Bill asserts that the US action in Iraq in 2003 was just and that it was authorized properly by Congress, and that said authorization did not violate the Constitution. I disagree.
I’ve been trying for some time now to find which treaty lawfully entered into and binding upon the United States or what law passed by Congress joined the US to the United Nations. Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin attended a conference at Yalta and, subsequently, Roosevelt sent the text of the so-called “Atlantic Charter” to Congress as a fait-accompli. I haven’t ever been much of an FDR booster, but perhaps Bill is.
In any event, the 107th Congress passed public law 243-107 in 2002. As the text of that long-winded bit of legal puffery makes clear, the Congress told the President that he could take such action as he deemed necessary 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.” Since, as the “whereases” make clear, the only threat posed to the US by Iraq was because US troops were in the Gulf region pursuant to another UN set of resolutions from 1990, and which were the direct result of US provision of Saddam’s regime, it would seem manifestly apparent that the basis upon which the US felt threatened was its own actions, and not those of Iraq as a sovereign nation. Furthermore, Al Qaeda under Bin Laden existed only because the US entered Saudi territory, considered holy ground to the Wahabbist fanatic who created Al Qaeda. Hence, Al Qaeda would not have threatened the US (and could not, therefore, have been a threat to the US in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Antarctica) had the US not decided to have the UN Security Council give it resolutions to disarm the country it originally armed (Iraq).
Many a reprobate dictator has laden his people with a yoke impossible to bear. Indeed, some still do; yet, the US does not feel and is not threatened by said despots, nor are her interests threatened by these. Consequently, it is not just, is not a last resort, and is not necessary to intervene from a Constitutional standpoint. The US is a legal entity, a nation of laws. It is not a moral or religious institution. Assuredly, it has often appealed to moral and ethical standards for justification for its actions; however noble this may seem or in fact be, the fact remains that it is a legal entity, governed by laws, and bound to uphold them most especially in the Constitution, as per the Supremacy Clause. Its mandate is to form a more perfect Union, not free the world’s oppressed and downtrodden.
The Congress does not have the authority to cede its Constitutional delegated powers, to wit: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;” indeed, there was no threat of invasion. There was no insurrection. There was no violation of US Law. There is no treaty with the United Nations. Invading Iraq was not a last resort. It was not better than the chaos which was foreseeable and which has ensued. It was and remains a failure of gigantic proportions which has placed Shiite extremists in power (and which we were before and supposedly are now opposed to, as they are supported by Iran, further allowing them to foment the very terror we ostensibly set out to thwart). Finally, it is a failure of conservatism, of traditionalism, of limited government and the rule of law.