The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Parliament should wield the war power > Comments

Parliament should wield the war power : Comments

By Sukrit Sabhlok, published 10/2/2011

Fewer wars would be better for all, and there would be fewer wars if Parliament had the war power rather than the executive.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All
Giving parliament more power would be an improvement but it is no guarantee that the quality of decision making would automatically improve. The US example is instructive. After the Tonkin Gulf incidents in August 1965 and the events of 11 September 2001 the US Congress rushed to overwhelmingly vote for military action against North Vietnam and Afghanistan respectively. They did so on the basis of information supplied by the Administration. In both cases the information was wrong and deliberately so. In the latter case the attack on Afghanistan was also illegal under international law.
John Howard similarly lied to Parliament about the reasons for attacking Iraq in 2003.
In all cases alternative information waas available but ignored by the executive and Parliament. Successive Australian governments have maintained the lie and the liars have never been held accountable. More than a law change is needed if we seek real reform.
Posted by James O'Neill, Thursday, 10 February 2011 2:16:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Commonwealth Parliament already has the war-making power, as it can dismiss the executive instantly at any time. The best example of this in the Westminster System occurred in South Africa in September 1939, when the National Party government decided to remain neutral in World War II. The parliament met, passed a motion of no confidence in the government, which then had to resign, and the new government immediately declared war on Germany.

The provisions of the US Constitution on war-making are there because the US does not follow the Westminster System, and the President cannot be dismissed by a vote of no confidence. Removal of the President requires impeachment, and so far this has only been tried three times, without success on any occasion.
Posted by plerdsus, Thursday, 10 February 2011 8:02:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is good to see more people like James O'Neil speaking the truth.Their next big target is Iran.This is why the USA want Suleiman the to be in charge of Egypt.Mubarak did not not want aggression towards Iran and thus Saudi Arabia sided with Murbarak.Suleiman however is a good little psychopath and will be keen to do the bidding of the oil moguls.

If the USA attacks Iran watch the price of oil go to $5+ a litre with poverty hitting the West and China/Russia enter the fray for our next world war.The USA has been experimenting with mini-nukes ie nuclear fission that give off far less radiation.Some say they have used them already in "shock and awe" on Iraq and thus used depleted uranium bullets to cover for the existance of radioactivity.

This perhaps explains why the USA is being so aggressive.ie their mini nukes make up for the enormous military might of both China and Russia.

Tell me how do you have a limited strategic nuclear war?
Posted by Arjay, Sunday, 13 February 2011 3:36:35 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Only the House of Representatives can dismiss a government, not the Parliament as a whole. There have only been 2 occassions in the last 100 years where the government of the day has not had a majority in the House of Reps, so expecting a government to dismiss itself is fairly unrealistic.

The fact is that the Howard government's decision to go to war against Iraq was the only time since Federation that such a decision was opposed by a majority in the Senate. If the government had required the approval of Parliament to send troops into battle overseas - as is required in the Greens legislation - then Australia's participation in that war would not have happened.

Such circumstances will not occur that often, but I can't see any reason why there should not be an extra hurdle before our country does something as drastic as sending troops to a war offshore - especially where we are the aggressor.

But this proposal was first put to the Senate by NSW Democrat Senator Colin Mason in the early 1980s, It was knocked back by both the larger parties then, and has been every other time it has been put forward by Democrats or Greens ever since. It's still worth pursuing - and does have the support of at least some from the defence forces - but I think it will be a while yet before the larger parties would agree to hand that power over to the Parliament as a whole
Posted by AndrewBartlett, Sunday, 13 February 2011 3:41:28 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy