| PIETRO'S
ESSAYS AND COMMENTARIES |
| Home
| Afghanistan
| Urban
Studies | Essays
| Linux |
DECLARATIONS OF WARFirst of all, let us return to the letter and the spirit of constitutional law. If another state attacks us suddenly, the President, as Commander-in-chief, should respond with appropriate immediacy for our defense against that specific attack. But even in those circumstances, only the Senate should confirm, amend, or rebuke the President as soon as it can convene.War, in this legal sense, is armed conflict between organized political authorities; both sides are states (or aspire to be states). Because both sides aim for legitimacy and explicit terms for victory, it is possible to establish very clear terms for the end of the war. The U.S. Constitution, like most constitutions, provides for temporary partial suspension of civil liberties during periods of clearly-delimited crisis. Which brings us to the problem of the 'War on Drugs' and the 'War on Terrorism.' Neither drugs nor terrorism are political authorities. Neither one aspires for legitimate authority. Neither one can be defeated unambiguously. A President who declares 'war' on anything other than an organized political authority has taken two illegitimate steps. First, the Executive does not have the authority to declare war. Second, by choosing an enemy that cannot be defeated, the President has imposed a state of permanent martial law, in which he can choose to suspend civil rights indefinitely. Perhaps you think that 'War on Terrorism' is a symbolic term like Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty. It is not. This present war is used as the justification for holding 'Enemy Combatants' at Guantanamo Bay indefinitely, without charges, without trials, without access to legal counsel. Notice that the war was not declared against Al Qaeda, whose leader declared war on America in 1998. It was declared against Terrorism, a term that could be interpreted very broadly. Indeed it could be interpreted to mean such nonviolent 'terrorist acts' as organizing antiwar protests. Bush Sr.'s War on Drugs is similar. under the RICO act, a person who is accused of growing marijuana can have his property seized by local authorities. Police are not obligated to return the property, and local authorities profit significantly from auctioning off seized assets. This would be a violation of the search-and-seizure restrictions of the U.S. Constitution under normal circumstances. But in times of war, such constitutional protections can be temporarily suspended. The War on Drugs has persisted for 14 years now. There is little reporting on its successes and failures, because American citizens do not demand to know why their rights have been suspended for so long. Meanwhile, military dictators in Latin America benefit tremendously from this War. Now that they can no longer call opponents to their regime 'communist' and get the attention of the US government, they instead request U.S. military assistance to help fight the War on Drugs against their political opponents. 27 December 2003 |