OPINION COLUMN
Only Congress Has the Authority To Declare War
by Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee Member, House Judiciary Committee 18th Congressional District, Texas
This week the United States Congress was asked to make a decision about life, and about death. What will be at stake will be the potential deaths of many Americans in our U.S. military as well as innocent persons in Iraq and the surrounding region. Any unilateral move that we would make to go to war has the potential of throwing the world into major chaos and destabilization. Further, it will weaken our concerted and necessary fight against terrorism, and remove from the United States the force of its moral position as a defender, and not an aggressor.
Because I realize that inaction is certainly not an option, I outlined a plan of action that is certainly preferable to a headlong leap into war. My plan would include diplomacy first, robust weapons inspections, United Nations monitoring, support of democratization and resistance elements, and more stringent containment and deterrence policies.
H.R. Res. 114 allows the President to "use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" against Iraq and in order to "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." Clearly, authority would be given to the Executive Branch for a unilateral first strike against a country without the Constitutionally mandated Act of Congress to declare war under Article I, Section 8, Clause 11.
I oppose this resolution not because I do not believe that Saddam Hussein is a menace that must be dealt with but because to vote for it would be to abdicate my Constitutional duty as a member of Congress to declare war when conditions call for such action. Saddam Hussein is an evil man. He has harmed his own people, and cannot be trusted to live peacefully with his neighbors. I fully support efforts to disarm Iraq pursuant to the resolutions passed in the aftermath of the Gulf War, and I do not rule out the possibility that military action might be needed. Unlike Iraq, however, we are a nation that respects the rule of law. And our Constitution, the supreme law of the land, sets forth the responsibilities of Congress in clear, unambiguous language.
As a member of the House Judiciary Committee, I have a special appreciation for and knowledge of our United States Constitution. Article 1, Sec 8 (II) of the U.S. Constitution states: "Congress shall have the power ... to declare war." The President is commander-in-chief, but he must fulfill these responsibilities of war subject to the role of the U.S. Congress. The system of checks and balances cannot be effective if one individual is impermissibly vested with the sole discretionary authority to carry out what 535 members of Congress have been duly elected by the people to do. Granting any one individual, even the President of the United States, the unbridled authority to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he may determine to be necessary is not only unconstitutional, but violates international law if it is a first strike. Of course we all agree that force must be used to defend the United States against any imminent attack.
I also voted "no" on the resolution because the unchecked power to wage war that it would unconstitutionally cede to the President, including the right to strike first and not just in self-defense, represents an alarming detour from a long-held American principle of not being an aggressor nation.... Our country should use our military might only in defense of ourselves, or in defense of others, where warranted.
Granting the President the authority to use our Armed Forces preemptively will set a dangerous precedent, both here and abroad, and will send the message that any country fearing attack sometime in the future may strike first at its suspected enemies in the name of self-defense. Such a policy will do nothing short of destabilizing the entire world, as China might see fit to move preemptively against Taiwan, India against Pakistan, or North Korea against South Korea. The possibilities are endless in a world where tensions among many nations could swiftly escalate into all-out warfare using weapons of mass destruction that would cause devastation at levels never previously seen.
At a time when our President is urging the United Nations to take a stronger role in enforcing its resolutions and ensuring peace, it is imperative that we do not simultaneously weaken the United Nations by violating its charter through a first-strike military action. Pursuant to Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, a military strike against Iraq, unless in response to an immediate threat therefrom, will violate international law. In order to arguably claim that action is taken in self-defense, and is thus permissible under international law, the alleged threat must be one that is immediate and which offers no other options for resolution. As the saber-rattling talk of attacking Iraq extends month after month, and our government expresses its inclination to delay the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq because of additional demands made on Iraq, the case for self-defense becomes increasingly more difficult to make. The immediacy of the threat, after all, is belied by months of inaction following years of the status quo in Iraq.
Finally, I agree with the President that America should not live in fear, but a show of aggressive strength by a unilateral first attack by the United States will not ease our fears. It may simply send us down a devastating and deadly road of no return.
|