DancesWithCamels

Let it be clearly understood—there is no authority to wage war without Congress passing a declaration of war. A UN or similarly alternative resolution authorizing the use of force, even if it were to come, cannot replace the legal process for the United States going to war as precisely defined in the Constitution. Only tyrants can take a nation to war without the consent of the people. Undeclared war is also unwise because of the many unforeseen consequences that are likely to result. Victory under such circumstances is always elusive and unintended consequences are inevitable.

In Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution the Framers made it explicitly clear regarding the specific enumerated powers given to the legislature: “The Congress shall have power to… declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.”

The Framers of the Constitution intended that the President not engage in war without an act of Congress thus effectively giving the President little power with regard to conducting war—the only exception being imminent attack on US territory. In fact the Framers chose the final wording with the intent of “leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks” without the explicit approval of Congress. Beyond this limited war-making authority the President is beholden to the legislature in matters of war and peace.

Since World War II, from Korea to Iraq, consecutive Congresses have abdicated their responsibility to the President. Essentially, Congress has abrogated Constitutional law and proved their monumental capacity for both blind ignorance and political cowardice.

It should come as no surprise then that, despite Congressional folly with respect to the Iraq war, potential war looms ominously on the horizon with Iran.

Which brings us to H.J. Resolution 362. Introduced in the House of May 22, 2008 by Congressman Marty Ackerman (NY) this resolution expresses “the sense of Congress regarding the threat posed to international peace, stability in the Middle East, and the vital national security interests of the United States by Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and regional hegemony, and for other purposes.” In addition to its Senate counterpart, Senate Resolution 580, H.J. Res. 362 was referred to the House Committee on Foreign Relations. While awaiting Congress to resume from its July 4^th break the bill currently has 220 cosponsors and is expected to easily pass under suspension.

What’s alarming about this proposed piece of legislation is that is virtually a declaration of war—in all but name only. In H.J. Res. 362 Congress “demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran’s nuclear program.”

This is an American attempt to virtually shut down all of Iran. No where in the text of the proposed resolution, however, does it explain from where the Constitutional, moral or international legality is derived. Moreover Iran is a signatory of the Non-Proliferation treaty and the enrichment of uranium for energy purposes is well within their legal rights. As such, prima facie, such a deliberately provocative and aggressive posture from one country towards another and cannot be any clearer sign than as casus belli.

Since President Bush first defined in 2002 the “Axis of Evil” fears over a potential US strike against Iran have steadily risen. For the last several weeks if not for months we have heard a lot more talk about either Israel and/or the United States attacking Iran. Despite last year’s National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which declared that Iran had suspended its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that there was no evidence that they were then enriching uranium for weapons purposes, both the US and Israel continue to aggressively discuss a preventative war with Iran without negotiations or talks.

Of course Congress will point to a clause buried within the text of the legislation which stipulates that “whereas nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran.” So there it is: saber-rattling. While the US may talk tough, the legislation prohibits the use of force against Iran.

Sound familiar? It should. In 1998 Congress passed a similar resolution with similar language. This time, however, it was directed to Iran’s neighbor to the west. House Resolution 4655 which was subsequently signed by then President Bill Clinton into US Public Law 105-338 was known as the “Iraq Liberation Act.”

The law, yes, US Public law, stated that “it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.” In addition to the removal of Saddam Hussein from power it provides additional provisions, among many, for “grant assistance for radio and television broadcasting to Iraq”; that “no assistance under this section shall be provided to any group within an organization designated in accordance with section 5 which group is, at the time the assistance is to be provided, engaged in military cooperation with the Saddam Hussein regime”; and “urges the President to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law.”

At the end of this particular bill it states that “Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act .” Section 4 (a)(2) deals with weapons transfers from US stocks to help aid and train anti-Saddam groups.

Of course we all went on and listened for years to the rhetoric and the propaganda inundating us about the dangers of Iraq, the threat it posed to US national security and its WMD programs. But the 1998 resolution wasn’t good enough. And yet once again, without a clear declaration of war, despite its Constitutional mandate, Congress gleefully signed away its responsibility—believing that it could support the war but remain unaccountable. In 2002 Congress passed H.J. Resolution 114 and President Bush signed Public Law No. 107-243 more affectionately known as “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.”

Congress went from prohibiting any use of force in 1998 to declaring in 2002 that “the President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to…(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.”

This is unbelievable. Despite everything that has happened in Iraq, record energy costs, increasing violence in the Middle East and the laughable threat that Iranians pose to the United States it is unfathomable that the US is on the verge of attacking Iran. More worrisome is that American politicians from both the right and the left have refused to remove all options from the table—up to and including a nuclear first strike on Iran.

If the severity of the “threat” of Iraq wasn’t true then it’s hard to believe now that Iran—who fought Iraq to a STANDSTILL over the course of 8 years—poses a similarly over-hyped threat today. The United States must look at this carefully and realize it cannot go to war under false, overblown or frivolous conditions. More importantly members of the United States Congress should fulfill their most sacred duty: to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.