The distinction between war and murder becomes a fine one...

I don't doubt you're right, but did they call it due process?

I have. My response is that Holder is full of ****. While it's true in the abstract that "due" process isn't always "judicial", the notion that the president can order hits on American citizens, and that these citizens have no chance to challenge their hit-list status in court, is preposterous.

Before i plunge into reading the articles, i will just observe that the distinction between war and murder is at least of gloss of legality. As a general principle, civilians are not to be indiscriminately targeted, but if your nation makes war on my nation, it's your tough luck if you get caught in the crossfire.

There can be great ranges of distinction, many not very fine at all. The RAF simply could not protect its bombers over Germany for daylight air raids, and the accuracy of the bombing was not sufficient to assure a level of destruction of the targets to justify the losses. In fact, Bomber Command would have been shot down and put out of business in short order. So Churchill and "Bomber" Harris (Air Chief Marshall Arthur Harris) bombed at night, doing area bombing of cities, with the flimsy justification that workers who don't sleep at night are not going to be efficient workers the next day. RAF crews called Harris "Butcher" Harris. I can think of no finer distinction between murder and war of that kind, if there is really any distinction to be made at all. The United States Army Air Force was set upon a program of daylight precision bombing. They truly agonized over the consequences of the policy--not whether or not there were civilian deaths, but whether or not the terrible losses they suffered were justified by the results. In hindsight, they were justified, but the quality of reconnaisance photography after raids and the relative ability to interpet it on the part of USAAF offices was such that they grossly underestimated the effectiveness of their bombing campaign. Doctrine called for them to put 10% of their bombs within 1000 years of the aiming point--even before they got good fighter escort service, they were putting 20% to 30% of their bombs withing 1000 yerds--they just didn't know it.

The USAAF daylight bombing doctrine was one which had quite a wide distinction between war and murder. Even those 70% or 80% of bombs which were not within 1000 yards of the aiming point were not raining down indiscriminately on residential areas with not even a remote military value as targets. By contrast, the RAF not only scattered bombs all over civilian areas, when they became aware of the phenomenon of the fire storm, they experimented to arrive at the most effective ordnance mix to produce fire storms. At that point, it was no longer war, it was just murder on a massive scale.

It is almost impossible for me to admire Churchill, or to excuse most of his executive level decisions in the prosecution of the war. As a policy, rice imports to India were curtailed, and no substitute grain imports were allowed. Small boats were prohibited from operating off the coast of India. The justification for the former was that the food supplies were a crucial need for the homeland--and yet Australia was in a position ot ship grain to India, and offered to do so--the offer was ignored. The justification for the latter was that the loyalty of the Inidans could not be relied upon, and those in small boats might not be fishermen at all, but spies attempting to communicate with the Japanese. In fact, Churchill was using war as an excuse to implement a brutal imperialist policy to weaken or destroy Indian resistance to the Raj, and using food as a weapon. By 1943, the New York Times reported that many people in India, and most people in the Bengal (nearest Burma which had been invaded by the Japanese) were living (if you can call it that) on 600 to 800 calories a day. It is reasonably estimated that two and a half to three million Indians simply starved to death during the war, a war which never visited their territory. No one knows how many died of the diseases of malnutrition, and the Raj pointedly did not keep records of those deaths.

Essentially, Churchill was using the war as a cover to implement a murderous imperial policy. In the end, the distinction between war and murder can only be reasonably be judged by the objective of any operation. If the objective is to end the war, in a manner acceptable to the belligerent, as quickly as possible and with as few deaths as possible, there is a far better case for the justification of the destruction inflicted. The measure of the distinction between war and murder will always be against that standard, in my never humble opinion.

The war in Afghanistan was forever complicated, and arguably fatally compromised by the rush to invade Iraq. I do not object to the fact of war in Afghanistan. I object to the ineptitude and cynical disregard which characterized policy decisions there. I don't know that that war can ever be "won" now.

What an absurd simplification.

What about Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

I'm no admirer of Churchill either but that post is utterly ridiculous.

OK, here's the rest of my rant, then i'll read the articles.

The doctrine of RAF Bomber Command was, to my mind, largely motivated by the desire for revenge--revenge for the bombing of London, revenge for the bombing of Coventry, revenge for the bombing of other cities. The same motive can be attributed to Hitler. He called his rockets, the V1 and V2, revenge weapons. This was a straight-up, out and and out slug fest, motivated by the desire to pay the other son of a bitch back.

American daylight bombing doctrine over Germany had no such motive. Although the USAAF certainly didn't care how many German civilians died, they also were not targeting them. Their calculations were most effected by the cost of bomging in lives and planes. Right up to the very end of the war, the Germans were able to put a very creditable air defense into the skies above Germany. So the USAAF calculation was based on how costly it would be to hit any particular target, and what the prospects for hurting the enemy were.

But the case with Japan was different. Prior to the war, Americans had a casually racist attitude toward the Japanease. They were stereotyped as bandy-legged, buck-toothed, myopic little people, who were hardly human. Theodore Roosevelt was driven to distraction by the diplomatic grief he had to deal with thanks to laws on the American west coast, particularly in California, which specifically targeted the Japanese. Americans were, in general, contemptuous and dismissive of the Japanese.

On the night of November 11-12, 1940, the Royal Navy Air Service launched an attack on the Italian port of Taranto in southern Italy. With really paltry resoureces, the RNAS managed to sink one Italian Battleship and damage two others. It does not appear that the United States Navy or the USAAF paid much attention. But the Japanese did. Admiral Yamamoto first mentioned a plan to attack Hawaii in November, 1940, after the Taranto attack. In a little over a year, the Imperial Navy planned, trained for and then executed one of the most brilliant naval operations in history. They overcame some enormous difficulties to make the attack a success. They maintained such complete security that even the officers and men of the First Air Fleet did not know where they were going and what was intended until they were at sea and steaming for Hawaii.

The litany of American arrogance, hubris, complacency, bizarre paranoias and just plain incompetence--largely unknown to Americans--is almost incredible. But with the best will in the world, and relentless vigilance, Kimmel and Short could only have made the Japanese pay a higher price for the attack, they could not have prevented it. Fortunately for the United States, the senority system of the Imperial Navy put a battleship man, Admiral Nagumo, in command of the First Air Fleet. Commander Genda who had planned the operation and Commander Fuchida who had trained the pilots and participated in the attack pleaded with Nagumo to attack again. He refused. As a battleship commander, he considered that he would quit while he was ahead. He knew that they had sunk several battleships and damaged the rest. He didn't care that no carriers had been there, he just wanted to get away virtually unscathed.

Americans were stunned. They were shocked and humiliated. They were especially humiliated because of the racist stereotype they had always had of the Japanese. They were just not able to absorb the idea that the Japanese could have pulled off one of history's most brilliant military operations. Conspiracy theories have abounded ever since. Rather than abandon the racist stereotype, people have blamed the president. But above all, they wanted revenge.

Curtis Lemay, who had flown missions over Germany in 1943, was transferred to the Far East in 1944. Late in 1944, he was given command of all the USAAF bombardment groups in the Pacific. With his staff, he planned a systematic fire bombing campaign against 66 Japanese cities. Using the RAF Bomber Command experience, the ordnance mix the bombers carried was designed to cause fire storms, to do the maximum damage to cities in which most residences were made of wood and paper. It is estimated that more than half a million Japanese were killed outright, and millions were made homeless. He also planned and carried out a plan in which more than 150 bombers "seeded" the waters around the home islands with mines. Combined with the submarine blockade, it meant the Japanese were starving by the time they surrendered in 1945.

Japanese industry was almost obliterated. Never any great shakes, it was already on its knees when Lemay's campaign began. But the fire bombing of the Japanese cities was not necessary to accompish that end. American bombers could fly over Japan almost unchallenged by Japanese fighters. The B29 "Superforts" they were flying were more than a match for the handful of aircraft which could be sent against them. Hundreds of American bombers flew towards their targets, challenged by a few dozen fighters at most. It was revenge, pure and simple.

***************************************************

I consider the invasion of Afghanistan to have been justified. But not long after the invasion, everything went to hell. The Unied States began to rely on NATO to presecute the war because they wanted to build up forces for the invasion of Iraq. The one thing the Afghans liked about the Taliban (at first) was that they put the bad old war lords out of business. To extricate themselves as much as possible from the ongoing Afghan war, Bush and crew just put those same men back in charge. Whatever little sympathy and gratitude there might have been for the Americans was squandered.

But, essentially, Americans don't know and don't care. We were attacked, and any attack on "towel heads" is OK by most Americans. No distinction is seen as regards tribal loyalties or regions of the country. They're all towel heads, they're all the enemy. It is exactly this mind set which enabled Bush's administration to whip up support for an invasion of Iraq, a completely unjustified operation. "They" are the enemy. For far too many Americans, anything that happens to them is no more than they deserve.

I appreciate those two posts, Set.

Probably too late to change the Theodore..

Theodore Roosevelt is correct. The anti-Japanese legislation which infuriated the Empire of Japan was passed at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries. Therefore, President Theodore Roosevelt (President, 1901-1909) had to deal with the fallout.

'k, I should have known that.

I agree with this point of vu.
There is no doubt of the federal government's authority to wage war.
Most of our wars have not been declared by Congress.
Nowhere in the Constitution is the President disabled from
waging war in the absence of a Congressional declaration.
He HAS the power to control the Armed Forces; he used it,
apparently against America 's enemies. I can 't complain about that.

A traditional, massive war 'd be expensive and disruptive to America.

I can 't blame obama for handling it as he did.





David

For just this one time, I quite agree with you, David.

It is absolutely false that most of the wars in which the United States has been engaged were not declared wars authorized by the Congress.

Article One, Section Eight contains sevearl paragraphs which define the military powers of the Congress. Congress shall have the power:

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; . . .

As for the President's military powers, Article Two, Section Two, reads, in part:

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; . . . (emphasis has been added)

David's argument is specious.

The removal of Saddam from power
was a wise and proper thing to do;
better late than never.





David

Nonsense, and murderous nonsense at that. Of course, you were never putting your pathetic ass on the line.

In furtherance of my 9th Amendment rights,
I 'm too lazy to start counting wars to refute u.


It appears that u do not UNDERSTAND what u quoted of the Constitution.
Everyone knows that Congress has authority to declare war,
but I re-iterate that nowhere in the Constitution
is the President disabled from waging war without a Congressional declaration.

Of course, Congress can refuse to finance such a war; again, that 's obvious.

It remains a mystery that u found it necessary to cite to the militia
of the State governments and to calling them into the service of the nation,
and then to emfasize it, but I suppose it does not hurt anything.





David

He says, as he blurts out his emotions

Certainly it is easier for you to just allege that my response is emotional than it is to face the indisputable fact that the Bush administration orchestarted a rush to war based on alleged intelligence which they knew to be false.

The president only has authority over military forces in the actual service of the United States. Only Congress is granted the power to call out the militia and to form and support military forces. The constitution does not give the President any war powers.

David may be referring to our (the USA's) tendency over time to send the Marines.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHhZF66C1Dc

We've always liked sending a few troops to wherever we thought necessary: (off the top of my head)
The Dominican Republic, Honduras, Lebanon, Mexico ( to find Villa), Panama (to arrest Noriega), Haiti ( a couple of times to allow whatever despot needed to have us watch his back as he escaped with his fortunes.)

~~ I can't remember, did the GOP ever give Clinton the okay to bomb Bosnia?? I don't think so.

Viet Nam was a police action from at least as early as 1955 in the Eisenhower Presidency and didn't get "Authorized" until the fake attack in Gulf of Tonkin ten years later. Then things really got hot.
~~
We are not consistent:
I was always surprised that we never opposed the brutality of the British wherever they went. The information Set posted re: the Crown's treatment of the Indian Peninsula compares completely with their total disregard for the lives of the Irish, children, women and men, throughout the 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. Yet we never sent the Marines to Ulster; it was clear that the British couldn't fairly maintain control and that the right of the Irish to be free of British rule was as plainly clear as the right of the East Indian's.
Yet we allowed the tragedy to continue until both sides fell over from the exhaustion of the struggle and the Six Counties are still not free to be Irish.

It used to be said that war was a fight between gangs, just with better weapons.

Joe(Gangs now have all the better weapons, so war remains, brutal and as unthinkable as ever) Nation

I believe this small article supports and amplifies on your point about Presidential constitutional war powers:

Article by Michael Boldin

"In reading the Constitution, we can plainly see that Congress possesses the power regulate commerce with foreign nations, to raise and support armies, to grant letters of marque and reprisal, to provide for the common defense, and even declare war. Congress shares, with the President, the power to make treaties and to appoint ambassadors. As for the Executive, the President is assigned only two powers relating to foreign affairs; commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and the power to receive ambassadors.

The United States Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land in our country, delegates the power to declare war to the Congress and the power to wage war to the President. What that means is that only the Congress, as representatives of the People and of the States, can determine whether or not the nation goes to war. If the People, through Congress, decide that the nation shall go to war, the President then, and only then, has the authority to wage it."

***************************************************************
However, in reponse to the events on 9/11 the following was stated by the Justice Dep't:

http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm

"THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATIONS AGAINST TERRORISTS AND NATIONS SUPPORTING THEM

The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001.

The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.

The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11. "

War has been a powerful spur to creativity and invention from time immemorial.

That is not a defence of war. It is just an obvious fact.

Whether we would have the goodies we have if all the wars had not happened seems highly unlikely to me.

The budding United States of Europe has decided, I hope, to have the Union created in discussion rather than with civil war. Patience is required for that.

Discussing war without even alluding to the benefits is the sort of thing one might get in Sunday schools in over-tenderised suburbs where compassionate hand-wringing is highly regarded.