If, by a piece of legislation, the executive can now take the nation to war without Congress declaring it using its authority under 1-8-11, Congress most certainly did that. 
Posted on 03/01/2003 3:14:26 PM PST by exodus
President Bush Sr. proudly spoke of "The New World Order," a term used by those who promote one-world government under the United Nations. In going to war in 1991, he sought and received UN authority to push Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. He forcefully stated that this UN authority was adequate, and that although a congressional resolution was acceptable, it was entirely unnecessary and he would proceed regardless. At that time there was no discussion regarding a congressional declaration of war. The first Persian Gulf War therefore was clearly a UN, political war fought within UN guidelines, not for U.S. security – and it was not fought through to victory. The bombings, sanctions, and harassment of the Iraqi people have never stopped. We are now about to resume the active fighting. Although this is referred to as the second Persian Gulf War, it’s merely a continuation of a war started long ago, and is likely to continue for a long time even after Saddam Hussein is removed from power.
Our attitude toward the United Nations is quite different today compared to 1991. I have argued for years against our membership in the United Nations because it compromises our sovereignty. The U.S. has always been expected to pay an unfair percentage of UN expenses. I contend that membership in the United Nations has led to impractical military conflicts that were highly costly both in lives and dollars, and that were rarely resolved.
Our 58 years in Korea have seen 33,000 lives lost, 100,000 casualties, and over a trillion dollars in today’s dollars spent. Korea is the most outrageous example of our fighting a UN war without a declaration from the U.S. Congress. And where are we today? On the verge of a nuclear confrontation with a North Korean regime nearly out of control. And to compound the irony, the South Koreans are intervening in hopes of diminishing the tensions that exist between the United States and North Korea!
As bad as the Vietnam nightmare was, at least we left and the UN was not involved. We left in defeat and Vietnam remained a unified communist country. The results have been much more salutary. Vietnam is now essentially non-communist, and trade with the West is routine. We didn’t disarm Vietnam, we never counted their weapons, and so far no one cares. Peaceful relations have developed between our two countries, not by force of arms, but through trade and friendship. No United Nations, no war, and no inspections served us well – even after many decades of war and a million deaths inflicted on the Vietnamese in an effort by both the French and the United States to force them into compliance with Western demands.
But in this new battle with Iraq, our relationship with the United Nations and our allies is drawing a lot of attention. The administration now says it would be nice to have UN support, but it’s not necessary. The President argues that a unilateralist approach is permissible with his understanding of national sovereignty. But no mention is made of the fact that the authority to go to war is not a UN prerogative, and that such authority can only come from the U.S. Congress.
Although the argument that the United Nations cannot dictate to us what is in our best interest is correct, and we do have a right to pursue foreign policy unilaterally, it’s ironic that we’re making this declaration in order to pursue an unpopular war that very few people or governments throughout the world support. But the argument for unilateralism and national sovereignty cannot be made for the purpose of enforcing UN Security Council resolutions. That doesn’t make any sense. If one wants to enforce UN Security Council resolutions, that authority can only come from the United Nations itself. We end up with the worst of both worlds: hated for our unilateralism, but still lending credibility to the UN.
The Constitution makes it clear that if we must counter a threat to our security, that authority must come from the U. S. Congress. Those who believe, and many sincerely do, that the United Nations serves a useful function, argue that ignoring the United Nations at this juncture will surely make it irrelevant. Even with my opposition to the United Nations, I can hardly be pleased that its irrelevancy might come about because of our rush to war against a nation that has not aggressed against us nor poses any threat to us. From my viewpoint the worst scenario would be for the United Nations to sanction this war, which may well occur if we offer enough U.S. taxpayer money and Iraqi oil to the reluctant countries. If that happens we could be looking at another 58-year occupation, expanded Middle East chaos, or a dangerous spread of hostilities to all of Asia or even further.
With regard to foreign affairs, the best advice comes from our Founders and the Constitution. It is better to promote peace and commerce with all nations, and exclude ourselves from the entangling, dangerous, complex, and unworkable alliances that come with our membership in the United Nations.
To give you an idea of what I'm thinking, (paraphrazed) "no provision of this Authorization superseded any provision of the War Powers Act;" the War Powers Act says that the reporting requirements don't apply after a Declaration of War; and the Authorization requires reporting as specified in the War Powers Act.
I might be wrong about that, but I can't read anymore.
Goodnight, all.
Um, remember also that I believe that the War Powers Act is illegal, in that it gives the President leave to have "small" wars on his own, without Congressional authorization.
The law may not have changed, but the world has, and drastically so. I appreciate your efforts to pretend that we are back in the days when strict constructionism was a practicable viewpoint in the arena of foreign policy, but it will take a lot more than Mr. Paul's historical revisionism to prove that.
And, since he brought it up, Vietnam was not only a "good" war but a plainly winnable one, well up until 1975. That it was poorly run from the strategic standpoint is indisputable; but I can guarantee you the same silence that surrounds the Korean War from the usually chattery peaceniks and socialists would exist had we won or achieved a stalemate. It's a whipping boy oft brought out just like McCarthyism; in the same spirit, its blanket condemnation reflects an ignorance of history that would be appalling if it were not so common.
If you think this a legal puzzle to be wrestled with then you are missing the whole point, as Ron Paul did. This is all about a murdering bastard who presents a threat regionally, and perhaps globally. His removal is the prudent thing to make happen. If for some reason this activity leads to some semblance of self governing in the mideast then all the better.
I wasn't aware there was any confusion over the word "if". Were you under the impression that my understanding of that word differed from yours?
Seems pretty straightforward to me. If the President is saying "If we're going to war", then I'd say it's reasonable enough to conclude that war hasn't been declared yet.
If, by a piece of legislation, the executive can now take the nation to war without Congress declaring it using its authority under 1-8-11, Congress most certainly did that.
Except a declaration of war does exactly that. By placing the nation in a state of war, Congress obliges the President to prosecute it. The situation is exactly analogous to when Congress passes a law. The executive is obliged to enforce it. In both cases, it is the job of the executive to execute policy, not initiate it.
As I understand it, "War" triggers an array of legal and treaty issues that restrict and complicate our options. Being that this is tied to the war on terrorism, it may spill over there. What pops into mind first is the treatment of POWs: No interrogations, regular mail delivery, furnishment of "scientific instruments", religious services etc… I know there’s more to it than just the POW issue, but that’s all I recall.
Now of course the inevitable call will come, "why are we in these treaties anyway", and "why don’t we just nullify them and call it war anyway". There are political answers to that involving world PR, domestic politics, timing, and the difficulty of reestablishing them next time if we are at war with a developed "civilized" nation, but that’s another long explanation. So rather than get bogged down in redefining a formal fraimwork for a new kind of war (as the publics memory of 9/11 fades), we’ve chosen an authorization method that is without a doubt constant with the sprit of the Constitution, has been upheld by courts and satisfies all but a tiny minority that are represented here.
The reason they haven't declared war is, quite simply, that the administration wants to be the one to make the decision as to war and peace. To them, the war option is their little ace in the hole, to be laid on the table and retracted entirely at their convenience when it suits their political purposes - in total opposition to the spirit of the Constitution.
After reading through all the postings I see the old human condition of convoluted justification in play - I like what is happening so it must be all right - and there is precedent for it. As has been pointed out there seems to be selective appreciation for respect for the law and judicial rulings- some like wars and intervention but not Roe v. Wade for example.
A good illustration of the matter at hand is a parent scolding a child to which the child replies "but his sister did it the other day and she didn't get in trouble" or "My friend Johnny's parents let him do it" or the universal "everybody does it". Then there is the old parental question "if everybody jumped off a bridge would you jump too?"
So some here say that congress authorized force against terrorism after 9/11(or cite the war powers act) so therefore any military action the president takes is legitimate and no declaration is needed. Well I never consider writing a blank check to anyone, not even a good friend, just isn't wise. We have heard plans for months now about a much wider war than Iraq is in the making - to quote a Stratfor article the from other day - "Wolfowitz -- and President George W. Bush -- simply don't want to lay the long-term cards on the table at this time. They would rather be accused of attacking Iraq without reason than being viewed as being engaged in a long-term, well-thought-out campaign against other countries in the region.". To add weight to this conclusion all one has to do is recall the president's speech the other night at the AEI. He plainly stated that the Arab countries are on notice that they will restructure their forms of government, restructure their foreign policy and restructure their domestic civil rights according to our designs or they will be the next Iraq. Another quote from the Stratfor article -"There also will be other troops based in Iraq -- not reporting to the occupation commander, but reporting to a war-fighting commander whose primary responsibility will be for operations outside of Iraq." Not to base my premise on this one article, these matters have been long talked about in print and on TV for many months now - the point is such a large scale war, series of wars if you will and long term occupations are of such grave consequence that they should be openly debated in congress and in the country. To do otherwise is way too similar to the Roman Senate giving up the republic.
In regards to the UN and world government conservatives have long been opposed to such notions as they perceived the UN to be a power over our sovereignty and therefore unconstitutional. We now see these conservatives lovingly embrace the concept of global government because they see the US and not the UN reigning supreme. In fact the UN has been a tool of the US all along. Before we rejected it but now the same product is repackaged and we love it. Interesting.
If the executive can take the country to war with a foreign power without a formal declaration of war by Congress under 1-8-11 there most certainly has been a transfer of powers.
You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. The Geneva convention that we formally become a treaty member to about 60 years ago does not bend to "whatever rules of war Congress wants for a given war". I really can’t take extraordinary claims seriously when they come from someone who doesn’t even know this.
I’m no authority on this, but I know better than to read a few kook editorials from fringe groups and start parroting them as if I’m now an authority and know something that the establishment hasn’t figured out. It’s not a grand conspiracy, the whole world isn’t more corrupt than you, and you’re not exceptionally brave, brilliant or insightful. This is an imperfect world, another tricky day, and this war is as just and legal as about any other that we’ve conducted. I’ve got some very important things to complete today. My apologies for not having more patience in this discussion. Best regards.
The proper course--if we are to have war--is to declare war. If the complications are not acceptable, then those complications should be legally overturned.
Really, the objection to Viet Nam aside (and I maintain we WON the Viet Nam war, while the Congress lost the PEACE), Paul makes a pretty good case. That's why we have declarations of war--because sustained military action is serious.
It's strange about being "tiny", when I have not spoken with one person--and I converse with at least 20 from all sides of the political spectrum on a weekly basis--who disagrees with me or agrees with you.
FR is hardly a sampling of the American public or, any more, the conservative public.
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.