- SEN. ROBERT BYRD DENOUNCES WHITE HOUSE WAR PLANS AS VIOLATION
OF CONSTITUTION AND INTERNAITONAL LAW.
-
- Senior Democratic Senator Robert Byrd, from West Virginia,
made further remarks to the Senate on Oct. 3, as debate opened on Senate
Joint Resolution 46, a resolution authorizing the President to use whatever
force he deems necessary in Iraq or elsewhere.
-
- In a statement, "Rush to War Ignores U.S Constitution,"
Byrd began:
-
- "The great Roman historian, Titus Livius, said,
'All things will be clear and distinct to the man who does not hurry; haste
is blind and improvident.' 'Blind and improvident,' Mr. President. ['Blind
and improvident.'
-
- "Congress would be wise to heed those words today,
for as sure as the sun rises in the east, we are embarking on a course
of action with regard to Iraq that, in its haste, is both blind and improvident.
We are rushing into war without fully discussing why, without thoroughly
considering the consequences, or without making any attempt to explore
what steps we might take to avert conflict."
-
- Condemning the "newly bellicose mood that permeates
this White House" as "motivated by campaign politics," Byrd
went to the heart of the issue, that the resolution violates the Constitution
and internaitonal law: "The resolution before us today is not only
a product of haste; it is also a product of Presidential hubris. This resolution
is breathtaking in its scope. It redefines the nature of defense, and reinterprets
the Constitution to suit the will of the Executive Branch. It would give
the President blanket authority to launch a unilateral preemptive attack
on a sovereign nation that is perceived to be a threat to the United States.
This is an unprecedented and unfounded interpretation of the President's
authority under the Constitution, not to mention the fact that it stands
the charter of the United Nations on its head."
-
- Byrd quoted from a letter of then-Representative Abraham
Lincoln, who warned: "Allow the President to invade a neighboring
nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you
allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary
for such purpose--and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see
if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given
him so much as you propose. If, to-day, he should choose to say he thinks
it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us,
how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the
British invading us' but he will say to you 'be silent; I see it, if you
don't.'"
-
- "The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making
power to Congress," according to Lincoln's letter, "was dictated,
as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving
and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always,
that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood
to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved
to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing
this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places
our President where kings have always stood."
-
- The question Byrd posed was: "If he could speak
to us today, what would Lincoln say of the Bush doctrine concerning preemptive
strikes?"
-
- The senior Senator continued, with reference to a Sept.
18 report by the Congressional Research Service, which documented that
"the United States has never, to date, engaged in a 'preemptive' military
attack against another nation. Nor has the United States ever attacked
another nation militarily prior to its first having been attacked or prior
to US citizens or interests first having been attacked, with the singular
exception of the Spanish-American War.... [in which the] principal goal
of United States military action was to compel Spain to grant Cuba its
political independence." The same body reported that the Cuban Missile
Crisis of 1962 "represents a threat situation which some may argue
had elements more parallel to those presented by Iraq today; but it was
resolved without a 'preemptive' military attack by the United States."
-
- The U.S. Constitution leaves no doubts regarding the
distribution of powers, Byrd made clear: "Article I, Section 8, of
the Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war and to call forth
the militia 'to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and
repel Invasions.' Nowhere in the Constitution is it written that the President
has the authority to call forth the militia to preempt a perceived threat.
And yet, the resolution before the Senate avers that the President 'has
authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent
acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress
recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Miliary
Force' following the September 11 terrorist attack. What a cynical twisting
of words! The reality is that Congress, exercising the authority granted
to it under the Constitution, granted the President specific and limited
authority to use force against the perpetrators of the September 11 attack.
Nowhere was there an implied recognition of inherent authority under the
Constitution to 'deter and prevent' future acts of terrorism.
-
- "Think for a moment of the precedent that this resolution
will set, not just for this President but for future Presidents. From this
day forward, American Presidents will be able to invoke Senate Joint Resolution
46 as justification for launching preemptive military strikes against any
sovereign nations that they perceive to be a threat. Other nations will
be able to hold up the United States as the model to justify their military
adventures. Do you not think that India and Pakistan, China and Taiwan,
Russia and Georgia are closely watching the outcome of this debate? Do
you not think that future adversaries will look to this moment to rationalize
the use of military force to achieve who knows what ends? Perhaps a case
can be made that Iraq poses such a clear and immediate danger to the United
States that preemptive military ation is the only way to deal with the
threat. To be sure, weapons of mass destruction are a 20th century horror
that the Framers of the Constitution had no way of foreseeing. But they
did foresee the frailty of human nature and the inherent danger of concentrating
too much power in one individual. That is why the Framers bestowed on Congress,
not the President, the power to declare war.... "Congress has a responsibility
to exercise with extreme care the power to declare war. There is no weightier
matter to be considered."
-
- Byrd went on to detail the cost of war in lives, in regional
consequences, and in financial terms. He reiterated that it is Congress,
not the White House, which must decide: "The President is using the
Oval Office as a bully pulpit to sound the call to arms, but it is from
Capitol Hill that such orders must flow."
-
- Stressing the fact that he was not defending Saddam Hussein,
Byrd continued: "But the principle of one government deciding to eliminate
another government, using force to do so, and taking that action in spite
of world disapproval, is a very disquieting thing. I am concerned that
it has the effect of destabilizing the world community of nations. I am
concerned that it fosters a climate of suspicion and mistrust in U.S. relations
with other nations. The United States is not a rogue nation, given to unilateral
action in the face of worldwide opprobrium."
-
- The Senator expressed his concerns regarding the military
and political consequences of a war against Iraq, arguing that Iraq would
not capitulate, which would require an invasion force, and perhaps occupation
force. He emphasized that the UN is the body to deal with the danger of
weapons of amss destruction, and concluded, again urging caution and against
haste.
|
