I have been extremely critical of the push from many to have the Congress concentrate on stopping the commencement of war in Iran instead of ending the war in Iraq. My basic premise is that Bush's only possible legal rationale for initiating a military conflict with Iran is by arguing that Iran is interfering in the Iraq conflict. As I have stated, the 2002 Iraq AUMF is a blank check to the President and could conceivably be argued as the basis for striking Iran based on Iran's alleged involvement in Iraq. Not surprisingly, the Bush Administration is indeed arguing that Iran is meddling in the Iraq conflict:
The most lethal weapon directed against American troops in Iraq is an explosive-packed cylinder that United States intelligence asserts is being supplied by Iran. . . . Any assertion of an Iranian contribution to attacks on Americans in Iraq is both politically and diplomatically volatile. The officials said they were willing to discuss the issue to respond to what they described as an increasingly worrisome threat to American forces in Iraq, and were not trying to lay the basis for an American attack on Iran.
Riiiiiiight. So, is it even possible to say now that a war with Iran does NOT run through Iraq? One normally would say no BUT the drive for Congressional action on Iran may actually blunder into actually declaring the President CAN attack Iran without Congressional approval, depsite the fact that this is just plain wrong.
John Dean gets on this train to nowhere good:
SEN. KENNEDY: "Question just quickly through the panel. Is the President required to seek authorization from Congress before using the military force against Iran?"DR. FISHER: "I think if there's some action that's a threat to U.S. soldiers I think a president has the power to repel sudden attacks, protect U.S. troops. Otherwise, if it goes beyond isolated incidents like that I think you're running into the preface of the Iraq Resolution, which …Congress amended … to make sure it applied only to Iraq. So I think by statute, by legislative policy, you can confine the President to Iraq."
SEN. KENNEDY: "I'm interested in … what actions can Congress take now to ensure the President doesn't take us into war in Iran without congressional authorization."
PROF. BARRON: "The question of whether the President could right now initiate any actions against the Iran -- I think the proper way to think about it is what authority does he have under the current Iraq Authorization Statute, which would require some close consideration. . . . William Rehnquist [as an assistant attorney general] … thought that a statutory limitation on the exercise of such authority would be constitutionally valid. So I think the legal question then comes to . . . no doubt Congress could restrict him from going and widening the war, not just in terms of the amount of troops used, but in the geographic area covered, and the only issue is whether Congress has in effect already done so by virtue of the limitations and bounds of the Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq that's already enacted."
SEN. KENNEDY: "Yes, Professor Turner."
PROF. TURNER: "Senator, let me just make nuanced point on this. John Hart Ely in his War and Responsibility made the point that after Congress declared war against Germany, FDR did not need a new declaration of war to go into North Africa after the German forces. Going into Cambodia I think was perfectly legal because the North Vietnamese had taken over the whole side of Cambodia. . . . I could see a situation in which Iran became involved in the Iraq War where the President would be able to use force. . . . I think in terms of launching a major war against Iran he should get and would need an official [Congressional approval] for Iran. But there's some area in there where I think he could act."
SEN. KENNEDY: "If Congress passed legislation requiring the President to seek authorization from Congress before using military force against Iran would the President be obliged to seek such authorization before launching military action?"
MR. BERENSON: "Senator Kennedy, I think the questions that you're posing falls into the sphere . . . of shared powers, and it's important to recognize that for very important institutional reasons the President is the first mover and the prime mover in this area of shared powers. That has to do with the fact that unlike Congress which needs to go through an often time consuming and difficult legislative process, a process that can sometimes be stymied, the President has the ability to receive information in real time to act to protect the national security. So the President through the [clause vesting him with executive power], through his executive authority in the absence of legislation to the contrary by the Congress, I think unquestionably would have authority to engage Iran in hostilities, whether in defense of our forces inside the borders of Iraq or if he decided that we needed to do something to address Iran's nuclear facilities. I do not think he would be acting outside the scope of his constitutional authority. That said, for major military actions most presidents have recognized the importance of coming to Congress as a political and practical matter. It is certainly unwise, if not unconstitutional, to try to engage in large scale hostilities or engage a new enemy in warfare without public support. And the best way to ensure that at the outset is, of course, to come to Congress."
PROF. DELLINGER: "Briefly, I agree with Mr. Berenson's statement. I believe that the President does have the authority to introduce U.S. troops into situations of hostilities, including in Iran, in the absence of congressional limitation as long as the anticipated scope and duration does not amount to a war. I don't believe he has the authority to send 500,000 troops into Iran, but he does have the authority to deploy U.S. forces in hostilities…. That said, it is also clear that Congress can impose limits either before or after the fact on the size, scope, and duration of that. But I do believe there's a consensus in the Executive Branch position that the President has the authority to deploy U.S. forces into hostilities when Congress has not spoken to the question."
John Dean reacts incredibly to this:
In sum, as I read both the general statements of these experts, and their specific answers to Senator Kennedy's question about Iran, everyone agrees that Congress has the power to prevent a president from going to war.
Ummm, is it controversial that Congress declares wars? When did we go through the looking glass? What are these people talking about?
Dean continues:
The only question that is doubtful, then, is whether the members of Congress actually have the will to do so. This, I suspect, is what James Fallows concluded, when he said that, at best, they might draw a line.
For crissakes, with friends like these, who needs Republicans? Instead of arguing the OBVIOUS point that the President has no power to go to war in Iran ABSENT authorization from Congress, our "experts" (and by the way, you can keep Walter Dellinger as far as I am concerned) argue for Congressional action - a sort of anti-declaration of war.
Let's forget for a moment how in hell this is supposed to be Constitutional, what happens when it does NOT pass? Does that mean, according to "our experts," that Bush IS authorized to attack Iran? That is the obvious implication.
I simply do not know how these smart folks have come up with this. In their drive to be more anti-Iran war than everyone else (I guess they don't enjoy having the stigma of not opposing the Iraq Debacle) - they are suggesting actions that will put the imprimatur of legality on an attack on Iran. Gentlemen, please stop "helping" us on the issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment