It is time for our UTC community to have an open dialogue session on this
WAR. As a Vietnam vet, I feel a need to get data and agenda's out into an
open forum.  As I look at the words flying around us, I sense there is no
real communication (sharing information and being understood) going on.

As a nation, our social fabirc is changing before our eyes and as a
community of scholars we have a duty to get engaged.  In my class we make
time to hear the  other (Martin Bauber), can we do this on a campus wide
basis???

Dr. Obasi Haki Akan


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dr. Joe Dumas" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 3:09 PM
Subject: Re: [UTCSTAFF] "War" ... or not ...


> Jeff Rush wrote:
> >         I can't help myself....  That people are frightened
> > during wartime is to be expected - it does not call in to question the
> > morality or legality of this war (which is both morally and legally
> > justified, IMHO).
>
> Ok, now I can't help *myself*.  Labeling by civilian and military
> leaders, the press, and UTC colleagues to the contrary, the current
> action in Iraq is *not* a war.  That would require a declaration of war
> by Congress, which has not occurred since World War II.
>
> This is the same sort of "police action" our leaders undertook in Korea,
> Vietnam, Grenada, Kosovo, ... (insert name of your favorite conflict of
> the last 50-plus years here).  In my opinion all Americans, whether you
> are for or against this military action, should be disgusted and
> outraged that our elected leaders have once again abdicated their
> responsibilities under the Constitution.  If he wanted to go to war,
> President Bush should have sought a declaration of war, and Congress
> should have declared war, or not, on Iraq as it saw fit based on the
> circumstances.
>
> Admittedly there are some situations where military force can be
> legitimately used without a formal declaration of war.  In particular,
> in the event of a surprise attack, the President or military officers
> under his command may be justified in taking defensive or retaliatory
> action.  (Thus the nuclear "football" always kept in close proximity to
> the President ... if ICBMs are flying toward American territory, there
> is no time to consult Congress about what to do.)
>
> However, the current action does not fit this scenario.  Iraq did not
> attack the U.S. (by surprise or otherwise) and the use of force was
> contemplated for several months, at least ... plenty of time for
> Congress to consider the need for war and to declare war if it was
> justified.  Instead, Congress passed a wimpy resolution (and the buck to
> Mr. Bush) to "authorize the use of force."  What a joke.  Either have
> the guts to properly declare war, with a list of justified reasons
> proclaimed to the world, or keep our troops home.
>
> As Jon Roland of the Constitution Society wrote:
> > ... the consent resolution passed by Congress does not meet the
> > constitutional requirements to be either a declaration or war or a
> > letter of marque and reprisal, which are the only two constitutional
> > authorizations.
> >
> > A declaration of war must contain the following elements:
> >
> > 1. The words "declare" and "war" or their synonyms.
> >
> > 2. A specification of who the enemy is. It need not be a country. It
> > could be a non-state group with a well-defined membership.
> > "Terrorists" is not specific enough.
> >
> > 3. A commencement date, which may be retroactive to some event such as
> > an attack.
> >
> > 4. Either a casus belli, a cause for war, or a casus foederis, a
> > statement that the situation exists which makes international
> > commitments operational.
> >
> > A letter of marque and reprisal is a kind of warrant, and must contain
> > the following:
> >
> > 1. The name of the person to whom the warrant is granted, together
> > with forces under his command. This could be the president.
> >
> > 2. Specification of the enemy.
> >
> > 3. A casus belli or casus foederis.
> >
> > 4. Authorization to pass with his forces beyond the borders
> > ("marque").
> >
> > 5. Specification of the kinds and measure of actions he may take
> > ("reprisal"), which may include search, seizure, or destruction of
> > persons or property belonging to the enemy, and the disposition of
> > seizures. The reprisal is supposed to be proportional to the original
> > provocation.
>
> Joe Dumas