We American citizens have been allowing presidents and congress to assume too much power to carry out acts of war without their recognizing it as such or properly authorizing it. Consider the following six points.
First, we ought to consider the founder's intent when they gave war declaration powers solely(!) to congress. At the time they had no idea we'd be able to wage wars in ways other than 'boots on the ground' (jet aircraft, cruise missiles, etc). Attacking a sovereign country, to them, MEANT boots on the ground. That doesn't mean it's not a war if we have no boots on the ground when we attack by other means. I think the WPA may properly reframe the founders' intentions regarding the ways in which we can now conduct military actions. Would the founders believe that what we're doing in Libya is a 'war' and is a serious enough action to demand congress' involvement (as the peoples' representation in it) BEFORE attacking them? Clearly FDR thought so regarding Japan!
Second, another reasonable question is, is what we did in Libya an 'act of war'? Of course it is. Regardless of our reasons for doing so, we in fact attacked a sovereign country. I think that makes it a defacto war whether declared one or not. The founders understood that and so did FDR. That presidents can conduct acts of war without congress' input (and therefore in total disregard of the peoples' interest) is an affront to congress, the constitution and the American People who will pay the price of any 'unexpected' consequences.
Third, the reason Americans (via congress, the people's house) need and deserve more thoughtful consideration by the president (that includes congress) is that REAL wars start over much less than what we're doing in Libya. In fact world wars have begun over much less. Because of the potential for FAR worse consequences that the American people and congress could have to deal with, presidents should consult with congress, not even just 'advise' either. The WPA seems geared toward ensuring such consultation, not just advisement.
Libya is perfectly capable, for instance, of sending terrorists to America, England and France as retribution and to destroy our will to fight Libya further. Former Libyan Justice Minister Galil who recently resigned his post there said in February this year that Gadhafi has chemical and biological weapons and has no qualms about using them. The possibility that President Obama's attack on Libya could result in mass destruction actions on our homeland DEMANDS more careful consideration in consultation with congress BEFORE attacking them in the first place. American citizens could pay a heavy price in blood and money for what the president did in Libya. Considering we citizens could suffer serious consequences, wasn't it appropriate for the president to consult us via our representatives in The House BEFORE attacking Libya?
Fourth, such actions as President Obama's in Libya are in total opposition to historical precedence and interpretation of the constitution. Take WWII for example. Japan 'only' attacked part of our navy, they had no "boots on the ground" against us at that point and their attack wasn't even on our homeland (Hawaii wasn't a state yet). What was Roosevelt's response? He declared the lesser attack by Japan was "a day that shall live in infamy!" He declared before congress, "since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire". He said that we were in fact at war with each other from the moment they attacked our navy at Pearl Harbor and he asked congress to declare it officially (per constitutional requirements) so that he could respond with our military. What Japan did to us WAS AN ACT OF WAR which meant it WAS A WAR and Roosevelt knew it. So did the rest of the country. Certainly our more serious attack on Libya is an act of war and it is a war whether the president or congress want to call it that or not.
What we did to Libya was much worse than Japan's attack on us but our Libya attack isn't a war? We destroyed their air force and military communications ability. We bombed their government buildings, tanks, artillery, and troop formations engaging Libyan rebels. And we did it ON their homeland. How is this not a war but Japan's lesser attack on us was? The president has the audacity to say that because we didn't have "boots on the ground" in Libya, he doesn't need to consult with congress and it certainly isn't a war. My point, in consideration of the rest of this blog, is that Roosevelt was correct and President Obama was very, very wrong.
Fifth, the founders desired there to be a balance of powers among the branches of government for a reason. They believed that a balance of views AND intelligent consideration is necessary to keep powerful branches/people from doing something not in our best national interest and pursuing it without putting our best minds into the effort. The president is one man. Congress is full of very bright people some of whom have actually served and honored themselves in war.
For something that serious and potentially dangerous to our country, doesn't it make sense for the president to avail himself of the knowledge and judgment of congress before single-handedly and single-mindedly engaging the peoples'(!) resources in such a venture as Libya? Isn’t it just the smart thing to do to involve others who may have considerable expertise and wisdom? Why wouldn't he WANT to in order to give him cover for unintended consequences if for no other reason? In this context what he did seems insane. Is it okay for you to do something that has potentially serious consequences for your family without discussing it with your wife?
By the way, that was a lame excuse from the president that since NATO decided an attack on Libya was necessary he had to do it anyway which rendered consultation with congress moot. Huh? There is NO SUCH exception expressed anywhere in the constitution, the WPA or anywhere else. Our recent history is FULL of examples of NATO member countries NOT engaging in a war simply because NATO decided to do it. Some are even refusing to participate in the Libyan attacks. NO OTHER COUNTRY should ever control whether attacking a sovereign nation is required by us, much less acceptable or in our national interest.
Presidents who assume they don't need to consult congress before attacking a sovereign country are acting against the best interests of American citizens and against the constitution literally and in principle. Therefore, I think a strong case can be made that what President Obama did was not only a violation of the constitution and the WPA, it was a violation of his oath of office as well. And that would be an impeachable offense would it not?
No comments:
Post a Comment