RON PAUL: "Before We Bomb Baghdad....."

With our military actions waning in Afghanistan, the administration appears to be gearing up for a second phase in the Middle East. Although the Al-Queda threat has not yet been fully neutralized, political and popular support for a full-scale war against Iraq is growing. The President explicitly named Iraq as a target in his State of the Union address, and British Prime Minister Blair recently stated his backing for such an invasion.

Yet I remain convinced we should be very cautious before we send troops and bombs into Iraq. It's simple to point out that Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator, but it's not so easy to demonstrate that he poses a threat to us. We should also remember that the congressional resolution passed immediately after September 11th, which I supported, authorized military force only against those directly responsible for the attacks- and there is no evidence whatsoever that Iraq played a role in those attacks. This leaves me with two serious concerns: first, the near-certainty that this coming war will be undeclared, and hence unconstitutional; and second, that such a war does not serve our best interests.

First and foremost, we must follow the Constitution and require that the President secure a congressional declaration of war before he proceeds against Iraq. Undeclared wars represent one of the greatest threats to our constitutional separation of powers over the last 50 years, beginning with our "police action" in Korea. This most sacred legislative function- the power to send our young people into harm's way- must be exercised by Congress alone, the body most directly connected to the electorate.

The undeclared wars waged by various Presidents during the last century represent a very serious usurpation of the legislative function, adding greatly to the rise of the "imperial Presidency" that we witnessed so clearly during the Clinton years. I'm always amazed that Congress is quite willing to simply give away one of its greatest powers, especially when it spends so much time otherwise trying to expand its powers by passing extra-constitutional legislation. The reason for this, I'm afraid, is Congress learned in Vietnam that wars sometimes go very badly, and few want to be on record as having voted for a war if they can avoid it. So despite all the talk in Congress of "supporting the President," nobody wants to really support him by doing the obvious and passing a declaration of war.

Constitutional questions aside, we have to ask ourselves quite simply whether it serves any national interest to invade Iraq. So often we lose sight of the true purpose of our military, which is to defend our borders against attack. Remember, Iraq has not initiated aggression against us. We, on the other hand, have bombed them, taunted them by flying military jets in their airspace, and starved them with economic sanctions- all for more than a decade. We haven't done these things out of humanitarian concern for Kuwait, we've done them because we want to protect our oil interests. Yet these actions have harmed the people of Iraq, not the Hussein regime. If anything, our policies serve to generate support for Hussein, who uses American aggression as a convenient scapegoat to deflect attention from his own oppression. Sadly, we've made him a martyr in Iraq and much of the wider Muslim world, alienating many otherwise pro-Western Iraqi moderates in the process. I question the wisdom, and the necessity, of once again traveling 6000 miles to pick a fight with a third-world Muslim nation that is simply not threatening us.

Congress should not allow any administration to take our nation to war without the consent of the people. I fear that we are about to embark on an undeclared, unconstitutional war in Iraq that is exceedingly unwise and fraught with unforeseen consequences. This war will have nothing to do with US national security or Iraqi aggression. It will, however, make us all less secure by antagonizing millions of Muslims who understand the necessity of our actions against Al-Queda, but who will object to an invasion of Iraq.

Again, you make a lot of claims and statements, but you don't give me any reason to think that anybody but you believes this. Is this part of American law or did you just make it up? Can you give me judicial opinions, ouija bord chats with James Madison, any reason to to take any of this as anything but what you think oughta happen?

If you respond with another long post full of unverified assertions, I plan to ignore it.

A "settled principle of constitutional law" is little more than a bad habit of ignoring the Constitution. Lawyer talk. It's equivalent to saying "We got away with it for years so there's no going back." It's one of the most common excuses the government uses for avoiding complying with the Constitution and makes absolute hash out of the whole concept of UNALIENABLE rights.

You should see how often the thugs use it for environmental takings. Federalist indeed.

You would't know a dclaration of war if it bit you on the butt

Following is the joint resolution authorizing the use of force against terrorists, adopted yesterday by the Senate and the House of Representatives:

To authorize the use of United States armed forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on Sept. 11, 2001, acts of despicable violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad, and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence, and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States,

Whereas the president has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

The Constitution says that Congress alone can move the country from peace to war (by a Declaration of War). It is clear, and has been clear in law for a very long time, that a Declaration of War is not necessary for a lawful military response to attack, since the attacker has already moved the nation from peace to war.

The Constitution says that the President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, and it has been clear for a long time on that basis that it is the President's responsibility to engage military force to defend the nation from attack.

The Constitution says that Congress controls all spending on the military - and for anyone who knows the history of the Whig struggle in England, it's clear this, not the Declaration of War clause, is the crucial provision, the real point at which the warmaking power of the Executive is brought under legislative control.

This seems to yield three Constitutional conditions for a lawful action in response to attack: first, that there has indeed been an attack on the United States, second, that the defence is ordered by the civilian Commander in Chief of the military, and third, that Congress agrees to fund such defence.

But you seem to insist on other conditions which are not clearly contained in the Constitution. So what other sources do you have for them? Can you cite court cases, legislation, classic commentators on the Constitution? Neither your sense of propriety nor your policy preferences have the force of law in the United States. My position is based on the plain text of the Constitution and the main lines of its interpretation since the Jefferson Administration. What is your position based on?

The first bombing of Baghdad was at least constitutional (more or less-leaning on the more side). Bush, Sr. got the ok from congress (not a declaration of war but close enough for govt. work) and he had UN approval. As much as the UN sucks it was a creation (by and large) of the US and it is required of us under the UN charter (making it the law of internatioanl relations we need to abide by).

All these things WERE NOT DONE for Kosovo and SHOULD NOT BE DONE in this next round of bomb Baghdad.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.