Constitutional Showdown On Iraq Occupation
On Nov. 26, President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki
issued a "Declaration
of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and
Friendship." The contentious issue has been the subject of five
congressional hearings; the administration is attempting to
pass the agreement in the wake of an expiring U.N. mandate without
Congressional approval. During a hearing this week, the State
Department
Coordinator for Iraq, Adm. David Satterfield, refused to say whether it
was "a
constitutional requirement"
for the administration to "consult with Congress...in the
commitment of
U.S. forces in a battle zone." As conservative columnist
George Will
noted, "Hundreds
of such agreements,
major (e.g., NATO) and minor (the Reagan
administration's security commitment to the Marshall Islands and
Micronesia), have been submitted to Congress." Frustrated with the
administration's power grab, Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA) said that the
Bush administration's rhetoric "creates
the basis for a constitutional confrontation." Legislation has been
introduced in both the House
and Senate to bar the White House from making any such
long-term deals with Iraq without
congressional
approval.
HOW WE ARRIVED HERE: The
administration has repeatedly attempted to muddle the exact parameters
of its
commitment to Iraq. Initially, the Declaration of Principles committed the United States to
helping "deter
foreign aggression
against Iraq" as well as "defending its democratic system against
internal and external threats." After congressional outrage, the
administration removed the "security
guarantee." While the administration publicly opposes
permanent bases in Iraq, Bush issued a signing
statement to a defense
authorization bill in January, saying he would disregard a provision
that "bars
funding for permanent bases in Iraq." Furthermore, last month, the
White House said it does not view any
U.S. military installations overseas as "permanent," even those
present since World War II. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and
Defense Secretary Robert Gates wrote in the Washington Post this month
that the agreement with Iraq was routine,
used with "more than 115 nations." But as Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY)
noted, "there
is nothing routine about it or the situation in Iraq." Curiously,
the agreement "won't prohibit combat missions either," he added.
AVOIDING CONGRESS: "It's the
position of this
Administration that they do
not need to come before Congress to receive
authorization?" Delahunt asked in the hearing. Satterfield
replied, "That's correct." While there may no longer be a "security
guarantee" in the agreement, "[s]uch an accord necessarily
implicates the authority to fight" in Iraq and should thus be
authorized by
Congress, Delahunt observed. "The Iraqi/U.S. Status of Forces Agreement
(SOFA) would give the United States
the 'authority
to fight,'" explained Lawrence Korb of the
Center for American Progress, making it broader than SOFAs with other
nations. Oona
Hathaway of the Yale Law School
said that anything that includes an authority to fight --
which
Satterfield implied
the administration's agreement with Iraq would do -- "becomes an
agreement that
really must be submitted to Congress
for approval either as a treaty or as a congressional-executive
agreement." She added that the Strategic Forces Agreement, also part of
the administration's Declaration of Principles, should be approved by
Congress as an Article II treaty, as it
"permits U.S. and coalition forces to assist in restraining extremists
and outside actors."
IS IRAQ STILL A 'THREAT?':
In a follow-up letter
to Satterfield's testimony, Assistant Secretary of State Jeffrey
Bergner "reaffirmed the administration's position that it does
not need international or
congressional approval to conduct military operations around the
world,
particularly when going after terrorists." Bergner explained to
Ackerman that Iraq
military operations can continue past 2008 without a U.N. mandate
"under the
laws passed by Congress and the president's authority as commander in
chief," referring to the 2002
resolution authorizing force against Saddam Hussein and the resolution
passed after 9/11. These authorizations, Bergner said, permit "use
of force" to "defend
the national security of the United States," allowing indefinite combat
operations in Iraq. Ackerman observed, "I don't think anybody
argues today that Saddam Hussein is a threat. Is it the government of
Iraq that's a threat?"
|
|
|
|
Yesterday, the House passed The Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007, which "would help end the stigma of mental illness and create greater access for people needing mental health and addiction treatment."
Yesterday, the House passed The Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007, which "would help end the stigma of mental illness and create greater access for people needing mental health and addiction treatment."
THINK
PROGRESS: President Bush claims "America is in the lead" on climate
change.
SADLY NO:
Anti-feminist writer Charlotte Allen claims Hurricane Katrina was the
"best thing to happen to New Orleans."
TV
DECODER: The Mike Huckabee Show?
MEDIA
MATTERS: On Fox News, conservative pollster Frank Luntz said "Jimmy
Carter was the first female president."
"We share a common goal: making health care more affordable and
accessible for all Americans. The best way to achieve that goal is by
expanding consumer choice, not government control."
-- President Bush, 1/28/08
VERSUS
"[N]early two-thirds (64%) [of the American public] say there is not
enough regulation when it comes to limiting the price of prescription
drugs."
-- USA Today/Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard School of Public Health
poll, March 2008







