Check for web archive captures
Presidents Need Clear, Strong Boundaries
By maudeaster on 2020-01-10 13:17:09
How is an impulsive, inadequately informed US president able act on his own to order the assassination of a foreign
government’s military leader, with the quite predictable consequences of further destabilizing the Middle East and
threatening Americans and millions of others with the outbreak of war? In a Waging Peace post on Wednesday, Mickie
Lynn provided an excellent summary of the frightening past week: Trump’s January 2"4 order to assassinate Iran’s General
Soleimani, the misleading administration attempts to justify it, and responses to this reckless US action in the region and
here in the US. Since Mickie wrote, analysts have pointed out the significant restraint of Iran’s response to the assassination.
Reports suggest that Iran intentionally directed its missile strikes to unpopulated base areas to avoid American or Iraqi
deaths. Also, Trump thankfully chose not to respond militarily to the Iranian missile strikes and even called for
negotiations. Hopefully, in November American voters will make sure that someone with Trump’s temperament and
ignorance of complex foreign policy issues is not in the White House. I have many complaints about the foreign policy
decisions of Republican President Bush and Democratic President Obama, but at least they were smart enough, well advised
L,
La
enough, to see the risk of assassinating Soleimani and nix plans to do so. The
still unfolding dangers of this situation, however, show clearly the need to ensure that no President can act
unilaterally to plunge the country into war. If we look at 4 questions raised during this past frightening week, it’s
clear we need urgent Congressional action to prevent similar abuses of power by this president or his successors.
Who Has the Right to Start a US War? The constitution is clear - only Congress has the power to declare war. The
Representatives yesterday passed a resolution introduced by Rep. Elissa Slotkin to force
Trump to come to Congress before taking further military action against Iran. We need to thank Congressman Tonko who is
a co-sponsor of the resolution -- as well as of legislation introduced by Congressman Ro Khanna, HR5543 The No War
Against Iran Act % and thank Congressman Delgado who voted for the Slotkin resolution. A Senate companion to the House
resolution $J63, intoduced by Senator Tim Kaine, gained valuable Republican co-sponsorship by Senator Rand Paul and
Senator Mike Lee following the administration’s congressional briefing on the assassination, which Lee described as
offering mainly generalities rather than concrete new information about any upcoming attack. Lee told reporters, “Drive-by
notification or after-the-fact lame briefings like the one we received aren’t adequate.” We need to urge Senator Schumer to
support the Kaine resolution, particularly important because in his Minority Leader role, he agreed to have an earlier version
of this resolution stripped out of December’s Defense Authorization bill . And Senator Gillibrand deserves our
hanks for being a clear supporter of Congressional action on war powers even before this
crisis. She introduced The War Powers Reform Act earlier this year to repeal the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for the Use
of Military Force (AUMFs), which were passed to authorize military action, respectively, against September 11th terrorists
hiding in Afghanistan and the perceived threat from Iraq. Gillibrand’s legislation would require the president to provide
Congress with a clear objective for military action and evidence that the use of the United States’ armed forces is necessary,
appropriate, and proportional to the mission. Ina helpful New York Times article, Charlie Savage explains the limitations
of the existing War Powers Resolution, passed by Congress in 1973 to try to constrain presidents’ solo decision-making
which had embroiled the US in the Korean and Vietnam wars. Although this resolution requires presidents to consult with
Congress before deploying troops into actual or imminent hostilities, obeyed by most presidents since, Trump ignored this
requirement when he ordered a drone strike to assassinate the military leader of a nation with which the US is not formally
at war. Trump acted without even providing Congress advance notice, let alone requesting approval. The administration’s
subsequent efforts to document the imminent need for this action were not supported by initial US military statements nor by
European allies. Another provision of the Act allows presidents to introduce forces into hostilities only after Congress has
authorized using force or if the nation has been attacked, language which multiple presidents have bent to support
widespread global troop deployments. Clearly Congress needs to reaffirm the War Powers Resolution, addressing all the
ambiguous language which this or other presidents might try to use to subvert Congressional war powers responsibility.
2 iu Can the president just decide to assassinate someone? An existing
Executive Order, # 11905, bans US government officials from engaging or conspiring in assassinations. President Ford
issued this order in 1976 after revelations of CIA involvement in plans to kill foreign leaders. The courts have not ruled on
post-9/11 efforts by both the Bush and Obama administrations to get around this restriction. As has been all too clear this
week, the US use of assassination has multiple potentially disastrous consequences including exposing American officials to
potential retaliatory action. This is another area that requires clear Congressional action to constrain presidential behavior.
Can a government or its agency be named “a terrorist organization”? Trump’s designation of the Iranian Quds Force as
a terrorist organization marked the first time an agency of a recognized foreign government had been so identified. This
designation became part of the White House argument for permitting the targeting of Soleimani. Trump’s rationale for the
assassination, that the General had directed operations that supported military groups in other countries, providing them
weapons, advice and training accurately describes the role of the US CIA and Pentagon in Iraq, Yemen, Syria and many
other countries around the world. This designation of terrorists, with its potential connection to war-initiation, is another area
that requires clear Congressional definition. [caption id="attachment_ 13439" align="aligncenter" width="275"]
Trump Threatens to Destroy Iranian Cultural Sites[/caption] Is the US exempt
from international law? Trump’s threat to bomb a list of 52 Iranian sites he described as “important to Iran and the Iranian
culture”, with subsequent comments about his right to do so suggested ignorance or contempt of international law’s
prohibition of such war crimes. He would have been defying the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural
Property and subsequent UN Security Council resolutions which had US support. In response to strong condemnations in the
US and around the world, Defense Secretary Esper acknowledged this destruction would be a war crime and that cultural
sites would not be targeted by the US. Esper’s announcement seems responsible for Trump backing off, but Congress would
be wise to reaffirm clearly all US obligations under international law.
People here in the Capital
District have demanded that Congress stop this president’s dangerous behavior. Demonstrations from Glens Falls to Delmar
have called for avoiding war with Iran. People around the world have been alarmed by the actions of an inadequately
restrained president. A No War with Iran international day of protest will be held on January 25", Women Against War is
part of a coalition of local organizations planning an event for the Capital District. Watch our Women Against War website,
le
for more information.
