Congress yesterday tarnished not only American law but also
disempowered international law in giving President Bush the power
to act against Iraq regardless of United Nations support.
The constitution unequivocally states only Congress has the
authority to declare war; and although Congress did not overtly
give Bush the power to do so, it would be naive to think the
resolution does not imply consent. And history shows that it does.
When Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964, it gave
broad military powers of the same nature give to Bush yesterday, to
President Lyndon B. Johnson ““ this resulted in the
generation-changing Vietnam War.
Congress resolution on Iraq is an unfortunate blow to the
integrity of American law. There is a formal process of declaring
war for a reason. Plunging a country into battle requires scores of
money and, given Saddam Hussein’s intent to defend himself,
many young people’s lives. The decision to go to war ““
especially when attacking preemptively ““ should be the
public’s, and it should be done through their representatives
after there is enough evidence that a foreign country poses a real
threat. But the Bush Administration has consistently failed to show
evidence of an imminent attack. In fact, a recent letter from
Central Intelligence Director George Tenet to the Senate explicitly
said Hussein is unlikely to use chemical or biological weapons
against the U.S., unless Americans strike against Hussein first.
And this is supposed to be the man responsible for providing Bush
with his “evidence.”
Now, not only has Congress forgone its constitutional
responsibility to declare war, it has basically nullified the
system of checks and balances. Instead of holding out until
evidence for launching a deadly war is presented, Congress has
unleashed Bush with the diplomatic equivalent of a blank check. It
has passed on the decision from the people, to a man who
didn’t even win the popular vote when elected.
Besides allowing American law to deteriorate, Congress dealt a
blow to the future international relations of the world. Not only
has the U.S. ratified the United Nations treaty and is thus
technically bound to U.N. rules, Congress has also condoned the
very actions it is purportedly trying to stop: unjustified
preemptive strikes. Our own intelligence agencies are saying
Hussein is unlikely to strike ““ and Iraq is already
cooperating with the U.N. on the terms of weapons inspections. If
Bush decides to attack without international support, he will make
any efforts toward international cooperation and understanding
irrelevant.
Hussein may be an evil dictator, but he is not irrational or
suicidal. He knows if he supports a strike against the U.S. or its
allies, he’s basically agreeing to his own death in the
massive retaliation that would follow. Hussein certainly has had
the weapons to attack U.S. interests for a long time; confronting
mass retaliation is the reason why he has not done it.
After last year’s terrorist attacks, the Bush
Administration repeatedly stressed the need not to let the
terrorists win by letting them strike fear in our daily lives.
It’s tragic to realize fear has now become the justification
for our foreign policy.