The Basis? of the War on Iraq

I've been troubled by the couple of occasions when President Bush has said
his job is to protect us. I thought his job was to protect the
Constitution. So I checked the oath of office. It reads as follows:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office
of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability,
preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

I also checked the so-called War Powers Act (a misnomer, actually; the
short title of this act is the "War Powers Resolution"). A key section of
it reads as follows:

PURPOSE AND POLICY

SEC. 2. (a)
It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the
framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the
collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to
the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into
situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate
by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in
hostilities or in such situations.
SEC. 2. (b)
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically
provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary
and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also
all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the
United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
SEC. 2. (c)
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to
introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations
where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the
circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created
by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its
armed forces.

Back in September of 2002, the Bush Administration published "The National
Security Strategy of the United States of America." It's some 35 pages
long but its basic argument is that the old rules of war no longer apply
and that preemptive war might be necessary and is justified. A link to
this document is provided below:

         http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf

From what I'm able to tell, the Bush administration is arguing that Saddam
Hussein poses a threat to the United States of America because (a) he has
harbored and supported terrorists, including members of Al Qaida, the group
that attacked the United States, and (b) Saddam's regime possesses weapons
of mass destruction that it is likely to make available to such terrorists
who would then use them against the United States. Bush then proceeds on
the basis of his role as Commander-in-Chief and (3) of Sec 2(c) above,
namely, that we're in a national emergency as a result of having been
attacked on 9/11/2001.

The Bush administration seems to have defined the situation in such a way
that it is pretty much free to do whatever it wants with the United States
armed forces. I doubt that's what was intended by the framers of the
Constitution. Moreover, no one except the anti-war protesters seem to be
challenging this; not the Congress and not the Supreme Court. Looks like
one of two things to me: (1) the checks and balances are working and all
three branches of the government are in agreement or (2) the checks and
balances aren't working and a fundamental change has been effected in the
government. Either way, I think there's going to be trouble at home and
abroad. If so, there will likely be a "regime change" in the U.S. come
next election -- if things hold together until then. Have to wait and see
on that score.

On my part, I think the Bush administration has bitten off more than it can
chew. From my consultant's perspective and using that jargon, I'd say it
has intervened in a very complex, marginally stable system (which I'll
loosely term "the middle east"), which the Bush administration does not
fully comprehend or appreciate and, as a result, we can expect to see a
wide range of severe, unintended and unforeseen consequences.

Fred Nickols
nickols@safe-t.net

thanks for the precise work. I am in no position to take a position. My
father was a prisoner of war for the Germans, both jewish and a french
officer (MD lieutenant) at FColditz for 5 years. He told me that without the
Americans I would not have been born.
paule
Paule A. Steichen. Asch, Ph.D.
IBIS Int'l
Individual Building of Integrated Success
2101 Grandin Road
Cincinnati OH 45208
voicemail: (513) 289-5998
fax: (513) 871-soul/7685
pasteichenasch@fuse.net

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Nickols" <nickols@SAFE-T.NET>
To: <CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2003 2:37 PM
Subject: The Basis? of the War on Iraq

I've been troubled by the couple of occasions when President Bush has said
his job is to protect us. I thought his job was to protect the
Constitution. So I checked the oath of office. It reads as follows:

>I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office
>of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability,
>preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

I also checked the so-called War Powers Act (a misnomer, actually; the
short title of this act is the "War Powers Resolution"). A key section of
it reads as follows:

>
>PURPOSE AND POLICY
>
>
>
>
>
>SEC. 2. (a)
>It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the
>framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the
>collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to
>the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into
>situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate
>by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in
>hostilities or in such situations.
>SEC. 2. (b)
>Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically
>provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws

necessary

>and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also
>all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the
>United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
>SEC. 2. (c)
>The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to
>introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations
>where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the
>circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war,
>(2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created
>by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its
>armed forces.
Back in September of 2002, the Bush Administration published "The National
Security Strategy of the United States of America." It's some 35 pages
long but its basic argument is that the old rules of war no longer apply
and that preemptive war might be necessary and is justified. A link to
this document is provided below:

         http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf

From what I'm able to tell, the Bush administration is arguing that

Saddam

Hussein poses a threat to the United States of America because (a) he has
harbored and supported terrorists, including members of Al Qaida, the

group

that attacked the United States, and (b) Saddam's regime possesses weapons
of mass destruction that it is likely to make available to such terrorists
who would then use them against the United States. Bush then proceeds on
the basis of his role as Commander-in-Chief and (3) of Sec 2(c) above,
namely, that we're in a national emergency as a result of having been
attacked on 9/11/2001.

The Bush administration seems to have defined the situation in such a way
that it is pretty much free to do whatever it wants with the United States
armed forces. I doubt that's what was intended by the framers of the
Constitution. Moreover, no one except the anti-war protesters seem to be
challenging this; not the Congress and not the Supreme Court. Looks like
one of two things to me: (1) the checks and balances are working and all
three branches of the government are in agreement or (2) the checks and
balances aren't working and a fundamental change has been effected in the
government. Either way, I think there's going to be trouble at home and
abroad. If so, there will likely be a "regime change" in the U.S. come
next election -- if things hold together until then. Have to wait and see
on that score.

On my part, I think the Bush administration has bitten off more than it

can

chew. From my consultant's perspective and using that jargon, I'd say it
has intervened in a very complex, marginally stable system (which I'll
loosely term "the middle east"), which the Bush administration does not
fully comprehend or appreciate and, as a result, we can expect to see a
wide range of severe, unintended and unforeseen consequences.

Fred Nickols
nickols@safe-t.net

From Bruce Gregory (2003.0322.1505)]

Fred Nickols wrote:

On my part, I think the Bush administration has bitten off more than it can
chew. From my consultant's perspective and using that jargon, I'd say it
has intervened in a very complex, marginally stable system (which I'll
loosely term "the middle east"), which the Bush administration does not
fully comprehend or appreciate and, as a result, we can expect to see a
wide range of severe, unintended and unforeseen consequences.

That seems likely to me as well. In addition, the recently passed tax
cut means that the country is going on an unprecedented credit card
based buying spree. It is difficult to believe that the Bush
administration comprehends or appreciates the likely result of this
decision either. It appears that "Ignorance is Bliss" might well replace
"In God we Trust."

···

--
Bruce Gregory lives with the poet and painter Gray Jacobik in the future
Canadian Province of New England.

www.joincanadanow.org

[From Fred Nickols (2003.03.22.1510 ET)] --

Paul Steichen writes in response to my earlier post:

thanks for the precise work. I am in no position to take a position. My
father was a prisoner of war for the Germans, both jewish and a french
officer (MD lieutenant) at FColditz for 5 years. He told me that without the
Americans I would not have been born.

Well, in a very real sense, I think that's what's at stake: the definition
and meaning of being an American.

Regards,

Fred Nickols
nickols@safe-t.net

P.S. Sorry for forgetting to date-time stamp the previous post.