America: a Beacon, not an Empire	Presidential Warmaking & Constitutional Violations	Americans Against World Empire Homepage

3 Articles

Presidential Warmaking Redux

by Doug Bandow

Copley News Service

WASHINGTON--Saddam Hussein seems to have, yet again, averted a U.S. military strike. But the Constitution has taken another hit. Presidential warmaking is fast becoming an almost daily occurrence.

    A more flagrant violation of the original separation of powers was the administration's threat--now merely held in abeyance by Richard Holbrooke's brokered accord over Kosovo--to attack Serbia. Some NATO members pushed for U.N. approval for military strikes, but the Clinton administration was interested in gaining approval neither from the Security Council nor the U.S. Congress.

    The President is not alone in assuming executive omnipotence. President Harry Truman gave nary a nod to Congress before committing America to a three-year war in Korea.  President George Bush claimed that Congress' vote before the Gulf War was nonbinding. Little executive wars have become common:  Grenada, Haiti, Panama.

    This presumptuousness would not have surprised America's founders, who vested the power to declare war in Congress. They feared that future presidents would do exactly what Bill Clinton is doing--unilaterally embark on risky military adventures that lacked public support and served no vital national interest.  War, wrote Abraham Lincoln, was "the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and [the founders] naturally resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us."

    Explained Virginia's George Mason, the executive "is not safely to be entrusted with" the power to decide on war. Mason therefore favored "clogging rather than facilitating war." James Wilson, an advocate of a strong president, argued that the new system "will not hurry us into war." Instead, "It is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress."   Similarly, Thomas Jefferson wrote that "We have already given ... one effectual check to the dog of war by transferring the power of letting him loose."

    Even Alexander Hamilton agreed with his long-time adversary on this point. Indeed, Hamilton sought to reassure opponents of the Constitution. The president's power, he wrote, "would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the land and naval forces ... while that of the British King extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies; all of which by the Constitution would appertain of the legislature." However, President Clinton obviously believes he possesses monarchical power. He objected to a recent House-passed budget restriction requiring congressional approval for "offensive" military action as an infringement of his authority as commander- in-chief. But he is to fulfill that responsibility subject to the Constitution and Congress.

    There are difficult cases--when immediate action is necessary to defend the U.S. and its citizens. But such an exigency exists neither in Iraq nor particularly in Yugoslavia.  The latter menaced neither the U.S. nor a U.S. ally. Clinton argued that "We need to stop this violence, get a negotiated settlement." Humanitarian concerns in Kosovo are obviously real, but that doesn't distinguish it from scores of bloody conflicts elsewhere around the world. Indeed, if the president was entitled to attack Belgrade over Kosovo, he was entitled to strike Moscow over Chechnya. Which would mean he is empowered to unilaterally ignite World War III. Defense Secretary William Cohen warned that "NATO's credibility is on the line," but it is on the line only because the administration has unnecessarily put it on the line. Anyway, alliances should be used to prevent wars; wars should not be used to preserve alliances.

    The unwillingness of the Constitution's framers to trust "a single man ... to involve us in such distress," in Wilson's words, has been validated by history. The U.S. has been lucky compared to most other nations, but even so, wars have rarely conformed to the intentions of their initiators. In the case of Kosovo, air strikes would likely be only the beginning. Armed ground forces could easily follow.

    Obviously the requirement that the legislature vote does not guarantee that the public will be protected from unnecessary and bloody crusades, but it does force a debate and allow accountability. Not that congressional Republicans are much interested in fulfilling their responsibilities. On Iraq they urged even tougher action; on Kosovo they nitpicked the administration and maneuvered for political advantage. Instead, they should have accepted--and, indeed, still should accept-- responsibility and voted yay or nay.

    If President Clinton wants to attack Iraq, Yugoslavia, or another country, he must ask Congress for its approval. Not brief Congress. But request authority under the Constitution to go to war.

    Even if the Constitution was not clear, the issue of war andpeace is too important to leave to the President. But the Constitution is clear. Neither UN nor NATO approval is an adequate substitute. The President has no right to take America into war without the approval of Congress.

Mr. Bandow is a member of the Advisory Board of

Americans Against World Empire

GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT—UNCONSITUTIONAL WARMAKING

 Sneak Attack Latest of Many Attempts to Overthrow Sudan

President William Jefferson Clinton has materially misled and probably lied outright to the public about his August 20, 1998, Cruise Missile Attack on Sudan in at least three respects:

       FIRST, the President misled the public and Congress that he had proof that the Government of Sudan participated in the bombing of the American embassy in Nairobi;

   SECOND, the President exaggerated the urgency of the matter stating he acted in self defense, to further justify his act;

   THIRD, the President falsely represented that Sudan was an imminent threat to produce and presumable use "chemical weapons."

   This sneak attack on a privately owned factory in Khartoum exposes Americans to indeterminate future risk of reprisals. The question must be asked, did the President deceive the Congress and the people in order to perform unconstitutional acts?

    Anticipatory Retaliation, DOUBLESPEAK The Administration is attempting to cover it tracks with confusing rhetoric. Lawrence Eagleberger, a former State Department official appeared, on August 22nd Nightline and used the oxymoron, "anticipatory retaliation" to excuse the President's sneak attack. Such statements belong in a comic satire on out of control government.

   Even if the President did not lie about his motives, the acts speak for themselves and are in direct conflict with Constitutional separation of powers. Article 1 section 8 clearly states that (only) "CONGRESS SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO-- DECLARE WAR, GRANT LETTERS OF MARQUE AND REPRISAL AND MAKE RULES CONCERNING CAPTURE OF LAND AND WATER." Letters of Marque and Reprisal are forms of economic sanctions.

   Constitutional Attorney Herbert W. Titus, the author of FORECASTER FOUNDATION NEWSLETTER and radio, THAT'S THE LAW, commented that National Security advisor Samuel Berger resorted to quoting Article 51 of the United Nations Charter to support the mugging of Sudan. Mr. Titus insists that the President must obey and answer to the Constitution for his acts. Commenting on Berger's arguments, Mr. Titus stating, "under no circumstances can Congress delegate these powers to the UN Security Council or any other foreign entity. Article I, Section I (of the US Constitution) states that these powers are 'vested' by the people to the Congress. neither the Congress nor the President can 'divest' the Congress of those powers, only the People can."(1)

   We Hold These Truths Agrees with Mr. Titus. Our forefathers wisely denied the warmaking authority to the President because it is a dangerous power. War acts always require the public to fight, starve and die. Kings and presidents merely watch. Knowing this, the founders required that the warmaking decisions be made by Congressional representatives of the people. Mr. Clinton has again chosen to act as kings did in the 17th century, and Congress has failed to assert its authority to hold him in rein.

   The US sneak attack on The Republic of Sudan, a nonbelligerent people with whom we have diplomatic relations, was supposedly for the purpose of stamping out terrorism. However this act places Americans at risk of reprisal because terrorism begets terrorism, it invites retaliation against American citizens.    Even if Sudan's government has guilt, which has not been shown, this does not justify our president destroying innocent civilians in Sudan. There is no declaration of war against Sudan, and it appears their Embassy in Washington was not notified. The President's act, especially against a weak, remote, and war ravaged country, will be judged and viewed by citizens in every country as a bully act of terrorism by our government against a helpless people.

   President Clinton's excuse for bombing a pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, a city harboring a reported 1.5 million war refugees, is the plant's supposed capability of producing "precursors" to chemical weapons. But kerosene, fertilizer and barrels are all "precursors" to a bomb. If the President can destroy one factory, why not destroy all industrial production in Khartoum under the theory that they all make "precursors".

   It is more logical to believe Sudanese President Omar Hassan al Bashir's statement that the plant did manufacture children's medicine, anti-malaria drugs, and 60 other pharmaceuticals. These medical products are necessary for survival in Sudan. Poison gas is not. No reports of chemical weapons use have been heard in the nine years of war in Sudan. It is illogical that a country as poor as Sudan would tie up its only modern pharmaceutical plant to manufacture chemicals it does not use. Even Bill Clinton stopped short of accusing Sudan of actually making chemical weapons.

    Warmakers Siege On Sudan Non Government Organizations (NGOs) with close ties to the Administration have for years promulgated a massive propaganda blitz against the Government of Sudan which is the subject of an article entitled,

    Using Christians To Make War, by this author.(2) The perpetrators include FREEDOM HOUSE, (Whose Board is controlled by The Council on Foreign Relations), THE HUDSON INSTITUTE, and Swiss based CHRISTIAN SOLIDARITY INTERNATIONAL. Michael Horowitz, Director, the PROJECT FOR CIVIL JUSTICE at Hudson Institute, is the author of the falsely named FREEDOM FROM RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION ACT(S772) which demands strangling sanctions on Sudan.(3) Recently President William Jefferson Clinton bypassed Congress and issued EXECUTIVE ORDER 13067, "BLOCKING SUDANESE GOVERNMENT PROPERTY AND PROHIBITING TRANSPORTATION WITH SUDAN", a fact that neither the administration nor the press talks about.

    Wagging The Donkey

    Three weeks before Mr. Clifton sanctioned Sudan, Mr. Horowitz circulated a memo explaining the reason for the proposed sanctions against Sudan.(4) Horowitz boasted to the bill's sponsor, Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA), that a predetermined purpose of the Wolf Specter Bill was to overthrow the elected Government of Sudan. This also helps explains the subsequent bombing of Sudan.

   Horowitz also stated in his memo dated October 16, 1997, that US covert military aid was already being used to pull down the government. Note that diplomatic relations with The Republic of Sudan were still intact at that time, and the Commander in Chief, Bill Clinton, would necessarily be a part of "covert military aid" to bring down the government.   Clinton signed his Executive Order, effectively embargoing Sudan 18 days after the Horowitz memo, when the Wolf/Specter bill was stalled in the House of Representatives.

   It appears Mr. Clinton's sneak attack on Sudan is more of the Warmaker's agenda. This raises the questions of how much power Mr. Horowitz and his Warmaker NGOs hold over Mr. Clinton? Why did Mr. Clinton not inform Congress that his "covert military aid" against the Government of Sudan might result in reprisals against American Citizens? Is it possible that those who died in the Nairobi explosion would be alive today except for the Warmaker's covert acts?

   Thus far, only a few Congressmen, including Indiana Senator Dan Coats, have sidled up to the correct question: Where does the President get the authority to make war without the permission of Congress? Does anyone seriously doubt that it is an act of war to stealth bomb the citizens of a country with whom you are officially at peace? Who is setting the Presidents agenda, and why?

    Impeachment Is The Proper Response To War Crimes.  Congress should impeach the President for committing direct and material violations of his Constitutional authority, because he has placed every American citizen at risk. The President is sworn to uphold the constitution, and violation of this oath are grounds for impeachment.

   Only by impeaching the President can Congress and the American people send a message to the world that we wish once again to be the respected nation we once were, rather than our current image of the feared and hated international police thug for the world.  It Is No Small Task

Concurrently with impeachment, Congress should act to repeal all war powers acts including: International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. 1703 (b) and the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1601. And, all sanctions should be lifted immediately. This must be done so Mr. Clinton's successor will not be tempted to repeat this error. If not done, it will do little good to impeach Mr. Clinton.

   Is this an impossible task, as many will surely tell us? Perhaps, but so was the task our founders faced 223 years ago. And our risk today is greater than theirs, for we have no backwoods to retreat to when we lose our freedom.

Footnotes:

1. Forecaster Foundation Newsletter, Fall 1998, Herbert W. Titus 2400 Carolina Road, Chesapeake, VA 23322

2. Warmaker Series, We Hold These Truths, Write to The Point Journal, quarterly, subscriptions: $35.00 year, five back issues: $10.00

3. We Hold These Truths, Will America Accept Federal Religious Monitoring.

4. Hudson Institute, Project for Civil Justice Reform, Michael Horowitz.

"WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS"        This article will also appear in our Winter Journal, "Right to the Point", Volume V.

Charles E. Carlson, Director 4839 E. Greenway Rd. #151 Scottsdale, AZ 85254

Phone:(602) 443 0204 Fax:(602) 348 1625

Website: Http://www.whtt.org E-mail:(info@whtt.net)

The Nonexistent Foreign Policy Debate

by Doug Bandow

Copley News Service

WASHINGTON--In the wake of the GOP's dismal electoral showing, Republicans needs issues. They should consider foreign policy, where this election there was essentially no debate at all.  Earlier this year, congressional Republicans demanded an increase in military spending. President Bill Clinton naturally joined the parade. The October budget deal added $9.5 billion to next year's outlays. Still, that's not likely to satisfy presumptive GOP presidential candidate Steve Forbes, who has accused the administration of "systematically dismantling" the military.

    Family Research Council head Gary Bauer, another possible Republican presidential candidate, argues that "America has to get our investment in defense back in line with our defense obligations." GOP-leaning activists make much the same argument. Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy demands that the Pentagon share in the looming budget surplus. If such increases aren't forthcoming, warn two Heritage Foundation analysts: "the downward trend in defense would result in the virtual elimination of defense spending" by the year 2020.

    Yet military outlays actually remain quite high. Adjusted for inflation, Washington is spending as much as it did in 1980, during the height of the Cold War. All the U.S. has done is reverse the Reagan administration's build-up, which peaked in 1985. That would seem to be a very moderate step at a time when Washington faces no serious security threat. America accounts for about a third of the world's military outlays. The U.S. and its friends generate an incredible 80 percent of the globe's military outlays. That means everyone else--including China and Russia--accounts for barely one-fifth. In such a world, why would Washington need to spend more?

   Concerns about falling readiness are legitimate. Fewer new recruits have high school degrees; fewer pilots are staying in the service. Morale appears to be falling as discharge rates are rising. But such problems reflect improper missions, not inadequate funds. Despite a world that is demonstrably less dangerous for America, Washington is deploying its forces more often. Over the last decade it has sent substantial military units abroad 29 times, compared to just ten times during the previous 40 years.  U.S. soldiers are busy rebuilding distant failed societies instead of protecting fundamental American interests.

    In fact, some critics of current spending levels recognize the cause. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott complains that outlay cuts "have not been balanced out with a similar reduction in the number of missions and deployments." Instead of seeking to reduce missions and deployments, the logical proposal for a party supposedly committed to limited government, Republicans want to spend more. Yet the GOP congressional majority previously hiked military outlays from 1996 through 1998 by $20 billion. Last year's budget agreement left the Pentagon with an extra $21 billion through the year 2003 in savings from lower inflation.

    What will the latest $9.5 billion infusion be used for?  Steve Forbes complains that lower spending is "sapping America's power to deter aggression." By whom? The U.S. spends nearly four times as much as Russia, seven or more times as much as China, and 18 times as much as the world's seven worst rogue states collectively (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria).   Forbes worries that the U.S. cannot fight two medium-size wars at the same time. But there's no reason it should have to do so. After all, South Korea has 29 times the GDP and twice the population of North Korea--why isn't it defending itself? Egypt,

    Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and others have an incentive to cooperate against Iraq. Washington has created a world full of international welfare queens, all too willing to shirk their own defense responsibilities and to rely on the U.S.

    Gary Bauer tries to put a moral gloss on protecting the rest of the world. He says America's obligation to intervene abroad "is if anything greater after the Cold War." Yet what is moral about expecting U.S. taxpayers to subsidize populous and prosperous nations--Britain, France, Germany, Japan, et al.--which face few serious security threats? 

    Then there's Kosovo, where the President has threatened military action. But it is no different than a score of similar ugly civil wars around the world, none of which are irrelevant to U.S. security. Nor is there anything moral in expecting 18-year-old Americans to risk their lives in an attempt to quell such ancient feuds.  U.S. action should be constrained by moral principles, but the American government's primary responsibility is to its own citizens. There is nothing generous about politicians sacrificing other people's lives. Washington should endanger its soldiers only when their own political community has something at stake.

    With the changing of the GOP guard in Washington--outgoing House Speaker Newt Gingrich consistently backed President Clinton's dangerous excursions into nation-building--Republicans should make military spending a political issue. The Cold War is over. It's time to reduce the defense budget accordingly.

Mr. Bandow is a member of the Advisory Board of

AMERICANS AGAINST WORLD EMPIRE

.