It was brought to my attention recently that Reps. De Fazio and and Hinchey offered an amendment to the 2007 Pentagon appropriations bill that would have specifically barred the administration from launching a military attack on Iran without congressional authorization. 158 members of the House voted for it, but 262 voted against and it failed. In other words, a majority of the House seems to have gone on record in favor of letting the president start wars illegally, a fairly discouraging development.
« Defending South Korea | Main | Outings »
Iran and War Powers
04 Oct 2006 04:51 pm
Comments (17)
Well, it wouldn't be illegal under U.S. law for the president to invade Iran, but he would only have 90 days to do it, under the war powers act.
Some additional information:
The language of the amendment was straightforward: None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to initiate military operations against Iran except in accordance with Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States.
The roll call vote is here. Note that 47 Democrats - including John Murtha and Henry Waxman - voted no.
The only Congressman to speak against the amendment was Bill Young of Florida. At the risk of spamming the comment section, I'll repeat his statement in full. (I assume the case FOR the amendment goes without saying.)
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
I read the amendment about Iran, but I heard the debate about Iraq. The gentleman's debate made it appear that we just indiscriminately decided to attack Iraq.
I would remind the gentleman that there were not only United Nations resolutions dealing with the issue of Iraq, but there was also an overwhelming vote in the House and in the Senate to authorize the President to take whatever military action was necessary.
He talked about Iraq, and so I want to talk about Iraq. I want to talk about the June 25, 1996, bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. We were not in Iraq, nowhere near Iraq. Khobar Towers was bombed, and 19 of our airmen who were living there lost their lives.
In August of 1998, our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed with a loss of life, including Americans. And by the way, we were not in Iraq or Afghanistan for that matter.
October 12, 2000, the USS Cole offshore of Yemen was bombed by terrorists, and 17 sailors lost their lives, and many others were seriously injured.
And then there was September 11, and I don't have to explain what happened there because everyone knows what happened there. It was the Pearl Harbor of this century.
So what does that have to do with Iraq? Information continues to be uncovered where Saddam Hussein, who was the dictator of Iraq until we removed him, Saddam Hussein had contacts with the terrorists of different stripes, not only al Qaeda, but other terrorists. And that's why, and Congress reacted to that, and Congress approved the President making whatever military move he thought was necessary. So that goes to the issue of the gentleman's debate on the Iran amendment relative to his comment about Iraq.
The vote on the Iraq resolution was 296-133. That is a pretty sizable majority.
I have a copy of the Constitution. Section 8 of Article I is a very long article, a very long section, and I am not sure which provision in here that the gentleman's amendment is talking about unless it gets down to the part of section 8 that says to declare war. I assume that is what he is talking about.
To declare war in today's world, previous wars you had a little time. Even after Pearl Harbor, we had time to recover and react. Today's world you don't have that. So I would think you would want to be very, very careful about tying the hands of this Congress in authorizing whatever was needed to defend and support the United States and the security of the American people.
I do not want another September 11 on my hands. I don't want something else to happen that is going to kill innocent Americans, and then have people come to me and say, Why didn't you do something about it? Why weren't you prepared for it? Why did you have to wait and go through all of the political charades?
I don't think that the American people would be very, very happy with this Congress if we didn't take every step necessary to prevent another aircraft hijacking and flying into the World Trade Center or something similar, or hijacking an airplane that landed in Pennsylvania or at the Pentagon. I think we better think very carefully before we, on an appropriations bill, make a major decision like this.
Ahhhh.... Maryland scumbags Al Wynn and Steny Hoyer both maintained their stellar reps on that measure.
That tears it. I'm actually going to vote Republican, for the first time in years, rather than that worthless fucking pig Wynn.
Anyway, thanks, Steve.
Steve:
So you believe that a regime that has terrorist ties as great or greater than Iraq should be attacked? Well the Saudis were hosting Idi Amin, a mass murderer, at the time. The Saudis helped fund 9/11. The Saudis impeded our investigation of 9/11 and Khobar towers. The HIJACKERS WERE ALMOST ALL SAUDIS. You need to peddle this weak nonsense where they don't actually follow foreign policy.
And Saddam was a secular leader and we have replaced him with an Iranian born Ayatollah. And Iraq is now more friendly with Iran and other terrorist states now than before the invasion. If it made sense to take Saddam out, GHW Bush would have done so. It didn't then, it didn't when his feckless son did it.
And if you want to stop another 9/11 then you need to respond when your intelligence community is telling you that bin Laden is about to attack. Iraq has made another attack MORE likely.
Since you are obviously just reading Bush/Rove talking points, it is time for you to say:
We must let them kill our children there so they don't come and kill us here. Or whatever excuse Bush gives for doubling the 9/11 death toll.
There were no attacks on American soil after the first WTC bombing, and Clinton didn't cost us 3000 deaths to prevent it.
By the way, bin Laden is in Pakistan where the dictator and sponsor of terror and nuclear proliferation, Musharraf, hosts the Taliban and many other terrorist organizations.
I wrote on the War Powers Act thread a few days back that Matthew was wrong that it would be "illegal" for the President to attack without explicit Congressional authorization. So I won't reiterate that here - I refer back to that thread.
Interestingly, IIRC, this seems to parallel what happened with Haiti back in 1994. There were several votes on appropriations bills that would specifically have barred use of troops in Haiti. They failed (although there were, IIRC, "sense of the Congress" type resolutions that troops shouldn't be sent to Haiti without Congressional approval). I believe in those cases that the failures of Congress to cut off appropriations were taken by the executive branch as a form of go-ahead.
Well, it wouldn't be illegal under U.S. law for the president to invade Iran, but he would only have 90 days to do it, under the war powers act.
I think the relevant time limit under the War Powers Resolution is actually only 60 days.
Steve:
So you believe that a regime that has terrorist ties as great or greater than Iraq should be attacked? Well the Saudis were hosting Idi Amin, a mass murderer, at the time. The Saudis helped fund 9/11. The Saudis impeded our investigation of 9/11 and Khobar towers. The HIJACKERS WERE ALMOST ALL SAUDIS. You need to peddle this weak nonsense where they don't actually follow foreign policy.
Ouch. You sure told me off.
Since you are obviously just reading Bush/Rove talking points
That's a fair charge, considering I clearly stated I was quoting a speech given by a Republican Congressman on the floor of the House.
As part of the background material I supplied, I thought I might share the rationale that was advanced in favor of letting the President attack Iran without prior Congressional approval. I certainly don't endorse the rationale. Iran is not an emergency situation and, if the administration really wants to use military force, I see no reason why the people and their elected representatives shouldn't get a say in the process. Particularly because of that, you know, Constitution thing.
I apologize for apparently increasing your blood pressure.
Steve,
Thanks, very interesting. Any idea WHY Murtha and Waxman voted against?
The War Powers Act doesn't address pre-emptive actions. Iran has not attacked us or any of our allies.
A president doesn't have the power anywhere to initiate military action.
"A president doesn't have the power anywhere to initiate military action.
Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on October 4, 2006 07:02 PM"
We really don't here this point enough. There was a reason LBJ and Bush needed the likes of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution and such to justify their power. They needed some piece of legislation that could allow them to cover their asses, no matter how thinly they stretched the legislation's intent. Really, you only see presidents ignore Congress completely on this when it is about the Carribbean - Grenada, Haiti - because no one with power really cares enough to base any major policy on our actions in the Carribbean.
Steve:
Sorry, I think I conflated quotes you were reporting with your own commentary.
The Supreme Court ruled in a case a couple years back that constitutionally given powers couldn't be delegated to another branch of government. So the power to wage war is legislative. One can claim that this would hamstring a president who saw a nuclear sneak attack coming. But to take this most fundamental separation of powers and make it conform to modern circumstances would open the door to widespread constitutional reinterpretaion.
Having said that, it should be totally unneccessary to pass a law implying the president didn't have the right to start a war. Such legislation implies that a president does have such power.
No - you've got to vote for Wynn now, so that he can be defeated in the primary next time.
'Having said that, it should be totally unneccessary to pass a law implying the president didn't have the right to start a war. Such legislation implies that a president does have such power.'
I believe Hamilton made that same point in the federalist papers. Arguing that the Bill of Rights is worse than unnescessary. There is no need to amend a document, restricting the power of government when it was never written in the document that they had that power. You imply the power is there. Kind of like a modern government saying that at wartime they can in fact search without warrant because the 4th amendment implied a power not specified in the constitution.
No - you've got to vote for Wynn now, so that he can be defeated in the primary next time.
I know; I did some time for Donna Edwards' campaign to get that worthless pig out this time. Wynn's district is solid blue. I'm voting for anyone else.
"I think the relevant time limit under the War Powers Resolution is actually only 60 days."
Actually the only relevant time limit under the War Powers Resolution is the amount of time it takes congress to invoke the act.
If they don't do so you can keep the troops deployed for decades.
Who is going to stop them from doing what they want? Not this Congress. If Bush does something illegal, they will just change the Constitution retroactively to get him off the hook. With this crew in power there are no laws for them. It's a slam dunk that Bush will invade Iran before he's out of office. Maybe even before this election. Still waiting for that Oct. surprise.If they can finegel this election their way, it's the end of freedom in our great country
Comments closed October 18, 2006.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I'd like more details. Even in the good ol' days of formal declarations of war, presidents had some leeway to respond in self-defense, and one could imagine a scenario in which that might be necessary here--say, an Iranian attack in the Gulf. This is, of course, the barrel over which *any* President has *any* Congress; you want to check the executive, but not obstruct the protection of the nation. How do you craft legislation with loopholes just the right size? Did this particular bill do it?
Posted by David | October 4, 2006 5:24 PM