|
Edited on Tue Oct-07-03 01:33 AM by Tinoire
Lawless War: The War Against Yugoslavia as a Harbinger of an Insecure Future for the People’s of the World By Michael Ratner, attorney and vice-president of the Center for Constitutional Rights On March 24, 1999, U.S. Armed Forces, along with military forces from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) began massive `air strikes against the sovereign nation of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. President Clinton asserted that he ordered United States forces into action “pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander-in-chief and Chief Executive.” Neither President Clinton nor NATO articulated authority for the bombing under the United Nations Charter. Rather, they claimed NATO had authority itself and, at least, implied, that the war was undertaken for humanitarian purposes to stop ongoing human rights violations. <snip>
The sixty day termination date passed almost unnoticed by the press, Congress and the pundits. Only Congressman Tom Campbell, Congressman Dennis Kucinich and a few others brought up the issue and no one paid attention. It was a remarkable moment. Here was a statute, the WPR, which had been written because of the debacle of Viet-Nam; it was meant to keep the U.S. out of wars that did not have congressional approval. One could say the statute was literally written in the blood of the Americans and Vietnamese who died in that war. And now the statute was treated as nought; as if nothing was learned from the Viet Nam war. The bombing of Yugoslavia was continuing; people were being killed and the country was being destroyed; and it was all a clear violation of U.S. law. A few courageous members of Congress decided to take the issue of the illegality of the war to the federal courts. The leader of this group was Congressman Tom Campbell and he gathered a dozen or so Republicans to join with him. He asked the Center for Constitutional Rights to bring the litigation on his behalf. The Center had brought a number of lawsuits previously challenging illegal uses of U.S. military force in Grenada, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama, and Iraq. All of these suits had been against Republican presidents and the majority of not all of the congressmen plaintiffs had been Democrats. Now that the shoe was on the other foot, and a Democratic president was unilaterally going to war, Democratic plaintiffs were hard to come by. Many Democrats did not like the war, thought it was illegal, but did not want to buck the President and say so publicly whether by way of speeches or by joining a lawsuit. It was an amazing demonstration of political opportunism. On the issue of should the U.S. go to war, probably the most fundamental and important decision a politician can make, these Democrats sold out. The only two Democrats to join the suit were Dennis Kucinich and March Kaptur.
<snip>
Conclusion
The unsanctioned and illegal war against Yugoslavia was a watershed event that is a harbinger of an insecure future for countries and peoples that find themselves in disagreement with the policies and aims of the United States and its NATO allies. Apparently, the United States and NATO now believe international restraints on force and the United Nations can be dispensed with. When and where to use military force will be decided by the United States and NATO. The world can look forward to more killings and devastation, like that in Yugoslavia, all in the name of human rights. It is not a pretty picture and represents a major retreat from the hopes that we could one day grow up in world free from war.
On the domestic front, the retreat from the principle that the people through Congress, should control the use of military force, appears complete. We now face the prospect of war at the behest of one person–the President.
There is an obvious parallel in terms of what has occurred domestically and internationally. Those institutions, the Congress and the Security Council (imperfect as they are), that were required to approve the use of military force have been bypassed. To to the extent they made the decision to use force more democratic and more difficult, that is no longer true. We have entered a very dangerous period. Power and might rule.
http://www.humanrightsnow.org/kosovo.htm
But on the floor of the House last week, the attitude of Democratic House leaders wasn't so flip -- especially when it came to the 213-213 vote on continuing airstrikes."The lobbying on this was some of the most intense that I've ever seen," says Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, who voted against the measure. "I think people were stunned that this thing went down."
Kucinich says that there was a secret reason House leaders lobbied so intensely: for constitutional reasons, the White House wanted to get some legislative record of the House signing off on the war. "This wasn't a simple matter of the Democratic Caucus endorsing the president's actions," he says. "It had tremendous consequence ... In looking at it further, I realized that the president would, in fact, be empowered to conduct war without further restraint by Congress."
Despite the fact that President Clinton wrote the House a letter on the day of the April 28 vote assuring members that he wouldn't send ground troops without checking with Congress, Kucinich says that there were signals that the White House was planning on using the vote in support of airstrikes as a future blank check.
"They were passing out on floor to Democrats before the vote," Kucinich reports. But then, Kucinich heard that White House spokesman Joe Lockhart had told reporters that, were the vote to go the way the White House wanted, the president wouldn't be required to seek congressional approval on any further actions in Kosovo. "We'll talk to leaders, but we won't have to go back," Kucinich paraphrases. "So Lockhart had already nuanced it into something that was less than what the letter said."
<snip>
Not yet anyway. But then there's Kucinich and a small group of congressmen, led by Rep. Tom Campbell, R-Calif. They're not so willing to hand off the power "to declare war," as declared in Article I, Section 8. And now they're taking the president to court to get this right back. The manner in which the Clinton administration has launched the NATO military action is, indeed, consistent with how every president since Franklin Roosevelt -- with the exception of George Bush, who belatedly sought a resolution to support the Gulf War -- has waged war: by ignoring the role of Congress to declare it.
<snip>
Campbell and Kucinich didn't buy that. They enlisted 15 other members of Congress -- including rabid Clinton haters Bob Barr, R-Ga., Philip Crane, R-Ill., and Dan Burton, R-Ill. -- as well as one other Ohio Democrat, Marcy Kaptur. Then they sought the legal counsel of Michael Ratner of New York's Center for Constitutional Rights. Last Friday, they filed their lawsuit to get District Court Judge Greene to declare the current military action unconstitutional.
<snip>
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/05/06/war/print.html
---------------------------------
<snip>
I WORKED WITH several members of Congress, building opposition to giving the President war powers authority. The decisive moment was April 28. On that day, the House of Representatives voted, in a test of the War Powers Act, not to give the Administration full authority in the war, including the ability to use ground troops. This single vote may well have been the turning point of the war. The White House and Democratic leaders held a relentless series of meetings to lobby for the war, including small focus groups with members of Congress, caucus meetings, and whip meetings to organize floor counts and check and recheck the vote. They were stunned when the vote ended in a tie, defeating the measure and forcing the Administration to look toward diplomatic channels to end the conflict.
<snip>
One of the myths of this war is that it was won by air power. Peace activists ought to demand that Congress appropriate money for a strategic bombing survey. This survey, conducted by an independent, non-defense-related organization, should examine where the bombs fell, as distinct from their intended targets. It would analyze the purpose of the specific bombing campaigns and whether the purpose was accomplished. For instance, NATO bombing was supposed to cripple the Serbian military. A strategic bombing survey would show that nothing of the sort happened.
A classic maneuver for politicians caught in a foreign policy morass is to declare victory and get out. In Kosovo, the President and Secretary of State have declared a NATO victory and are staying. Troops will be there to ensure the KLA has a shot at independence--circumstances that will only bring the people of Kosovo more violence. What did we win? We won more war.
NATO's victory talk only sets the stage for the next war, creates a false sense of security about its power, puts faith in arms instead of negotiation, and covers up the endless series of blunders in the execution of the war.
http://www.progressive.org/kuc899.htm
----------------------------------
Congressman Kucinich was one of the leading Democrats in opposition to the Balkan war and to NATO's bombing strategy. On April 28, 1999, Congress voted overwhelmingly against declaring war on Yugoslavia (H.J. Res 44). Congressman Kucinich was also instrumental in the defeat of a bill (S.Con.Res. 21) that would have legally sanctioned the Administration to wage a larger war. The resolution was defeated in a 213-213 tie vote. As a result, the War Powers Resolution's restriction on the length of an unauthorized military campaign remained in place, and was one factor leading to the war’s quick end.
On April 30, 1999, a bipartisan coalition of Members of Congress, including Congressman Kucinich, filed a lawsuit to compel the President to follow the Constitution and halt U.S. armed forces from engaging in military action in Yugoslavia unless Congress declared war or granted the President specific statutory authority.
http://www.house.gov/kucinich/issues/internationalrelations.htm
----------------------------------
TOM CAMPBELL ET AL.
V.
WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
TOM CAMPBELL, Member,
U.S. House of Representatives,
2442 Rayburn House Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20515;
DENNIS KUCINICH, Member
U.S. House of Representatives,
1730 Longworth House Office Bldg.,
Washington, DC 20515;
BOB BARR, Member,
U.S. House of Representatives
1207 Longworth House Office Bldg.,
Washington, DC 20515;
ROSCOE BARTLETT, Member,
U.S. House of Representatives,
2412 Rayburn House Office Bldg.,
Washington, DC 20515;
DAN BURTON, Member,
U.S. House of Representatives,
2185 Rayburn House Office Bldg.,
Washington, DC 20515;
JOHN COOKSEY, Member,
U.S. House of Representatives,
317 Cannon House Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20515;
PHILIP CRANE, Member
233 Cannon House Office Bldg.,
Washington, DC 20515;
WALTER JONES, Member,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515;
MARCY KAPTUR, Member,
U.S. House of Representatives,
2366 Rayburn House Office Bldg.,
Washington, DC 20515;
DONALD MANZULLO, Member,
U.S. House of Representatives,
409 Cannon House Office Bldg.,
Washington, DC 20515;
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Member,
U.S. House of Representatives,
1707 Longworth House Office Bldg.,
Washington, DC 20515;
RON PAUL, Member,
U.S. House of Representatives,
203 Cannon House Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20515;
TOM PETRI, Member,
U.S. House of Representatives,
2462 Rayburn House Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20515;
MARSHALL SANFORD, Member,
U.S. House of Representatives,
1233 Longworth House Office Bldg.,
Washington, DC 20515;
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Member,
U.S. House of Representatives,
127 Cannon House Office Bldg.,
Washington, DC 20515;
BOB SCHAFFER, Member,
U.S. House of Representatives,
212 Cannon House Office Bldg.,
Washington, DC 20515;
THOMAS TANCREDO, Member,
U.S. House of Representatives,
1123 Longworth House Office Bldg.,
Washington, DC 20515;
Plaintiffs,
- vs. -
WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON,
President of the United States,
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20500,
Defendant.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. In this action seventeen members of Congress seek declaratory relief declaring that the Defendant, the President of the United States, is unconstitutionally continuing an offensive military attack by United States Armed Forces against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia without obtaining a declaration of war or other explicit authority from the Congress of the United States as required by Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, and despite Congress' decision not to authorize such action.
2. Plaintiffs also seek a declaration that a report pursuant to Section 1543(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution was required to be submitted on March 26, 1999, within 48 hours of the introduction into hostilities in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia of United States Armed Forces. Additionally, Plaintiffs seek a declaration that, pursuant to Section 1544(b) of the Resolution, the President must terminate the use of United States Armed Forces engaged in hostilities against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia no later than sixty calendar days after March 26, 1999. The President must do so unless the Congress declares war or enacts other explicit authorization, or has extended the sixty day period, or the President determines that thirty additional days are necessary to safely withdraw United States Armed Forces from combat.
FACTS
8. On March 24, 1999, United States Armed Forces at the direction of the Defendant began massive air strikes in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
9. On March 26, 1999, the President submitted a report to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate stating that United States Armed Forces began a series of air strikes in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In the report the President states that he is "providing this report as part of any efforts to keep Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution." The report states that to "limit his ability to make war . . . . United States and NATO forces have targeted the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia government's integrated air defense systems, military and security police command and control elements, and military and security police facilities and infrastructure. United States naval ships and aircraft and U.S. Air Force aircraft are participating in these operations."
10. Administration officials have stated that a substantial and sustained air campaign is ongoing against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
11. Between March 24, 1999, and April 28, 1999, United States and allied aircraft flew over 11,500 sorties over the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, an average of approximately 350 sorties per day. During the same period, the United States and allied aircraft launched over 4,400 confirmed air strikes on Yugoslavia territory, an average of over 100 per day. United States Armed Forces also launched over 180 cruise missiles against Yugoslavia during this time period. The United States has tens of thousands of military personnel involved in the military operations against Yugoslavia.
12. Administration officials state that it is likely that the current hostilities will be protracted. In testimony before Congress on April 21, 1999, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, referring to the hostilities against Yugoslavia, stated that "As the President and our military leaders have made clear, this struggle may be long." On April 29, 1999, President Clinton stated that the air attacks are likely to continue for many months.
13. To support an expansion of the U.S. air offensive over Yugoslavia, President Clinton authorized the Pentagon to summon as many as 33,102 reservists to active duty. Defendant's decision represented the largest activation of reservists since the 1991 Persian Gulf War against Iraq. This call up was in part necessary to increase the number of United States aircraft involved in the Yugoslav operation to almost 1,000.
14. United States officials have stated that the air attack against Yugoslavia will escalate in the coming weeks. U.S. General Wesley Clark, the NATO Commander, stated on April 27, 1999, that the air strikes thus far have "been only a fraction of what is to come."
15. On April 28, 1999, the U.S. House of Representatives decided not to authorize the President of the United States to conduct military air operations and missile strikes against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The House of Representatives defeated by a vote of 213 to 213 S. Con. Res. 21 which would have authorized such military operations.
16. On April 28, 1999, the U.S. House of Representatives, by a vote of 427 to 2 determined not to declare war by defeating H. J. Res. 44 which would have declared war against Yugoslavia.
17. The Plaintiffs are Democratic and Republican members of Congress who voted against S. Con. Res. 21 or H. J. Res. 44 of the 106th Congress.
http://www.humanrightsnow.org/CCR_AWL/tom_campbell_et_al.htm
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
