War (?) on Terror - A Viable Alternative?
I've had problems with the "War" on terror since it was declared. I've had this vague "tickle" in the back of my brain since this war was declared by Bush. Many blogs and articles have tickled it. You'll recognize some of them.
At Putin Wants Hostages' Killers Hunted Down, Russia's Putin seems to have a good idea. He did not declare a War, he simply ordered hunting down and punishing international criminals. If Putin is willing to participate in that effort, why not Germany and France? Why not many other nations?
Websters Online defines war as:
He's the only one who has declared war, Congress hasn't.
[For political strategists] Why not just elect a congress that will repudiate the president's war powers, since the conflict is not "between states or nations" (definition 1)?
But, our U.S. freedoms are being squandered each time the Bush Administration invokes it's "War Powers".
We can diffuse that power and gain a coalition of many nations by accepting terror as a massive crime-wave. An International Treaty (like Interpol) can be created to combat the unprecedented crime-wave.
Considering the terrorist attacks on many nations, many now have a stake in defeating terrorism. Enlisting them is this effort would likely succeed.
At Putin Wants Hostages' Killers Hunted Down, Russia's Putin seems to have a good idea. He did not declare a War, he simply ordered hunting down and punishing international criminals. If Putin is willing to participate in that effort, why not Germany and France? Why not many other nations?
Websters Online defines war as:
1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations ...Why do we as a nation have to accept Bush's definition (definition 2)?
2 a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism
He's the only one who has declared war, Congress hasn't.
[For political strategists] Why not just elect a congress that will repudiate the president's war powers, since the conflict is not "between states or nations" (definition 1)?
- Did the L.B.J invoke presidential war powers during the "War on Poverty"?
- Have presidential war powers been invoked during the wars on drugs or crime?
- Is the "War on Terror" really a war? After all, no nations are involved.
- Are war powers really required by the President?
- Can you wage war on a tactic (terrorism)?
- Isn't terrorism really just a crime-wave that requires special handling?
- Has the Cheney/Rumsfeld career-long fixation on a "Unitary Presidency" found the perfect patsy in George W. Bush?
- Has the Cheney/Rumsfeld career-long fixation on a "Unitary Presidency" used the [non-]War on terror as a means to that end?
- Wouldn't worldwide cooperation be more likely if a Terror Interpol were to be formed authorizing military enforcement where necessary?
But, our U.S. freedoms are being squandered each time the Bush Administration invokes it's "War Powers".
We can diffuse that power and gain a coalition of many nations by accepting terror as a massive crime-wave. An International Treaty (like Interpol) can be created to combat the unprecedented crime-wave.
Considering the terrorist attacks on many nations, many now have a stake in defeating terrorism. Enlisting them is this effort would likely succeed.
posted by CWhite at 6/28/2006 05:25:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home