Response to Terrorism: Military Vengeance or Positive Actions? Essay

Response to Terrorism   military machine Vengeance or Positive Actions?   The issues raised by September 11 are less about constitutional contend powers than about war wisdom. Under national and international law the chairwoman has legal imprimatur to react in self-defense against this invasion of our territory. Even the most supple critics of executive power concede that under the Constitution the President is empowered, in Madisons words, to repel sudden attacks. One might quibble over whether push an attack, which in the eighteenth century would have been a land or naval invasion by a foreign state, extends in this succession to a military reaction outside the join States to an attack by unknown twinges, but the principle supporting the legitimacy of an immediate response of a military nature seems implicit in the original collar of executive power. Moreover, Congress has expressly acknowledged that executive power and, in addition, has specifically authorized the use of all necessary and appropriate force against the persons and organizations that conducted the attack and those states that aided or harbored the terrorists. Likewise, under international law the United States has the right of self-defense under article 51 of the UN Charter, and NATO members have invoked Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, declaring the attack as an attack against them all, so that each of them is obligate to take such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to revive and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.   The legal authority of the President to wage his War on Terrorism is therefore clear. The wisdom of doing so is more complex. No doubt some military response pass on be launched... ...Ameri croupe people better understand the extent and basis of the exasperation against our country, as well as extending public exposure to the expression of pathos that is common to all religious traditions.   Finally, while w e affirm our support for Israel, we destiny to effectively disassociate the United States from support of the Israeli occupation of Palestine.   The of import changes in policy that I am recommending of course cannot happen quickly, and can only be brought about if accompanied by tangible benefits in terms of cooperation from members of the antiterrorism coalition. Reciprocity is the protection against responding, and appearing to respond, to the attack itself. In the interim let us hope that military vengeance does not preclude the kinds of positive responses that will actually protect the physical security of the country.