The Legality of the Vietnam War
The original President Johnson's goal for the United States
involvement in Vietnam was not for them to win the war, but for U.S.
troops to strengthen South Vietnam's defenses until South Vietnam could
take over the whole of Vietnam. President Johnson set the stage for
public and troop disappointment when the U.S. found themselves in an
impasse with the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong because they entered
the Vietnam War without a goal to win.
From 1965 to 1969, the U.S. was involved only involved in Vietnam in
a very limited manner. Although there were aerial bombing activities on
the North, President Johnson chose to limit their fighting activities at
the South of Vietnam. To avoid serious ground assault at the North and
to avoid direct attack to the communists, they limit the fighting
parameters. This also avoids direct effort to disturb the Ho Chi Minh
Trail. This Viet Cong’s supply path runs across Cambodia and Laos.
In 1964, under the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, the U.S. President Lyndon
B. Johnson was authorized to enforce military forces in Southeast Asia
during the Vietnam War. This marked the start of US involvement in this
unforgettable war. However, this resolution was abolished in 1971, when
President Richard M. Nixon cited his power as commander-in-chief of U.S.
forces. Under the Article 2 of the United States Constitution, he is a
legal authority for operations in Vietnam and this gave him the power to
stop US intervention on the war.
According to Mr. Richard Falk (he is professor emeritus of
International Law in Princeton University), "If the US Government had
abided by international law, the dreadful experience of the Vietnam War
would not have occurred.” This is because the International Law actually
prohibits war that is not authorized by the UN Security Council or
undertaken in self-defense.
However, according to Professor Benjamin B. Ferencz (he is Adjunct
Professor of International Law at Pace University and is one of the most
popular advocates of the International Law), “The legal right of any
lawful government to defend itself against violent overthrow can hardly
be questioned. The right of any government to join in the defense of its
friends or allies to protect their or its own vital interests is an
ancient and well-established practice. However, it is also part of the
American heritage that the people, feeling themselves aggrieved by a
foreign power or a tyrannical regime, have the legal right and it is
their duty to throw off such government. The United States has legal
rights to assist in the defense of the government of South Vietnam.”
This case was concluded by the dismissal of the challenge to the
Vietnam War’s constitutionality by the federal judge, V. Sisson. He
later said that, “Just the sort of evidence, policy considerations, and
constitutional principles which elude the normal processes of the
judiciary and which are far more suitable for determination by
coordinate branches of the government”.
|
