Only Congress has the authority to declare
war
|
This week, the United States Congress was asked to make a
decision about life, and about death. What will be at stake will be the potential deaths
of many Americans in our U.S. military as well as innocent persons in Iraq and the
surrounding region.
As our President recently said, our fight is not with the Iraqi people but with Saddam
Hussein. Why structure our military action in such a way that Saddam Hussein may remain
standing while many American and Iraqi lives are lost?
The American military has never been afraid to defend this nation. That is why the burden
on this singular world power – the United States – is greater now than ever.
Any unilateral move that we would make to go to war has the potential of throwing the
world into major chaos and destabilization. Further, it will weaken our concerted and
necessary fight against terrorism, and remove from the United States the force of its
moral position as a defender and not an aggressor.
Additionally, the U.S. military would obviously have the sole burden of any major
offensive. There are alternatives to the decision the present resolution would require.
In fact, I offered an amendment to the resolution that would have Congress take into
account the results of United Nations weapons inspectors’ and Security Council
findings prior to voting to use military force. And because I realize that inaction is
certainly not an option, I have outlined a plan of action that is certainly preferable to
a headlong leap into war.
My plan would include: 1. Diplomacy First. 2. Unfettered, robust United Nation Weapons
Inspections to provide full disarmament. 3. Support of Democratization through Governance
Training and Support of Resistance Elements 4. Developing more stringent United States
Containment and deterrence policies against Iraq.
The resolution H.R. Res. 114 would allow the President, without a Congressional
declaration of war, to “use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to
be necessary…” against Iraq and to “enforce all relevant United Nations
Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.” Clearly, authority would be given to
the Executive Branch for a unilateral, first strike against a nation without the
Constitutionally mandated act of Congress to actually declare war under Article 1, section
8, clause 11. Congress must be held to its Constitutional duty.
I opposed this resolution as currently presented – not because I do not believe that
Saddam Hussein is a menace that must be dealt with – but because to vote for it would
be to effectively abdicate my Constitutional duty as a Member of Congress to declare war
when conditions call for such action. Saddam Hussein is indeed an evil man. He has harmed
his own people in the past, and cannot be trusted in the future to live peacefully with
his neighbors in the region.
I fully support efforts to disarm Iraq pursuant to the resolutions passed in the aftermath
of the Gulf War, and I do not rule out the possibility that military action might be
needed in the future to defend the United States. Unlike Iraq, however, we are a nation
that respects the rule of law. And our Constitution, the supreme law of the land, sets
forth the duties and responsibilities of Congress in clear, unambiguous language.
As a member of the House Judiciary Committee, I have a special appreciation for our
Constitution. Article 1, Sec 8 (11) of the U.S. Constitution states: “Congress shall
have the power... to declare war.” The president is commander-in-chief, but he must
fulfill these responsibilities of war subject to the role of the U.S. Congress.
The system of checks and balances, which is essential to ensuring that no branch of
government can wield absolute power, cannot be effective if one individual is
impermissibly vested with the sole discretionary authority to carry out what 535 members
of Congress have been duly elected by the people to do. I also voted no on the resolution
because the broad, unchecked power to wage war that it would unconstitutionally cede to
the President, represents an alarming detour from a long-held American principle of not
being an aggressor nation.
The 1947 Defense Unification Act, among other things, changed the name of the Department
of War to the Department of Defense. That change was not merely an issue of semantics.
It embodied the notion that our country should use our military might only in defense of
ourselves or in defense of others where warranted. Granting the President the authority to
use our armed forces preemptively will set a dangerous precedent both here and abroad.
Such a policy on a global scale will do nothing short of destabilizing the entire world as
China might see fit to move preemptively against Taiwan, India against Pakistan, or North
Korea against South Korea. The possibilities are endless in a world where tensions between
many nations could swiftly escalate into all-out warfare using weapons of mass destruction
that would cause death and devastation at levels never seen in previous wars.
At a time when our President is urging the United Nations to take a stronger, more active
role in enforcing its resolutions and ensuring peace, it is imperative that we do not
simultaneously weaken the United Nations by violating its charter through a first strike
military action. Pursuant to article 51 of the United Nations Charter, a military strike
against Iraq, unless in response to an immediate threat thereof, will violate
international law.
In order to arguably claim that action is taken in self-defense, and is thus permissible
under international law, the alleged threat must be one that is immediate and which offers
no other options for resolution. Finally, I agree with the President that America should
not live in fear, but a show of aggressive strength by a unilateral first attack by the
United States against Iraq will not ease our fears, it may simply send us down a
devastating and deadly road of no return.
|
