Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Attack Iran, Ignore the Constitution

By Jeremy Brecher and Brendan L. Smith, The Nation. Posted April 24, 2006.


We must challenge the administration's assertion that the president can take military action without consulting Congress.
Advertisement

During the 2004 election, George W. Bush famously proclaimed that he didn't have to ask anyone's permission to defend America. Does that mean he can attack Iran without having to ask Congress? A new Congressional resolution being drafted by Representative Peter DeFazio, a Democrat from Oregon, can be a vehicle to remind Bush that he can't.

Bush is calling news reports of plans to attack Iran "wild speculation" and declaring that the United States is on a "diplomatic" track. But asked this week if his options included planning for a nuclear strike, he repeated that "all options are on the table."

The President is acting as if the decisions that may get us into another war are his to make and his alone. So the Iran crisis poses not only questions of military feasibility and political wisdom but of Constitutional usurpation.

Bush's top officials openly assert that he can do anything he wants--including attacking another country--on his authority as Commander in Chief.

Last October, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was asked by members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee whether the President would circumvent Congressional authorization if the White House chose military action against Iran or Syria. She answered, "I will not say anything that constrains his authority as Commander in Chief."

When pressed by Senator Paul Sarbanes about whether the Administration can exercise a military option without an authorization from Congress, Rice replied, "The President never takes any option off the table, and he shouldn't."

The founders of the American Republic were deeply concerned that the President's power to make war might become the vehicle for tyranny. So they crafted a Constitution that included checks and balances on presidential power, among them an independent Congress and judiciary, an executive power subject to laws written by Congress and interpreted by the courts, and an executive power to repel attacks but not to declare or finance war.

But the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war, as laid out in the 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States and reiterated in 2006, claims for the President the power to attack other countries--like Iran--simply because he asserts they pose a threat. It thereby removes the decision of war and peace from Congress and gives it the President. It is, as Senator Robert Byrd put it, "unconstitutional on its face."

Congressional Response

DeFazio is now preparing a resolution underscoring the fact that the President cannot initiate military action against Iran without Congressional authorization. He is seeking support from other House members.

"The imperial powers claimed by this Administration are breathtaking in their scope. Unfortunately, too many of my colleagues were willing to cede our constitutional authorities to the President prior to the war in Iraq. We've seen how that turned out," DeFazio told The Nation. "Congress can't make the same mistake with respect to Iran. Yet the constant drumbeat we're hearing out of the Administration, in the press, from think tanks, etc., on Iran eerily echoes what we heard about Iraq.

"It likely won't be long until we hear from the President that he can take pre-emptive military action against Iran without Congressional authorization, which is what he originally argued about Iraq. Or that Congress has already approved action against Iran via some prior vote, which he also argued about Iraq," DeFazio said. "That is why it is so important to put the Administration, my colleagues and the American people on notice now that such arguments about unilateral presidential war powers have no merit. Our nation's founders were clear on this issue. There is no ambiguity."

There is considerable evidence that military action against Iran has already started. Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner (ret.) told CNN that "the decision has been made and military operations are under way." He said the Iranian ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency recently told him that the Iranians have captured dissident units "and they've confessed to working with the Americans." Journalist Seymour Hersh wrote in The New Yorker that "American combat troops are now operating in Iran." He quotes a government consultant who told him that the units were not only identifying targets but "studying the terrain, and giving away walking-around money to ethnic tribes, and recruiting scouts from local tribes and shepherds."

Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio has written to Bush, noting, "The presence of US troops in Iran constitutes a hostile act against that country" and urged him to report immediately to Congress on all activities involving American forces in Iran.


Digg!

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Leave IRAN alone
Posted by: thinkverybig on Apr 24, 2006 1:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What have they done to us? Nothing. So leave Iran the hell alone. They have a right to develop whatever they choose. This is such a simple issue. If you have a gun, how in the hell can you tell someone else that they can't have one? That's insane.

I hope BUSH wakes up before he continues sending this country down the tube.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Leave IRAN alone Posted by: willymack
whoop
Posted by: solarjin on Apr 24, 2006 1:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I must say the breadth of anti-war coverage on this site and generaly speaking of fury within the populace gives me several breaths of new hope. End tyranny. Long live democracy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mr. Bush goes to Washington with a loaded AK-47 of bullshit.
Posted by: solarjin on Apr 24, 2006 3:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"During the 2004 election, George W. Bush famously proclaimed that he didn't have to ask anyone's permission to defend America."

Does that mean he is a TYRANT? He's a representative administrator of the people/congress! He needs our approval to hold office!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

nuke Iran?
Posted by: writerman on Apr 24, 2006 4:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When the President was asked a direct question last week about the possibility of a nuclear strike on Iran, he didn't use this golden opportunity to finally lay to rest this ghastly speculation, on the contrary. His refusal to deny that such planning exists, and his reply, that 'it was still on the table', is truly shocking. We are talking about initiating nuclear war in the Middle East. Everything Bush said backs Seymor Hersh's core contention in his article in the New Yorker, that many Washington insiders are deeply concerned that the Bush Whitehouse may be moving towards advocacy of actually using nuclear weapons against Iran. A state that poses no imminent threat to the United States or its interests. A state that does not possess nuclear weapons. I probably don't need to say this, but attacking Iran with nukes would be the ultimate warcrime and a negation of all civilized values. It would be a true watershed in American history. I'm really not sure that 'Democracy' in the United States could survive such an act of heinous agression. It would entail crossing a moral line into a new, darker, world, and America assuming the role of global outlaw and assasin. Once this line was crossed, would there ever, realistically, be a way back again to normalcy? Is this perhaps the whole grisly point of the exercise? What might the consequences of terrorist acts of retaliation on American soil be? The stakes are very high. The Statue of Liberty would be replaced by a giant momument to the Hindu God, Kali, bringer of death, destroyer of worlds.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Kali Ma Posted by: mazel
It's not just limited to war powers.
Posted by: Longdream on Apr 24, 2006 4:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's a guy who declassifies information with a word so as to put paid to the indictment of a leaker (the least he could do for someone taking the fall for his uplinks), and spits in our faces after breaking the law so he can wiretap Americans.

Dumbass frat boys don't like rules.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

MORE OF THE SAME
Posted by: symcokid on Apr 24, 2006 5:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When Bush circumvents the Constitution once again, we will hear the same old BS. "This is is what the American people want.". or he will proclaim, " Based on Israeli Intelligence." Iran won't be a Cakewalk and they won't be welcoming us with open arms!

This guy must think other World Powers will ignore our Bullying, Devastation and Plundering indefinitely.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A COMBAT VET WEIGHS IN.................
Posted by: kc10ken on Apr 24, 2006 5:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I served in both the Army and the Air Force for over 13 years including 3 tours in the middle east and

I AM OPPOSED TO THE WAR IN IRAQ.

Now, it seems the winds of war are being fanned again, this time towards Iran. Is this any surprise? The members of PNAC (Project for the New American Century) advocated the invasion of Iraq, Iran, Syria and North Korea 11 years ago. They even sent Clinton position papers all throughout the late 90's demanding he invade Iraq. No one thought these neocon ultra right wing "crazies in the basement" (as George Bush Sr. refers to them in his biography) would ever grab the reins of power in Washington.

But they have.

Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, Perle, Feith, Libby, Jeb Bush....ALL charter members of PNAC. ALL have hijacked our government and ALL MUST be held responsible for their actions directly resulting in the deaths of over 100,000 people.

I'm not even going to get into what this cabal has done to our once great military. After serving honorably for over 13 years, I refused to reenlist in February of 2003 because I could see where these sycophants were leading my nation. My reenlistment NCO looked at me like I was an alien that just stepped off a UFO when I told him I was not reenlisting because our President is an IDIOT and was preparing to make a terrible mistake in Iraq. They all looked at me like I was crazy...

Who's crazy now?

Now that my former unit was activated and sent to the middle east and is now on their 3rd tour of active duty in a war that most of my friends still in the military finally admit is "an insane QUAGMIRE with no mission" and that they are "sitting ducks", they wish they were me. They CANNOT leave the service even if their enlistments are up and they wanted to because the Pentagon has instituted a STOP LOSS, preventing them from leaving the service.

What has this administration done to my military?

I was NEVER a political activist, but this war and this administration are WRONG.

VOTE THEM OUT IN NOVEMBER AND BRING OUR GUYS HOME FROM IRAQ.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thanks for honesty Posted by: kick
You can bet
Posted by: NamVeT on Apr 24, 2006 10:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that the crazy SON OF A BITCH in the white house, and his pals, have already drawn out the final touches on the invasion of Iran. I went to Viet Nam against my will (either join the Army or go to jail) It's going to be alot worse in a very short time. How could WE THE PEOPLE have allowed this crazy shit to go on? Time for georgie halibush the Great Incompetent to take our rights away? IMPEACH him..and all of his buddies. The only thing that they deserve is LIFE IN FUCKING PRISON!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: You can bet Posted by: ngemelis2
» RE: You can bet Posted by: willymack
This time, Avoid this!
Posted by: gonzoskismet on Apr 24, 2006 12:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I tried to reason with a lot of Kill Iraq fanatics when all of this started. It was like talking to Neanderthals. Their main line was like something from 'O Brother, Where Art Thou?' i.e. 'I'm sorry,Wallach! But I had to support Bush! They got this war on terrorism and I got to look out for me and mine.'
But when you have a President who considers the Constitution to be 'just a goddamn piece of paper' as he called it over the NSA spying thing, an Attorney General who considers it to be 'An antiquated document' as Alberto Gonzales put it over the legality of the Iraq war, then I would say as a people of a 'free nation', you are in deep shit.
These people should NOT be Impeached. These people should be tried for TREASON.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This time, Avoid this! Posted by: Gregor
Bad News For The World
Posted by: ehatman71 on Apr 24, 2006 7:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
George Bush must be stopped. If Congress won't take away his supposed authority to wage war, then We The People must. George Bush is no longer sane. This man is the biggest threat ever to mankind. If he attacks Iran with nukes, it will not stop there. If you think we are hated across the world now, just wait. I wish people in this country cared enough to gather 10 million people outside the White House, storm the place, and drag that slimy little war criminal out of there in handcuffs. Enough said!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

BOMB a NUCLEAR facility?
Posted by: Kajamian on Apr 25, 2006 12:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Could someone smarter than me please explain the intelligence of dropping any type of bomb on a nuclear facility?
Especially since we've already acknowledged we don't really know what Iran has in its various sites.
What about fallout? How about prevailing winds in the area since we have troops close by in all directions?
I've heard various scenarios on the types of bombs and the methods of delivery. Why isn't anyone talking about the aftermath? Am I expected to believe there won't be any?

The "Decider" (what a juvenile attitude that is) doesn't have the right to authorize such strikes and perhaps Congress is doing nothing because it doesn't believe he would.
Not even W could be that stupid -- right?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]