By
Raconteur at Large
Stephen Pizzo
December 21, 2005
Posted in its entirety by permission of the authorPresident Bush keeps saying it -- “We are at war.” He says it most often when he is caught violating domestic or international laws and the U.S. Constitution itself.
There's a lot wrong with all that, but one thing in particular – we're not at war.
Article I, section 8, clause 11, of the Constitution grants to Congress the power "to declare War." As Hamilton noted in 1793, this was an "exception" to the general grant of "executive power" to the President, and intended to be narrowly construed.
The last time I checked Congress has not declared war. In fact the last time Congress formally declared War was on December 11, 1941 after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.
What Congress did give the President permission to do in October 2002 in a joint resolution was to use the US military, if necessary, to force Saddam Hussein to comply with numerous UN resolutions regarding his weapons programs. Saddam continued being too cute by half and Bush pulled the trigger.
We can argue the rest of our lives whether Bush should have pulled the trigger why he did, whether he always intended to and whether he pulled a fast one on Congress. But those are minor issues compared to the key question: are we or are we not "at war," as defined in the US Constitution?
Once war is legally declared by Congress the President's role as Commander-in-Chief expands his authority in ways difficult to challenge, logically or legally.
But – and this is an enormous but – if we are not at war President Bush has broken the law, and not just one law, but many laws, and not just once, but countless times.
So, are we at war?
Not as far as the U.S. Constitution is concerned. Congress has not declared war and only they can.
Strange, isn't it, that it's conservatives who become sexually aroused at the very mention of the U.S. Constitution, now treat it as inconvenience? These folks, the very ones who deride federal "activist" judges for twisting and stretching the Constitution to achieve social goals, now find imaginary powers in it themselves.
And now they dare not stop. In for a ounce, in for a pound. Laws have been broken. People could go to jail. Their leader could be impeached.
Articles of Impeachment
U.S. vs. George W. Bush
For using the US Military in gross and ongoing violation of the 1973 War Powers Act
For causing the CIA to violate provisions in it's 1947 charter and as outlined in the 1947 National Security Act, specially those provision prohibiting domestic spying
For gross violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, specifically section 502,
For violating the National Security Act, Section 105 (f) relating to FISA authorization allowing for emergency applications where time is of the essence.
For violation of National Security Act of 1978, FISA section 111 which states:
“Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this title to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed 15 calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.”
For knowingly and purposely violating the civil rights of an unknown number of American citizens on US soil, including but not limited to the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution.
For authorizing US forces and agents of the US government to engage in various illegal activities both on US soil in violation of US laws and aboard in violation of foreign national and/or international laws. These violations include, but are not limited to, kidnapping, false imprisonment, denial of due process and physical abuse including torture as defined by International law.
Bush, Cheney and Attorney General Gonzalez have been more than a little fuzzy about just what clauses of the US Constitutes, laws or statutes give them these extraordinary wartime authorities. When really pushed they cite the October 2002 joint resolution authorizing force against Iraq. The only trouble is, it doesn't. In fact, rather than giving the President wartime powers, it specially limits his powers:
“Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.”
So the October 2002 resolution only gave the President authority to use of “force” against Iraq. It didn't declare war on Iraq. It didn't declare a worldwide “war against terrorism.” And no where did it authorize extraordinary wartime powers to wiretap or electronically spy on American citizens within their own country. If that's what they want to do they can, but only after getting the nod from a FISA Court judge.
They didn't. So they broke the law. Pretty cut and dry, I'd say. So where are those right wing constitutional absolutists now?
The administration is now in too deep to back down. Too many laws have been broken and too much blood spilled. So, they continue to insist we are “at war.” That's their story and they're sticking to it.
Sorta like when another president angrily declared, “Listen to me. I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”
Only bigger.
Breaking News:
WASHINGTON Dec 21, 2005 — A federal judge has resigned from the FISA Court, a special court set up to oversee government surveillance, apparently in protest of President Bush's secret authorization of a domestic spying program on people with suspected terrorist ties....U.S. District Judge James Robertson would not comment Wednesday on his resignation, but The Washington Post reported that it stemmed from deep concern that the surveillance program Bush authorized was legally questionable and may have tainted the work of the court.
"News With Nuts"
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
