Tuesday, April 22, 1986
Page 4
Daily Nebraskan
ri
itconau
Vicki Ruhga, Editor, 472,1766
Thorn Gabrukiewicz, Managing Editor
Ad Hudler, Editorial Page Editor
Jim Rogers, Editorial Page Editor
Chris Welsch, Copy Desk Chief
Nebraskan
University ol Nebraska-Lincoln
Wa
OS
A i
Congressional approval needed
The recent attack on Libya
raised new congressional
concerns regarding commit;
ment of U.S. troops abroad. The
main concern is balancing the
ability of the president to act
quickly in emergency situations
while preserving legitimate con
gressional oversight powers.
The constitution provides for
a sharing of the war powers
between Congress and the pres
ident. On one hand, Article I,
Section 2 declares the president
to be the commander-in-chief of
the military, while Article I,
Section 8 gives Congress the
power of the purse over the mil
itary, as well as the power to
declare war.
The scope and division of t he
respective war powers have been
subject to considerable dispute.
Historically, presidential powers
have come up on top: While war
has been officially declared five
times in U.S. history, the U.S.
military has been used in foreign
territories about 170 times.
During the Vietnam war, con
gress declared that the war
making power had shifted too far
toward the president and passed
the War Powers Resolution
overriding President Richard
Nixon's veto. This law requires
the president to inform Congress
and consult with Congress under
various circumstances when com
mitting U.S. troops abroad. (Last
week's D.N. editorial denounc
ing the U.S. attack on Libya
incorrectly identified the War
Powers Resolution as part of the
Constitution. The act actually
was passed in 1970).
So far the War Powers Act
hasn't stopped the president from
acting in emergencies. In both
President Gerald Ford's rescue
attempt in the Mayaguez inci
dent and President Jimmy Car
ter's rescue attempt of U.S. hos
tages in Iran, Congress was in
volved to a significant degree
only after the attempts.
Two factors make Reagan's
anti-terrorist posture different
from these emergency situations. :
First, preemptive defensive and
Wd m 'mm
x&'j rj-yp sa y
And, we hope, higher attendance
At first glance, new UNL
basketball coach Danny
Nee's annual salary of
$75,000 may seem a little high.
But considering the circum
stances, it's actually not that
extravagant.
Nee's predecessor, Moe Iba,
who resigned after UNL's loss to
Western Kentucky in the NCAA
first-round playoffs, earned
$57,680 annually.
In contrast to that, NU foot
ball coach Tom Osborne earns
$83,600. Larry Brown, KU's bas
ketball coach, earns $70,000. Bill
McCartney at CU earns $50,000.
It should be noted that these
salaries don't include fringe bene
fits. Nee's contract would tie
him with Billy Tubbs of Oklahoma
for the highest salary of all the
conference basketball coaches.
retaliatory acts are different from
rescue attempts. More objective
calculation goes into the latter
than in necessarily reactionary
rescue attempts.
Second, Reagan indicated that
the attack on Libya was the
beginning of an extended anti
terrorist policy and was not a
one-shot deal as are rescue
attempts.
Both the above factors involve
significant foreign policy com
mitments distinct from rescue
attempts. Consequently the pol
icies undergirding the constitu
tional involvement of Congress
and those involved in the spirit
if not the letter of the War
Powers Act are brought to bear.
Congressional involvement in
war making actions is an impor
tant U.S. policy that should be
protected. The president any
president should not have a
carte blanche in creating ex
tended commitments of U.S. mil
itary forces.
Reagan's announced anti-terrorist
policy slips through the
cracks of the War Powers Act.
The law requires express con
gressional approval only after 60
days of military involvement in
an area. However retaliatory raids
do not involve military commit
ments extending beyond this
time period.
The spirit of the Constitution
and War Powers Resolution re
quires active and continuing
congressional oversight of the
president's war commitment. In '
light of the Libyan attack, sev
eral policies have been advanced
by congressional leaders of both
parties to integrate this needed
oversight back into foreign mil
itary commitments decision
making process. Reintegration is
not a luxury . it is a necessity.
It is only right that Reagan
bring his entire anti-terrorist
military agenda to Congress. It
will be all the stronger "given
congressional input and appro
val, if ultimately approved And
if it is not explicitly approved by
' Congress, it does, not merit con
tinuation;
j W WJ m i 1MB y
It's doubtful UNL could have
attracted a good coach with Iba's
original salary. Although it's
higher than what most UNL pro
fesors make, it needed to be
large enough for competent
coaching recruits to consider
the job.
In addition, Nee isn't exactly
walking into what one would call
a strong basketball program. It
needs work, and it will take a lot
of work to turn things around.
If Nee's salary came from the
same pool of resources that pays
professors, it would be difficult
justifying such a large increase.
But it doesn't.
We wish Nee the best of luck.
It's just a shame that many
people in charge of educating
the students of this campus don't
earn respectable salaries. They
deserve them.
I A i
Mm &yM.
Ammeirica irevels in vengeance
Attitude toward violence perpetuates Reagan policies
How quickly the war jitters sub
side. The Dow Jones goes up. The
dog needs to be taken to the vet.
There is laundry to be done. We swal
low a couple of Maalox tablets and
hope that the worst of it will be a
thousand canceled trips abroad.
But my own jitters have a much
longer life span. I am not able to see
the bombing of Tripoli as a one-night
stand, a clean "surgical strike" against
terrorism.
The New York Post headline keeps
running through my head: "Take That,
Khadafy!" So do the street interviews
with Americans who applaud "taking
out" the "mad dog." I keep hearing the
president "If necessary we shall do
it again" and reading the polls that
show Americans overwhelmingly favor
this action even if it will increase ter
rorism, even if it will increase the risks
of war.
There is more to all this than rage at
Khadafy, the terrorist it is safest to
hate. There is also in our reaction a lust
for action, for hitting back, a palpable
pleasure in shaking off the usual res
traints, a sense of physical release in
landing a good hard punch to the solar
plexus, even if this punch kills another
baby. And if our allies desert us, well,
there is even something pleasurable
about that, something American about
hitching up our own pants and going it
alone. Nobody can tell us what to do,
I read that message and not just
now, when it runs under the bombing of
Tripoli, for which there was at least
provocation and pretext. It is there,
more dangerously, underlying the way
this government has dealt with Soviet
proposals for arms control and with
Letter
DN's conclusions,
The Daily Nebraskan seems to be
implying, by its headline, "Nebraskans'
opinion split on Libya attack" (Daily
Nebraskan, April 16), that there is a
roughly a 50-50 split on condemning or
condoning President Reagan's actions
bombing Libya.
A sample of seven people is hardly
large enough to imply this, and the
people who call their representatives
hardly give an unbiased estimate of
what Nebraskans, as a whole, think.
The DN makes the argument, "Libya
attack; One madman fights another"
(DN, April 16), that the United States
provoked Libya in the recent round of
terrorism. The editors seem to be suf
fering from selective amnesia.
ill
Central America
The bombs of April may have dulled
the echo of the "Mighty Oak," the
whimsical name for the recent nuclear
test. But this was the bomb that blew
up the best chance we had in years for
arms control.
Ellen
Goodman
The Soviet Union opened a window
to us, declaring a moratorium on
nuclear testing. They held it open for
seven months, and we slammed it shut.
We decided to go it alone choosing
"Star Wars," the science-fiction notion
of an impenetrable space shield, over a
mutual test ban.
Now, imagining that we have the
Soviets "on the run," the administra
tion is considering breaking the terms
of the last arms-control agreement,
SALT II. How much more exciting it is
to be free at last of restraints, to go for
it victory in the arms race rather
than negotiating an end to it;
What of Nicaragua, to which we
export terror? On the silver anniversary
of the Bay of Pigs, the White House
wants to strut American stuff again,
the stuff of power. It is as if the slow
boiling desire to act has finally bubbled
up against the lid of self-restraint, even
reason.
I know it is risky to link these three
danger zones into one text, even loosely.
There is much more popular support
for our attack on Libya than there is for
implications on Libya attack tenuous
If the editors want to make this
argument about who provoked whom,
shouldn't the attack on the Rome air
port be taken into account? The fact
that Khadafy also supports Abu Nidal
also needs to be considered.
The DN also argues that Europeans
seem to know more about how to deal
with terrorism than the United States.
Again, the paper seems to be suffer
ing from selective anmesia. The Euro
peans may have suffered more from ter
rorism in the past than the United
States, but this does not imply they
know more about how to stop it.
Who c juld possibly forget Europe's
policy of appeasement toward history's
V mm
rJL (J
tltm i
nuclear testing or for Contra funding.
The debate about Tripoli is between
people who are elated that we finally
did something and people who wonder
what good this something did. It is a
debate about inaction and wrong action.
Most Americans feel at least an edge of
ambivalence.
But underneath these separate
actions in the world runs one fixed idea
about America's role and rights in the
world: the president's picture of a weak
post-Vietnam America It is an image of
an America reluctant to fight. An Amer
ica restrained by world opinion, immo
bilized by the fear of another escalat
ing war, cautious of its allies and
enemies. A helpless giant, paralyzed,
afraid of its own nuclear shadow.
The White House has purposely counter
ed this "paralysis" with a swagger. Like
some President Feelgoods, they issue
approval for hostile feelings, offer the
quickie catharsis, live in the now and
worry about the consequences later.
I'm OK, you're OK, and it's OK to carry
a big stick . . . especially against a
small country.
I am sure the president and his men
see in this muscular policy the return
of the mythical man, the American
striding alone to High Noon in every
trouble spot. But I keep seeing Slim
Pickens, in "Dr. Strangelove," gleefully
riding the bomb to Doomsday. From the
halls of Managua to the shores of Tri
poli, it's worth a lingering case of the
jitters.
1986, The Boston Globe Newspaper
Company Washington Post
Writers Group
Goodman is a Pulitzer Prize-winning
columnist for the Washington Post.
Brief letters are preferred, and longer letters may be edited. Writer's
address and phone number are needed for verification. s
greatest terrorist, Adolf Hitler of Ger
' many?
These are also the same govern
ments that refused to take economic
action against Libya after the airport
attacks because "they simply do not
work."
Well, what does work? I am willing to
give Reagan's alternative a chance.
This alternative obviously will not
stamp out terrorism. It will make
Khadafy and other nations that sponsor
terrorism realize that the United States
will not idly stand by and watch its
citizens murdered.
Kenneth M. Adams
sophomore
industrial engineering