Boston.com
by Carol Rose, On Liberty
While President Obama is hobnobbing with the Queen of England, Congressional insiders back in Washington are quietly trying to dismantle our system of checks and balances – the very thing that distinguishes us from a monarchy.
Starting with Article I of our Constitution – the one that gives Congress the sole power “To Declare War” – members of the House Armed Services Committee are trying to sneak a provision into a “must pass” defense authorization bill to give the president – any president – the unchecked power to unilaterally declare war.
The proposed provision would enable a president to take our country to war wherever, whenever, and however he or she sees fit. The plan would even permit the President to use military force within the United States and against U.S. citizens – without any showing that national security is at stake.
How dare members of Congress abdicate their Constitutional duty to oversee war powers at a time when so many of our sons and daughters in uniform are laying down their lives for their country in escalating conflicts around the world?
Where is Congress’ sense of duty, honor and country – not to mention understanding of basic checks and balances?
No wonder the folks pushing this bill tried to sneak it in without a public hearing!
by Carol Rose, On Liberty
Starting with Article I of our Constitution – the one that gives Congress the sole power “To Declare War” – members of the House Armed Services Committee are trying to sneak a provision into a “must pass” defense authorization bill to give the president – any president – the unchecked power to unilaterally declare war.
The proposed provision would enable a president to take our country to war wherever, whenever, and however he or she sees fit. The plan would even permit the President to use military force within the United States and against U.S. citizens – without any showing that national security is at stake.
How dare members of Congress abdicate their Constitutional duty to oversee war powers at a time when so many of our sons and daughters in uniform are laying down their lives for their country in escalating conflicts around the world?
Where is Congress’ sense of duty, honor and country – not to mention understanding of basic checks and balances?
No wonder the folks pushing this bill tried to sneak it in without a public hearing!
Given my lifelong preference for democratic republics over either monarchies or dictatorships, I’m dubious when elected leaders screw around with our system of checks and balances – doubly so when they try to pool power in the Executive Branch of government and the military.
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon, a Republican of California, reportedly is behind this effort to gut the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force on the sly – without public hearing or debate.
Compare this to the fifteen hearings that Congress held in 2002 when it passed the Authorization for the Use of Military Force for the Iraq War. Back then, Congress also publicly debated and passed an AUMF that cited specific harms, set limits, and defined a clear objective that, if met, would effectively terminate the AUMF.
NOTE: Rep. McKeon also is a guy who reportedly wants “more Arizona-like state laws where people are asked for papers” – sort of like the system the East Germans had under the Stasi.
As the House prepares to vote on this week on the proposal,early news report state that President Obama has threatened to veto the defense reauthorization bill if these clearly unconstitutional provisions are included. I hope it’s true.
If Rep. McKeon and others in Congress have reason to believe that there is a significant new threat to the national security of the United States that requires significant military force as a response, they should declare war or enact a new bill Authorizing the Use of Military Force.
Anything less is just a sneak attack on our system of checks and balances.
America Civil Liberties Union
Congress may soon vote on a new declaration of worldwide war without end, and without clear enemies. A “sleeper provision” deep inside defense bills pending before Congress could become the single biggest hand-over of unchecked war authority from Congress to the executive branch in modern American history.
President Obama has not sought new war authority. In fact, his administration has made clear that it believes it already has all of the authority that it needs to fight terrorism.
But Congress is considering monumental new legislation that would grant the president – and all presidents after him – sweeping new power to make war almost anywhere and everywhere. Unlike previous grants of authority for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, the proposed legislation would allow a president to use military force wherever terrorism suspects are present in the world, regardless of whether there has been any harm to U.S. citizens, or any attack on the United States, or any imminent threat of an attack. The legislation is broad enough to permit a president to use military force within the United States and against American citizens. The legislation contains no expiration date, and no criteria to determine when a president’s authority to use military force would end.
Of all of the powers that the Constitution assigns to Congress, no power is more fundamental or important than the power “to declare War.” That is why, in 2002, when Congress was considering whether to authorize war in Iraq, it held fifteen hearings, and passed legislation that cited specific harms, set limits, and defined a clear objective. Now, Congress is poised to give unchecked authority to the executive branch to use military force worldwide, with profoundly negative consequences for our fundamental democratic system of checks and balances. Once Congress expands the president’s war power, it will be nearly impossible to rein it back in. The ACLU strongly opposes a wholesale turnover of war power from Congress to the president – and all of his successors.
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon, a Republican of California, reportedly is behind this effort to gut the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force on the sly – without public hearing or debate.
Compare this to the fifteen hearings that Congress held in 2002 when it passed the Authorization for the Use of Military Force for the Iraq War. Back then, Congress also publicly debated and passed an AUMF that cited specific harms, set limits, and defined a clear objective that, if met, would effectively terminate the AUMF.
NOTE: Rep. McKeon also is a guy who reportedly wants “more Arizona-like state laws where people are asked for papers” – sort of like the system the East Germans had under the Stasi.
As the House prepares to vote on this week on the proposal,early news report state that President Obama has threatened to veto the defense reauthorization bill if these clearly unconstitutional provisions are included. I hope it’s true.
If Rep. McKeon and others in Congress have reason to believe that there is a significant new threat to the national security of the United States that requires significant military force as a response, they should declare war or enact a new bill Authorizing the Use of Military Force.
Anything less is just a sneak attack on our system of checks and balances.
America Civil Liberties Union
New Authorization of Worldwide War Without End?
 |
Oppose New Worldwide War Authority |
President Obama has not sought new war authority. In fact, his administration has made clear that it believes it already has all of the authority that it needs to fight terrorism.
But Congress is considering monumental new legislation that would grant the president – and all presidents after him – sweeping new power to make war almost anywhere and everywhere. Unlike previous grants of authority for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, the proposed legislation would allow a president to use military force wherever terrorism suspects are present in the world, regardless of whether there has been any harm to U.S. citizens, or any attack on the United States, or any imminent threat of an attack. The legislation is broad enough to permit a president to use military force within the United States and against American citizens. The legislation contains no expiration date, and no criteria to determine when a president’s authority to use military force would end.
Of all of the powers that the Constitution assigns to Congress, no power is more fundamental or important than the power “to declare War.” That is why, in 2002, when Congress was considering whether to authorize war in Iraq, it held fifteen hearings, and passed legislation that cited specific harms, set limits, and defined a clear objective. Now, Congress is poised to give unchecked authority to the executive branch to use military force worldwide, with profoundly negative consequences for our fundamental democratic system of checks and balances. Once Congress expands the president’s war power, it will be nearly impossible to rein it back in. The ACLU strongly opposes a wholesale turnover of war power from Congress to the president – and all of his successors.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I want to hear from you but any comment that advocates violence, illegal activity or that contains advertisements that do not promote activism or awareness, will be deleted.