at the evidence produced by Drs. Mearsheimer and Walt regarding the duplicity and anti- American negative influence of the Israel Lobby on our foreign policy. That this lobby group has been identified as the main cause of our invasion of Iraq and that this same lobby group is now trying to propel us into a war with Iran, causing our US military to fight and die for the benefit of another nation is shameful, if not treasonous. Instead you defend this foreign agent lobby group which makes me surmise that you are at one with the Israel Lobby's goals. You are as anti-America, IsraelFirst as that lobby group is.
There are no replies to Comment # 52. End Trace Mode for Comment # 52.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: BeAChooser (#1)
Can anyone point out to me the form that the Constitution says a declaration of war must have?
#3. To: scrapper2, ALL (#2)
#8. To: BeAChooser (#3)
the FORM the declaration must take.
#9. To: leveller, ALL (#8)
No specific form is required.
But any Congressional act which fails to assert aht a state of war exists falls short of a declaration of war.
#13. To: BeAChooser (#9)
Apparently Congress and the Supreme Court don't agree with you.
#17. To: scrapper2, ALL (#13)
Did the Supreme Court rule on the legality of the Iraq War?
#30. To: BeAChooser (#17)
first Circuit Court of Appeals
#32. To: scrapper2, ALL (#30)
The Supreme Court did not state that the Iraq War was legal - as you suggested in your previous posts
b. It costs a lot of money to attempt to get a case heard by the Supreme Court. Anti-war groups are grass roots organizations - they don't have Israel's foreign aid budget, for example, with $ to burn.
This is a matter of Congress needing and wanting to assert its authority in matters of war declaration. Congress should revoke the temporary power it passed to GWB in October 2002 to use force against Iraq and then it should defund the Iraq War.
But because both political parties are beholden to AIPAC, the Israel Lobby group, and not to American voters, Congress refuses to assert its authority.
FYI, here's what Americans want in terms of foreign policy based on the latest latest prestigious poll conducted by Public Agenda and Foreign Affairs. What Americans want is totally opposite to what GWB and Congress are doing.
#33. To: BeAChooser, All (#32)
(Edited)
scrapper2: But because both political parties are beholden to AIPAC, the Israel Lobby group, and not to American voters, Congress refuses to assert its authority.
#47. To: scrapper2, ALL (#33)
Drs. Mearsheimer and Walt from U of Chicago and Harvard studied the influence of the Israel Lobby on US foreign policy and based on their research there would not have been an Iraq War were it not for the considerable influence brought to bear on Congress and the White House to invade Iraq by the Israel Lobby.
Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical . . . The war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure. According to Philip Zelikow, a former member of the president’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, and now a counsellor to Condoleezza Rice, the ‘real threat’ from Iraq was not a threat to the United States. The ‘unstated threat’ was the ‘threat against Israel’, Zelikow told an audience at the University of Virginia in September 2002. ‘The American government,’ he added, ‘doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.’
Washington DC "I don't have an agenda in the sense of viewing myself as proselytizing or trying to sell this," Mearsheimer told the Forward. "I am a scholar, not an activist, and I am reticent to take questions from the media because I do believe that this is a subject that has to be approached very carefully. You don't want to say the wrong thing. The potential for saying the wrong thing is very great here."
Mearsheimer was hosted on National Public Radio Tuesday for a full hour, to talk about Iraq, but did not make any mention of the controversial paper he co-authored. "To have a throwaway line or two on public radio to promote yourself is a bad idea," he told the Forward, following his NPR appearance. "I prefer to take the high road, although that is not always easy." Since publication, Mearsheimer added, he and Walt also turned down offers from major newspapers, radio and television networks to lay out their thesis.
John Mearsheimer says that the pro-Israel lobby is so powerful that he and co-author Stephen Walt would never have been able to place their report in an American-based scientific publication.
"I do not believe that we could have gotten it published in the United States," Mearsheimer told the Forward. He said that the paper was originally commissioned in the fall of 2002 by one of America's leading magazines, "but the publishers told us that it was virtually impossible to get the piece published in the United States."
Most scholars, policymakers and journalists know that "the whole subject of the Israel lobby and American foreign policy is a third-rail issue," he said. "Publishers understand that if they publish a piece like ours it would cause them all sorts of problems."
In their paper, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," the two professors accuse "the lobby" of "policing academia," intimidating scholars and stifling dissent on campuses, mainly through accusing critics of being antisemitic.
Mearsheimer said that he and Walt expected to be accused of being anti-Israel and antisemitic, so they made a point of stating in the study that the establishment of Israel was morally justified and that America's support of Israel, in principle, is justified as well. He said the paper takes issue with the extent of American support for Israel and the role that the pro-Israel lobby plays in pushing for such assistance.
Asked if the study may have been initially rejected by the American publisher because of poor research, Mearsheimer said that the "evidence in the piece is just the tip of the iceberg," and that the study's observations are supported by a large body of evidence. He did concede, however, that none of the evidence represents original documentation or is derived from independent interviews. All the additional supporting material — just like the references footnoted in the paper — is of a secondary nature: citations of books and newspaper articles, Mearsheimer said.
An open letter demanding vigilance in ensuring that Israel does not forcibly expel Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza has drawn the endorsement of nearly a thousand American academics, including eight at the University of Chicago.
The letter, adopted from one circulated by Israeli academics, cites Israeli politicians who publicly support removing Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza and relocating them into neighboring Arab countries. The "fog of war [with Iraq] could be exploited by the Israeli government to commit further crimes against the Palestinian people, up to full-fledged ethnic cleansing," the letter reads....
"The precedent is there [to forcibly expel Palestinians], and it behooves us to make sure it does not happen again," said John Mearsheimer, co-director of the Program on International Security Policy at the University and one of the letter's signatories.
What is obvious is that they [the Israelis] will use the resulting chaos as a pretext to get rid of the Palestinians, driving them out of the country into Jordan or Egypt. Who will say or do anything to stop them when the region is totally destabilized and a mess?
Let us spell out the assumptions underlying this theory:
*That the disastrous outcome of war in Iraq--"chaos," with the region "totally destabilized and a mess"--is foreordained.
*That Israel and its co-conspirators, some of whom hold subcabinet-level positions in the Bush administration, know this, but the rest of the administration and the majority of Congress have no clue and thus have been duped by the Zionist plotters into thinking the war has a significant chance of success.
*That although the whole region will be engulfed in "chaos," "totally destabilized and a mess," Israel will have no problem managing the forcible relocation of more than three million people, many of them heavily armed with guns and explosives, all the while defending its borders against the hostile states and terrorist groups that surround it.
#52. To: BeAChooser, All (#47)
Replies to Comment # 52.