|
Call
To Action: From the Widow of a Vietnam Veteran and Mother of a Soldier.
She is Legally Challenging Bush's Right to Go to War Without a Congressional
Declaration of War
BUZZFLASH
READER COMMENTARY
by Laura Johnson Manis
"Get
Up, Stand Up, stand up for your right,
Get Up, Stand Up, don't give up the fight."
--
Bob Marley
I am
one of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit that seeks to prevent President
Bush from launching a military invasion of Iraq without Congressional
declaration of war because to do so would be in direct violation of Article
I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which states "Congress shall have
Power ... [t]o declare War.
The "October Resolution" did
not declare war and unlawfully ceded to the President the decision
of whether or not to send this nation
into war. Furthermore, this resolution violates the War Powers Act of
1973, since there was no finding or statement in it of a clear and/or
imminent threat by Iraq to this nation, which is specifically required
under the War Powers Act.
Yesterday, March 4th, the legal challenge to George Bush's right to
go to war without a Congressional Declaration of War, filed by twelve
Congressmen, family members of military personnel and those currently
serving the our armed forces, was heard by the First Circuit Court of
Appeals in Boston. Sixty Constitutional Law professors also submitted
Amicus Briefs in support of this case. A decision is expected to be reached
as early as next week.
Ever since September 11th, the current Administration has sought to
keep us scared about really stupid issues and stupid about really scary
issues. If we dare to criticize, we are termed unpatriotic or cowardly.
As the whole course of history teaches us, these methods are very effective.
"Of
course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of
the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter
to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship,
or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the
people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy.
All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce
the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater
danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
Have we become so risk-adverse in this country that we believe that
death is an option? Do we think that any of us are going to get out of
here alive? Will we sacrifice our Constitutional responsibilities as
well as liberties in order to remain 'safe'?
Our apathy has reached such proportions that, despite everything hanging
in the balance, fewer people voted in the 2002 election than watched
the World Series, which had one of the lowest ratings in its history.
Prior to that election, our Representative and Senators cravenly compromised
whatever ethics and morals they may have left by passing the October
Resolution rather than risk losing their seats by opposing a popular
President. Given the voter turnout, how ludicrous was that?
For months now people have been telling me to 'get over it', to accept
that it's 'out of my control', to cease and desist rather than be judged
a 'crank' and of course, 'love it or leave it'. My government has told
me that I should limit my efforts to buying more products, including
duct tape and plastic sheeting, when it is our greed and our vast carelessness
that got us into this mess in the first place, and to trust their superior
wisdom and judgment.
Excuse me? Weren't we all taught in our civics classes that power corrupts
and absolute power corrupts absolutely?
It
is the obligation; it is the sacred duty of the citizens of a democracy
to be critical of its government. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, "for
nothing can keep it right but their own vigilant and distrustful superintendence."
Therefore, when Military Families Speak Out asked me to join in this
lawsuit, my conscience gave me no alternative but to accept. I have a
son in the Navy (inactive) reserves who, of course, could be called back
at any time. He spent six months in the Persian Gulf in 2000.
But more importantly, my late husband served in Nam during the Tet Offensive,
patrolling the Mekong Delta on a Swift Boat. He certainly could have
availed himself of other options in order to avoid active military duty
but he felt that would have been unfair to those without his connections.
He was never the same.
For the rest of his life, he would not discuss his experiences there.
He read every book and saw every movie (alone) but to speak of it was
verboten. Some two decades after his return, I entered our bedroom to
find him watching Letters From Nam, alone in the dark. By the glow of
the television set, I could see the tears streaming down his face. That
gentle and decent man went to his grave without anyone ever explaining,
never mind justifying, to him why he had been ordered to do the things
he did and witness the horrors he witnessed.
This can never be allowed to happen again.
My question
to President Bush, who didn't even fulfill his National Guard obligations,
is "How dare you? How dare you send another generation
of our fine young people to fight in a war of dubious necessity that
hasn't been declared by Congress? How dare you?"
My question
to the members of Congress, only one of whom has a child serving in
the military is, "How dare you? How dare you violate
the separation of powers set forth in this nation's Constitution by delegating
the authority to wage war to the Executive Branch, months in advance,
without any proof of an imminent threat? How dare you?"
Our young men and women enlisted in the armed forces to defend this
country, not to engage in a preemptive, offensive strike, in violation
of the Constitution and international law, against a country that has
done nothing, nothing, to harm us since the end of the last Gulf War.
Of what can we, the citizens -- and by definition -- the participants
in a democracy, be thinking?
In conclusion, I believe the members of Congress and indeed, all Americans,
would do well to commit the following words of Abraham Lincoln to heart:
Allow
the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem
it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever
he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you
allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit
to his power in this respect, after having given him so much as you propose.
If today he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada
to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You
may say to him, "I see no probability of the British invading us";
but he will say to you, "Be silent: I see it, if you don't."
The
provision of the Constitution giving the war making power to Congress
was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: kings had
always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending
generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object.
This our Constitutional Convention understood to be the most oppressive
of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution
that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon
us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President
where kings have always stood."
Our last remaining hope is that Congress will remember that it and only
it is the branch of the government authorized by the Constitution of
the United States to declare war. Our Founding Fathers established our
separation of powers, devised our system of checks and balances, in order
to avoid precisely such times as these. The President, the Vice President
and every member of Congress swore to uphold and defend the Constitution
of the United States. It is time and past time to demand that they do
so.
It is the duty of every American to use all peaceful, lawful means available
to provide the necessary mnemonic.
Laura Johnson Manis
Rock Island, IL
"Never believe that a few caring people can't change the world
for, indeed, that's all who ever have."
--
Margaret Meade
BUZZFLASH
READER COMMENTARY
|