Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!hplabs!ucbvax!brahms!desj
From: desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.legal
Subject: Re: Making War
Message-ID: <12768@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Sat, 29-Mar-86 06:13:31 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.12768
Posted: Sat Mar 29 06:13:31 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 30-Mar-86 10:40:13 EST
References: <1753@decwrl.DEC.COM> <106@cad.UUCP> <2035@psuvax1.UUCP> <178@psc70.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: desj@brahms.UUCP (David desJardins)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 18
Xref: watmath net.politics:14271 net.legal:3189

In article <178@psc70.UUCP> tos@psc70.UUCP (Dr.Schlesinger) writes:
>    As a practical matter the Constitutional provision regarding the
>power of the Congress to "declare war" has been relatively meaningless
>since the US signed the United Nations Charter. The latter outlaws any
>use of force except self-defense or as part of either UN or regional
>multi-national peacekeeping force. None of these exceptions are likely
>to occur in circumstances which have in the past been deemed to
>require a declaration of war -- or to even appropriately call for one.

   Pearl Harbor doesn't qualify as self-defense?
   Seriously, the point is that in recent history the US has not entered
into a declared war except in situations were it was able to claim that
it was acting in self-defense.  Whether this was accurate or not is
beside the point--if the American people accept that it qualifies as
self-defense then the UN Charter is not going to be interpreted as a
restriction on the US in that circumstance.

   -- David desJardins