RSS
Iustus causam belli?
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.
January 10th, 2013 at 1:34 am
First, it does not even remotely matter whether or not the U.S. ratified the UN Charter. The 2002 Iraq authorization passed Congress, making the action in that nation legal under US law. Even if the U.S. was not a member of the UN, Congress could certainly authorize military action in support of its resolutions. Without the UN resolutions, Congress could still authorize action…perfectly legslly under US law. End of story. Oh, the UN Charter was ratified by the Senate on July 28, 1945.
Saddam was a sadistic tyrant. The only way to prevent him from killing more of his own people and others in the region was to depose him. I wish a surgical strike or a single bullet had been employed rather than a full scale invasion. As it were, a more robust and flawed war was settled upon. I certainly admit that the ends do not justify the means. But as a morally justified matter removing Saddam can hardly be called into question.
January 10th, 2013 at 11:44 am
Bill, can Congress write and pass a law that says the fourth-most senior Supreme Court Justice can exclusively write, pass, and interpret federal tax law?
January 10th, 2013 at 8:29 pm
They certainly can. It may not hold up to constitutional scrutiny but that wasn’t the question.
For the record, I don’t believe in ghosts, monsters, the Easter Bunny or in titles of royalty either
January 12th, 2013 at 11:24 am
>>Saddam was a sadistic tyrant. The only way to prevent him from killing more of his own people and others in the region was to depose him.
Is this then America’s God given role in the rest of the world then, to depose tyrants? Or does that only apply to tyrants we put in power who have a bunch of oil and have decided to stop taking dollars for oil?
Since we put Hussein in power, and the guy before him, what is your level of certainty that this new government, one whose constitution explicitly says all laws must be based on the Koran, won’t turn out equally despotic?
God only knows how many people have died in Iraq since we went in there on your holy mission to depose Hussein. You pick a number. Now please compare that number to the number Hussein killed and give us some moral justification for the number of deaths we are responsible for.
January 12th, 2013 at 2:43 pm
That really is the essential question, Dean. Are our politics driven by some ideology or are they an expression of our prudential judgment based on a totality of the circumstances in any given example? That is to say, if we are driven by an ideology, then we are essentially saying that we can bring peace (prosperity, equality, whatever) to the world by following whatever plan it is we advocate. The other option is realizing that there is no one-size-fits-all prescription and that each circumstance must be met on its own terms in its own context.
The mentality that the United States is responsible to deliver democratic and economic freedom to the oppressed of the world is the epitome of ideological expression. It is utopian at its base. And, it is a widespread and pervasive evil that can only ever deliver greater strife, warfare, poverty, and misery.
January 13th, 2013 at 10:22 am
Mike wrote: “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. … the 107th Congress passed public law 243-107 in 2002 … [in which] the Congress told the President that he could take such action as he deemed necessary … ”
The following has been a “go-to” piece for me in this matter ever since I discovered it several years ago, for the variety of excellent points I think it raises. Long, but IMO well worth the read: “Iraq, Al Quaeda, and Congress’ Power to Declare War” (July 1, 2008).
One of those points echoes Mike’s understanding about Congress “authorizing” the President to take whatever action HE eemed necessary:
I’m no lawyer or constitutional scholar, but it seems to me that Congress’ duty is to declare war, and the President’s duty is to prosecute the war once it’s been declared. I don’t see Congress as being permitted by the Constitution to “authorize” the President to “use his own judgment” as to whether or not military force is necessary.
(BTW, I haven’t done html in at least a year. Hope this renders properly!)
January 14th, 2013 at 5:51 pm
There appears to be no end in sight, with <a href="35 more countries", http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/01/the-war-on-terror-spreads-to-africa-u-s-sending-troops-to-35-african-nations.html to be the beneficiaries of Bill’s gospel.