'Deighton really is something special' Sunday Times Len Deighton's only collection of short stories explores the devastating experiences of ordinary soldiers across over two thousand years of war. From Hannibal's march on Rome to the American Civil War, and from a British Hurricane pilot in the Second World War to a modern conflict played out in the Mexican borderlands, each of these stories shows the effects of war on the human character, and how it can lead to extraordinary deeds, both great and terrible. 'Len Deighton is a fearless observer of the deceptive human world' John Gray
Historically, it has been assumed that war is violence and declarations of war are simply public announcements that serve to initiate combat. Brien Hallett denies both assumptions and claims that war is policy, not violence. The Lost Art of Declaring War analyzes the crucial differences between combat and war and convincingly argues that the power to "declare" war is in actuality the power to compose a text, draft a document, write a denunciation. Once written, the declaration then serves three functions: to articulate the political purposes of the war, to guide and direct military operations, and to establish the boundary between justified combat and unjustified devastation. Hallett sounds a clarion call urging the people and their representatives to take up the challenge and write fully reasoned declarations of war. Then, and only then, can a civilized nation like the United States lay claim to being fully democratic, not only in peacetime, but in wartime as well.
The Road to War examines how presidential commitments can lead to the use of American military force, and to war. Marvin Kalb notes that since World War II, "presidents have relied more on commitments, public and private, than they have on declarations of war, even though the U.S. Constitution declares rather unambiguously that Congress has the responsibility to "declare" war.
Since the September 11 attacks on the United States, the Bush administration has come under fire for its methods of combating terrorism. Waging war against al Qaeda has proven to be a legal quagmire, with critics claiming that the administration's response in Afghanistan and Iraq is unconstitutional. The war on terror—and, in a larger sense, the administration's decision to withdraw from the ABM Treaty and the Kyoto accords—has many wondering whether the constitutional framework for making foreign affairs decisions has been discarded by the present administration. John Yoo, formerly a lawyer in the Department of Justice, here makes the case for a completely new approach to understanding what the Constitution says about foreign affairs, particularly the powers of war and peace. Looking to American history, Yoo points out that from Truman and Korea to Clinton's intervention in Kosovo, American presidents have had to act decisively on the world stage without a declaration of war. They are able to do so, Yoo argues, because the Constitution grants the president, Congress, and the courts very different powers, requiring them to negotiate the country's foreign policy. Yoo roots his controversial analysis in a brilliant reconstruction of the original understanding of the foreign affairs power and supplements it with arguments based on constitutional text, structure, and history. Accessibly blending historical arguments with current policy debates, The Powers of War and Peace will no doubt be hotly debated. And while the questions it addresses are as old and fundamental as the Constitution itself, America's response to the September 11 attacks has renewed them with even greater force and urgency. “Can the president of the United States do whatever he likes in wartime without oversight from Congress or the courts? This year, the issue came to a head as the Bush administration struggled to maintain its aggressive approach to the detention and interrogation of suspected enemy combatants in the war on terrorism. But this was also the year that the administration’s claims about presidential supremacy received their most sustained intellectual defense [in] The Powers of War and Peace.”—Jeffrey Rosen, New York Times “Yoo’s theory promotes frank discussion of the national interest and makes it harder for politicians to parade policy conflicts as constitutional crises. Most important, Yoo’s approach offers a way to renew our political system’s democratic vigor.”—David B. Rivkin Jr. and Carlos Ramos-Mrosovsky, National Review
Historically, it has been assumed that war is violence and declarations of war are simply public announcements that serve to initiate combat. Brien Hallett denies both assumptions and claims that war is policy, not violence. The Lost Art of Declaring War analyzes the crucial differences between combat and war and convincingly argues that the power to "declare" war is in actuality the power to compose a text, draft a document, write a denunciation. Once written, the declaration then serves three functions: to articulate the political purposes of the war, to guide and direct military operations, and to establish the boundary between justified combat and unjustified devastation. Hallett sounds a clarion call urging the people and their representatives to take up the challenge and write fully reasoned declarations of war. Then, and only then, can a civilized nation like the United States lay claim to being fully democratic, not only in peacetime, but in wartime as well. "Brien Hallett has fashioned an original, incisive, and powerful argument for the proper standards for going to war. Tightly reasoned throughout and well timed to address the conceptual confusion that now reigns." -- Louis Fisher, author of Presidential War Power
Declaring War directly challenges the 200-year-old belief that Congress can and should declare war. By offering a detailed analysis of the declarations of 1812, 1898 and the War Powers Resolution of 1973, the book demonstrates the extent of the organizational and moral incapacity of Congress to declare war. It invokes Carl von Clausewitz's dictum that 'war is policy' to explain why declarations of war are an integral part of war and proposes two possible remedies - a constitutional amendment or, alternatively, a significant re-organization of Congress. It offers a comprehensive historical, legal, constitutional, moral and philosophical analysis of why Congress has failed to check an imperial presidency. The book draws on Roman history and international law to clarify the form, function and language of declarations of war and John Austin's speech act theory.
From the Washington Administration to the present, Congress and the President have enacted 11 separate formal declarations of war against foreign nations in five different wars. Each declaration has been preceded by a presidential request either in writing or in person before a joint session of Congress. The reasons cited in justification for the requests have included armed attacks on United States territory or its citizens and threats to United States rights or interests as a sovereign nation.
From the Washington Admin. to the present, Congress and the Pres. have enacted 11 separate formal DoW against foreign nations in five different wars. This report provides historical background on the enactment of DoW and authorizations for the use of force and analyzes their legal effects under internat. and U.S. domestic law. It also sets forth their texts in two appendices. The report includes an extensive listing and summary of statutes that are triggered by a DoW, a declaration of national emergency, and/or the existence of a state of war. Also includes a summary of the congressional procedures applicable to the enactment of a DoW or authorization for the use of force and to measures under the War Powers Resolution. This is a print on demand report.
In this highly original study, Gregory Downs argues that the most American of wars, the Civil War, created a seemingly un-American popular politics, rooted not in independence but in voluntary claims of dependence. Through an examination of the pleas and
