Congress can rescind authorization to use military force to end Iraq War & strip Bush of war powers

[yurbud]

This author suggests repealing the open-ended authorization of military force Congress gave Bush to go into Afghanistan that he has used as the excuse for all his unconstitutional acts from illegal wiretapping,to denying habeas rights, to his signing statements, all supposedly as part of his war powers.

While the author doesn't say this, I don't see why this could not also be done with the Iraq War Resolution.


Dennis Kucinich has suggested defunding the war as was done in Vietnam as a way to end it, and Randi Rhodes and others have said we should defund private contractors (any functions that couldn't be turned over to Iraqis or our military would be converted to COST not cost plus).

While both have their merits, I could see the Bushies lacking the grace of Nixon and Ford to see that the war was over then, and in the case of defunding military operations, Bush & Cheney might just leave them over there without bullets and blame the Democrats for our soldiers being defenseless.

This approach makes more sense, and would have more teeth than passing resolutions that strongly suggest we maybe just might want to possibly consider a timetable for withdrawal (which invariably gets loaded down with a lot of "ifs" if order is restored, etc.).

November 22, 2006

The First Task of the New Congress

By DAVE LINDORFF



The first thing Democrats need to do when they walk into the Senate and House chambers this January is to vote out a joint resolution repealing the September 18, 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which was the authorization for the U.S. attack Al Qaeda forces and the Taliban government of Afghanistan.

That AUMF has been used, wholly inappropriately and wantonly, by President Bush as the justification for his assault on the US Constitution, for his willful violation of laws domestic and international, and for his unconstitutional usurpation of legislative and judicial power.

The president has claimed that the AUMF, far from simply being an authorization to go to war against Afghanistan and against the Al Qaeda organization there, was an open-ended authorization for him to initiate an unending "War on Terror," which he has subsequently claimed has no boundaries, and will be fought around the globe and within the U.S.

Bush has further claimed, without a shred of Constitutional authority, that this AUMF makes him commander in chief in that never-ending global conflict, and that as commander in chief, he is not bound by either law or Constitution. It is this spurious and sweeping claim of dictatorial power that the president has used to justify his signing statements, which he has used to render inoperative in whole or in part some 850 or more acts passed by Congress since 9-11. It is this same claim that the president has used to justify his deliberate violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act-a felony and violation of the Fourth Amendment.

It is likewise this AUMF that he has used to justify his authorization of torture, kidnapping and detention without charge, his refusal to answer legitimate requests for information from Congress and the 9-11 commission, and his ignoring of direct orders from the federal courts.

{snip}

There is no justification for the continuation of the 2001 AUMF. Afghanistan is no longer a war. The U.S. is simply contributing military assets to a NATO action in that country at the request of the elected government in Kabul. Such an action requires no AUMF. Meanwhile, the prevention of terror is clearly an intelligence and police issue, not a war. It too does not require an AUMF.

A simple majority vote of House and Senate would put the U.S. Constitution back in place, and would restore the balance of power between executive, legislative and judicial branches.


FULL TEXT:
http://counterpunch.com/lindorff11222006.html

[Kagemusha]

1. A ceremonial act that would have no power over the Iraq conflict

The Commander in Chief has full command of forces already in the field. He has broad authority to make decisions concerning the well-being of the country once it is already embroiled in a conflict.

What Congress can do is cut the damn money supply off.

All this backtracking on the AUMF and so on and so forth is simply laying the legal groundwork to resist the next war of choice. That is a good thing. However, it won't do a damned thing about Iraq.

[yurbud]

3. good points.

[PATRICK]

7. More bluntly subtle

Demand a real accountability for all monies requested and harsh punishments for offending contractors. That would be enough to set the WH back on its rear. Allocate funds specifically to improving the soldier's defense and the real situation as shield against the "Saddam-like" ploy of letting the soldiers die in order to blame democrats for not writing blank checks.

Kucinich is perfectly justified in going the full step according to the powers of the House. THAT might be as unlikely as seeking immediate impeachment. The numbers for the starting of the juggernaut might be their for the one step at a time approach that not only does the job but saves lives trapped in the hands of incompetence. This WH has to be herded and guided safely to ground and the implicit challenge laid effectually down against all NEW agenda advances and horrors. The reaction has to be stated even if it doesn't happen. It should. The reaffirmation and Congressional pendulum swing against the executive can be argued for simply because of the extraordinary crisis, but ironically, the repressed numbers due to GOP fraud makes it necessary to travel a more grinding, deliberate road. That repression can be converted into a stronger dynamism for forcibly shifting and directing than directly changing the executive.

Their own desperate conservation of power can be directed effectively against them to bring about change where the paths to immediate satisfaction have been all blocked off. The equal pressure has in part the necessity of progressive members to keep pushing for the full answer which is as yet- under WH tyranny and blithering sycophant news- impossible.

When the press and people- and even significant parts of the ruined GOP- demand the clearer actions- then the "centrist" Congress on its implacable course toward democracy and reform can accelerate. The concentration of what is on the plate of the Congress is one of many false spins. The discourse of the nation and the reformation of the GOP is where more or at least equal weight should fall.

[Trajan]

2. From November 11, 2006

A snippet of one of my posts:


"The IWR was the congressional assent for the executive branch to conduct war operations in Iraq ... Per the US Constitution; declarations of war are the province of congress, NOT the executive branch ....

It is the responsibility of the CIC to EXECUTE war that is declared by congress .... He is a General of Generals ... He who conducts war that is declared by congress ....

I dont know enough about any precedent that involves the reversal of a declaration of war by a congress that originally declared war, but certainly it is worth looking into how such actions can be reversed legally ..."


This is a constitutional gray area .... I suppose that they can certainly use the power of congress to repeal the IWR, and watch as the Bush WH ignores it ....

The jury is still out on this ....

[yurbud]

4. did it get any response?

[Kagemusha]

5. Well, the crux is that Congress hasn't declared war for so long,

how can Congress declare a war to have ended that it didn't declare having begun in the first place?

My memory vaguely recalls an undeclared naval war with France very early in the US' post-independence history so, this is NOT a new problem. This is not to say that the problem was resolved. In extremis, the methods available are as follows:

- Cut off the money.
- Declare a conflict to be over.
- Impeaching any President who ignores Congress' will on the matter.

But, today's political environment does not favor any of the three. That's because, when push comes to shove, even this new Congress is largely on the side of "winning" the war in Iraq, or at least bleeping it up less, rather than withdrawing from the area completely and leaving it to Iran's tender loving care unchallenged.

[The Deej]

6. Iraq

Why would "winning" be such a bad idea?

[Kagemusha]

8. It's not the idea that's so bad.

It's that it's not realistic whatsoever.

[Trajan]

10. Do you honestly expect win ? ....

Do you have to destroy the country to save it ? ....

It's obvious you are one of the 20% or so who support war at ANY cost, even if it bankrupts, financially and ethically, your own nation ....

As a member of the 66% who disagree with you : This is our nation too .... We will NOT follow your advice or counsel ....

Your following a bunch of liars over a cliff .... Dont blame us for your failures ....

[Igel]

9. I don't think it could.

Under most rules of order a committee (Congress being a large, special committee) can't rescind a motion that's already been implemented. Once a contract's signed and valid, a committee can't vote to "unsign" it, although it may be empowered to authorize breaking it and seeking to have it voided.

Moreover, Congress doesn't even have the authority to unilaterally declare a war over--it might well not matter in the least that no war was actually declared.

Congress can defund the military, but to my recollection it's never done so while Americans were in the field. In Vietnam we were officially at peace with the north and had pulled almost all our troops out by the time Congress cut off funding for Vietnam.