Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 11:53:16 -0700 From: talks2crows@YAHOO.COM (Joe Horn) Subject: National Emergency - the real scoop To: AZRKBA@asu.eduThis is from a friend of mine, whose identity I am keeping safe, but regardless, this is an interesting and thought out analysis and commentary.
Joe Horn
Back in the old days, before September 11,there was a lot of paranoid stuff from the left, right, and somewhere in orbit beyond Pluto about the "dictatorial powers" the federal government could assume when a national emergency was called. Of course, you also had silly politicians, like a president I could name, saying stupid things, like calling AIDS a threat to national security, so it was coming from all sides.
However, now we have a real national emergency, and a good president, and a strong nation, united, so I felt confident enough and had the time today to check it out. You just can't rely on the reporters, regardless of how helpful they were on Tuesday and how supportive they are right now -- they're running behind the curve of a breaking wave that is moving too fast for even them to follow; they're opinionated, and they're too rushed with deadlines to get the complete story.
First off, I found a meaningful definition of the term, that used by the Department of Defense (this may be old hat to some of you):
"A condition declared by the President or the Congress by virtue of powers previously vested in them that authorize certain emergency actions to be undertaken in the national interest. Action to be taken may include partial, full, or total mobilization of national resources. See also mobilization."
OK, I saw "mobilization." It's too long to include here, but you can check it out at:
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/glossary/m/bldef04106.htm
which is the glossary I used for the first definition, too. It's hard to tell from the headline news, and I am not sure if the resolution passed now by both houses of Congress is the "action by Congress" meant here, but if so, and it would seem to be, then we're at full mobilization now, and you retired types are gonna be getting phone calls, if you haven't already (g).
Incidentally, Gen. Westmoreland told his bosses in DC very early on, well before the Marines went in in 1965, that a general mobilization here would influence the Communists (he was speaking of the PRC and its support of North Vietnam) far more than the deployment of several big units. They did not listen to him, unfortunately. That we are doing exactly that now is influencing many overseas and may save many US lives and an enormous cost to this nation in the future.
Remember that, if anyone starts bringing up Vietnam in reference to all this, once hearts cool down over the long term, as they must. (And if they mention the Russians' "Vietnam" in Afghanistan, point out what superpower was supporting their opposition then. They couldn't win there. But I digress.)
Did a little digging in the U.S. Code, too (I always try to catch up on my sleep on Saturdays--BG), very little, but what small part of the complex picture I could dig up there on a superficial Net scan was interesting. You can find a lot of it at:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/34/toc.html
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/35/toc.html
Apparently, the Associated Press has been doing some digging, too. Compare this story on their current online breaking news source:
Military Families Endure Sorry Housing to Serve Country By Bill Baskervill Associated Press Writer=20 Published: Sep 15, 2001=20
Many U.S. military families living in housing provided by the armed services have a beef with their landlord. Long-neglected upkeep is a nagging, daily aggravation - and policymakers and even commanders say it also lowers morale and hurts re-enlistment..... at http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAWCDXLNRC.html
with one of the other places where Title 50 (also called U.S.C. 50) is mentioned in the Code, Title 10, Section 2808 (a):
(a) In the event of a declaration of war or the declaration by the President of a national emergency in accordance with the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 [which is the start of Chapter 34, above...BB] et seq.) that requires use of the armed forces, the Secretary of Defense, without regard to any other provision of law, may undertake military construction projects, and may authorize the Secretaries of the military departments to undertake military construction projects, not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces. =20
On first reading their story, I'd wondered where the heck the AP was coming from with that one, and did not expect to find the answer in the National Emergencies Act. Interesting. Found that, and more, by following up on some of the Chapter Notes or Notes at the bottom of the U.S.C. 34 and 35 Title page. They're boring and negotiating through the Code is confusing, but it's very helpful.
Of note, U.S.C 34, Subchapter V, "Application To Powers And Authorities Of Other Provisions Of Law And Actions Taken Thereunder," is one of those annoying pieces of legislation that give you nothing but a list of the changes to specific laws already on the book. You need a law library to check that out in detail, and I'm not about to visit one today. It covers an interesting topic, too, so if you're so inclined, look into it, and if you want, tell me what it actually means.
During the search, I also came across a site covering international law regarding the bombing of civilians. Seems rather irrelevant now, of course, with its emphasis on weapons of mass destruction (we never thought to include the bombs we were all flying around in), but you check it out at http://www.dannen.com/decision/int-law.html
It is a part of http://www.wmd-nm.org/links.asp
This is already a long note, but in closing I have to bring in FDR's appeal three years before Pearl Harbor, and many years before Dresden, Hamburg, London, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, New York, and Washington D.C.:
The President of the United States to the Governments of France, Germany, Italy, Poland and His Britannic Majesty, September 1, 1939 The ruthless bombing from the air of civilians in unfortified centers of population during the course of the hostilities which have raged in various quarters of the earth during the past few years, which has resulted in the maiming and in the death of thousands of defenseless men, women, and children, has sickened the hearts of every civilized man and woman, and has profoundly shocked the conscience of humanity.
If resort is had to this form of inhuman barbarism during the period of the tragic conflagration with which the world is now confronted, hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings who have no responsibility for, and who are not even remotely participating in, the hostilities which have now broken out, will lose their lives. I am therefore addressing this urgent appeal to every government which may be engaged in hostilities publicly to affirm its determination that its armed forces shall in no event, and under no circumstances, undertake the bombardment from the air of civilian populations or of unfortified cities, upon the understanding that these same rules of warfare will be scrupulously observed by all of their opponents. I request an immediate reply.
FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT
Sad, isn't it. As much I love the man who labeled it so, this is not the first war of the 21st Century we are embarking on, but rather a culmination of 20th Century events.