portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article

imperialism & war

US President Bush Demands Free Hand for War from Congress

"Bush's `method', the instigation of a war for domestic political reasons, is as old as war itself. Nothing is better suited to produce unity across all differences than war." This article is translated from the German in the cyber journal Telepolis.
US President Bush Demands Free Hand for War from Congress

By Florian Roetzer

[This article originally published in the cyber journal Telepolis, September 20, 2002 is translated from the German on the World Wide Web,  http://www.telepolis.de/deutsch/inhalt/co/13282/1.html.]

In a resolution to Congress, Bush wants to force a decision before the elections and distorts the truth.

,,,Bush's "method", the instigation of a war for domestic political reasons, is as old as war itself. Nothing is better suited to produce unity across all differences than war and threats from the outside..

"At the United Nations Security Council it is very important that the members understand that the credibility of the United Nations is at stake, that the Security Council must be firm in its resolve to deal with a true threat to world peace, and that is Saddam Hussein. That the United Nations Security Council must work with the United States and Britain and other concerned parties to send a clear message that we expect Saddam to disarm. And if the United Security Council wont deal with the problem, the United States and some of our friends will." - President Bush

The US president is emphasizing the case of Iraq before the US elections with all determination.1 In a resolution sent to Congress, he seeks absolute freedom of action to launch a military attack unrestrictedly and at any time. The formulation that preserving peace requires permission to use force clearly suggests that the Bush administration wants to use the military card more easily in the future, not only for a military first-strike against Iraq.

The blank check that Bush wants from the Congress also tests the limits because the proposed resolution is in no way limited to Iraq but would give him a free hand for military actions in the whole region. The basis for a military strike would be any threat to the national security of the US, not only a breach of UN resolutions. Very bluntly, the goal is the overthrow of the regime, not weapons inspections or elimination of weapons of mass destruction.

"The President is authorized to use all means that he determines to be appropriate, including force, in order to enforce the United Nations Security Council resolutions referenced above, defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq, and restore international peace and security in the region."

With the reference to earlier congressional resolutions, the drafted resolution declares that the US president can use all means to prevail when UN sanctions are violated by Iraq. From the constitution, the president has the right to act militarily when national security is threatened. American historians3 recall that only Congress can declare war, not the president. The petition4 insists that Congress must debate and vote and not only pass a resolution authorizing a war. A new UN sanction or the legitimation of a war against Iraq for violating UN sanctions would be a necessary means for Bush to carry out an intervention, not to declare war.

"We too watched with shock the horrific events of September 11, 2001. We too mourned the thousands of innocent dead and shook our heads at the terrible scenes of carnage - even as we recalled similar scenes in Baghdad, Panama City, and, a generation ago, Vietnam. We too joined the anguished questioning of millions of Americans who asked why such a thing could happen.

But the mourning had barely begun, when the highest leaders of the land unleashed a spirit of revenge. They put out a simplistic script of "good vs. evil" that was taken up by a pliant and intimidated media. They told us that asking why these terrible events had happened verged on treason. There was to be no debate. There were by definition no valid political or moral questions. The only possible answer was to be war abroad and repression at home."

From5 "A Statement of Conscience: Not In Our Name", a manifesto of American war opponents signed by many artists and intellectuals

The Bush administration's attempted justification of the war authorization of the president in the resolution by creating facts out of speculations is appalling. Thus it is said that Iraq still violates the UN resolutions in possessing and developing "a significant amount of chemical and biological weapons, in actively seeking to possess nuclear weapons and supporting and sheltering terrorist organizations that threaten the national security, interests of the US and international peace." Iraq, still the ally of the US!, already used weapons of mass destruction.

Members of al-Qaida are claimed to be staying in Iraq. The attacks of 9.11 demonstr5ated the magnitude of the threat "that Iraq supplies weapons of mass destruction to international terrorist organizations". For a long time, both were completely unproven as there is no evidence that Iraq still has weapons of mass destruction. The US according to international law has the "inherent right" to use force for self-preservation. Iraq has already shown that it has the means and the will to use weapons of mass destruction, the resolution continues. The use of force for self-defense is legitimate given the high risk that these weapons could be used in a "surprise attack" on the US or delivered to international terrorists for this purpose.

In contrast, the resolution hardly discussed the conversations and preparations of a new weapons inspection or clear conditions when military means should be deployed. What is involved is largely a blank check. After a discussion and some limitations, the Congress should approve the resolution awarding power to the president without another vote of Congress. The critical voices from the ranks of the democrats are largely reserved. In election campaign times, the pressure can be so great that a power is conceded to the president that cannot be cancelled any more in order not to be regarded as unpatriotic. Finally, Bush declares again and again that the nation is already in a long lasting war requiring national unity. He seeks to sell the resolution6 as Congress' approval to "give the administration the possibility to preserve the peace". For peace, one must go to war.

Final Withdrawal from the Biological-weapons Convention

As the Washington Post7 reports, the Bush administration first completely thwarted further negotiations on a new amendment to the biological-weapons convention for regulating verification. At best, discussions could continue in 2006. Until then, the biological-weapons convention remains a paper tiger although the US government justifies its actions against Iraq again and again by insisting Iraq has biological weapons.

Last year despite the Anthrax letters, the US government allowed the negotiations to break down in the short term because the verification procedures were allegedly inadequate to prevent states from developing or maintaining biological weapons. (Biological-weapons conference in Geneva fails.8) An assistant to the secretary of state justified the retreat from the international convention by arguing that the approaches of the US and the other states were so different that no agreement was possible.

Instead of the international convention that would allow inspections of facilities in member countries (including in the US) on substantiated suspicion, the US prefers that states individually prohibit the manufacture, sale and possession of biological weapons by criminal law. This has the advantage that the US would not be subject to any international agreements and have a free hand for actions of self-defense as in Iraq and not have to justify actions on inspections of an international team.

homepage: homepage: http://www.mbtranslations.com
address: address: mbatko@lycos.com


atomic frog

Clinton broke it first by allowing pug winokur and dyncorp spray agent orange X4 on central and south america. nevermind the single dose had been classified as hazardous. hell pug got paid by superfund to clean up the site where it was made and stored too. the proof of it being hazardous was blown up along with many loved ones. ok.city.ok, dubya's dad sponsored this one.

The Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989
An Act
To implement the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production,
and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and Their
Destruction, by prohibiting certain conduct relating to biological weapons,
and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled,
This Act may be cited as the `Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989'.
(a) PURPOSE- The purpose of this Act is to--
(1) implement the Biological Weapons Convention, an international agreement
unanimously ratified by the United States Senate in 1974 and signed by more
than 100 other nations, including the Soviet Union; and
(2) protect the United States against the threat of biological terrorism.
(b) INTENT OF ACT- Nothing in this Act is intended to restrain or restrict
peaceful scientific research or development.
(a) IN GENERAL- Title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after
chapter 9 the following:
`175. Prohibitions with respect to biological weapons.
`176. Seizure, forfeiture, and destruction.
`177. Injunctions.
`178. Definitions.
`Sec. 175. Prohibitions with respect to biological weapons
`(a) IN GENERAL- Whoever knowingly develops, produces, stockpiles, transfers,
acquires, retains, or possesses any biological agent, toxin, or delivery
system for use as a weapon, or knowingly assists a foreign state or any
organization to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life
or any term of years, or both. There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction
over an offense under this section committed by or against a national of the
United States.
`(b) DEFINITION- For purposes of this section, the term `for use as a weapon'
does not include the development, production, transfer, acquisition,
retention, or possession of any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system
for prophylactic, protective, or other peaceful purposes.
`Sec. 176. Seizure, forfeiture, and destruction
`(a) IN GENERAL- (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Attorney
General may request the issuance, in the same manner as provided for a search
warrant, of a warrant authorizing the seizure of any biological agent, toxin,
or delivery system that--
`(A) exists by reason of conduct prohibited under section 175 of this title;
`(B) is of a type or in a quantity that under the circumstances has no
apparent justification for prophylactic, protective, or other peaceful
`(2) In exigent circumstances, seizure and destruction of any biological
agent, toxin, or delivery system described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of
paragraph (1) may be made upon probable cause without the necessity for a
`(b) PROCEDURE- Property seized pursuant to subsection (a) shall be forfeited
to the United States after notice to potential claimants and an opportunity
for a hearing. At such hearing, the government shall bear the burden of
persuasion by a preponderance of the evidence. Except as inconsistent
herewith, the same procedures and provisions of law relating to a forfeiture
under the customs laws shall extend to a seizure or forfeiture under this
section. The Attorney General may provide for the destruction or other
appropriate disposition of any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system
seized and forfeited pursuant to this section.
`(c) AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE- It is an affirmative defense against a forfeiture
under subsection (a)(1)(B) of this section that--
`(1) such biological agent, toxin, or delivery system is for a prophylactic,
protective, or other peaceful purpose; and
`(2) such biological agent, toxin, or delivery system, is of a type and
quantity reasonable for that purpose.
`Sec. 177. Injunctions
`(a) IN GENERAL- The United States may obtain in a civil action an injunction
`(1) the conduct prohibited under section 175 of this title;
`(2) the preparation, solicitation, attempt, or conspiracy to engage in
conduct prohibited under section 175 of this title; or
`(3) the development, production, stockpiling, transferring, acquisition,
retention, or possession, or the attempted development, production,
stockpiling, transferring, acquisition, retention, or possession of any
biological agent, toxin, or delivery system of a type or in a quantity that
under the circumstances has no apparent justification for prophylactic,
protective, or other peaceful purposes.
`(b) AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE- It is an affirmative defense against an injunction
under subsection (a)(3) of this section that--
`(1) the conduct sought to be enjoined is for a prophylactic, protective, or
other peaceful purpose; and
`(2) such biological agent, toxin, or delivery system is of a type and
quantity reasonable for that purpose.
`Sec. 178. Definitions
`As used in this chapter--
`(1) the term `biological agent' means any micro-organism, virus, or
infectious substance, capable of causing--
`(A) death, disease, or other biological malfunction in a human, an animal,
a plant, or another living organism;
`(B) deterioration of food, water, equipment, supplies, or material of any
kind; or
`(C) deleterious alteration of the environment;
`(2) the term `toxin' means, whatever its origin or method of production--
`(A) any poisonous substance produced by a living organism; or
`(B) any poisonous isomer, homolog, or derivative of such a substance;
`(3) the term `delivery system' means--
`(A) any apparatus, equipment, device, or means of delivery specifically
designed to deliver or disseminate a biological agent, toxin, or vector; or
`(B) any vector; and
`(4) the term `vector' means a living organism capable of carrying a
biological agent or toxin to a host.'.
(b) WIRE INTERCEPTION- Section 2516(c) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding `section 175 (relating to biological weapons),' after
`section 33 (relating to destruction of motor vehicles or motor vehicle
(c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of chapters for part I of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 9 the
following new item:

DASCHLE REVEALS THE RULES 10-10 12.Oct.2002 13:14


Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle

Resolution Authorizing the President to Use Force,
if Necessary, to End the Threat to World Peace from
Saddam Hussein's Weapons of Mass Destruction

Thursday, October 10, 2002

Mr. President, we are now engaged in one of the most consequential debates addressed in this chamber in many years. We are confronting the grave issues of war and peace. We are considering how the United States should respond to a murderous dictator who has shown that he will be bound neither by conscience, nor by the laws or principles of civilized nations. And we are contemplating whether, and under what conditions, the Congress should authorize the pre-emptive use of American military power to remove the threat he poses.

These questions go directly to who we are as a nation. How we answer them will have profound consequences -- for our nation, for our allies, for the war on terrorism, and -- perhaps most importantly -- for the men and women in our armed forces who could be called to risk their lives because of our decisions.

There is no question that Saddam Hussein is a dangerous man who has done barbaric things. He has invaded neighbors, supported terrorists, and repressed and murdered his own people. Over the last several months, as the world has sought to calm the violence between Israelis and Palestinians, Iraq has tried to inflame the situation by speaking against the very existence of Israel and encouraging suicide bombers in Gaza and the West Bank.

Saddam Hussein has stockpiled, weaponized, and used chemical and biological weapons. And he has made no secret of his desire to acquire nuclear weapons. He has ignored international agreements and frustrated the efforts of international inspectors, and his ambitions today are as unrelenting as they have ever been.

As a condition of the truce that ended the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein agreed to eliminate Iraq's nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, and to abandon all efforts to develop or deliver such weapons. That agreement is spelled out in UN Security Council Resolution 687. Iraq has never complied with the resolution.

For the first seven years after the Gulf War, it tried to deceive UN weapons inspectors, block their access to key sites and make it impossible for them to do their jobs. Finally, in October 1998, the UN was left with no choice but to withdraw its inspectors from Iraq. As a result, we do not know exactly what is now in Iraq's arsenal.

We do know, however, that Iraq has weaponized thousands of gallons of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. We know that Iraq maintains stockpiles of some of world's deadliest chemical weapons, including VX, sarin and mustard gas. We know that Iraq is developing deadlier ways to deliver these horrible weapons, including unmanned drones and long-range ballistic missiles. And we know that Saddam Hussein is committed to one day possessing nuclear weapons. If that should happen, instead of simply bullying the Gulf region, he could dominate it. Instead of threatening only his neighbors, he would become a grave threat to US security and to global security. The threat posed by Saddam Hussein may not be imminent. But it is real. It is growing. And it cannot be ignored.

Despite that, like many Americans, I was concerned by the way the Administration first proposed to deal with that threat. The seeming desire of this Administration to wage war alone -- without the support of our allies and without authorization from Congress -- was wrong.

Many of us -- Democrats and Republicans -- made it clear that such unilateralism was not in the nation's best interests. I commend the President for changing his approach and acknowledging the importance of working with our allies. I also commend him for recognizing that under our Constitution, it is Congress that authorizes the use of force, and for requesting a resolution providing such authority. And I applaud my colleagues -- Democrats and Republicans, in the House and Senate -- for the improvements they have made to the Administration's original resolution. Four changes were especially critical:

First: Instead of giving the President broad and unfocused authorization to take action "in the region,'' as the Administration originally sought, this resolution focuses specifically on the threat posed by Iraq. It no longer authorizes -- nor should it be used to try to justify -- the use of force against other nations, organizations or individuals that the President may believe threaten peace and stability in the Persian Gulf region. It is a strong and focused response to a specific threat. It is not a template or model for any other situation.

Second: This resolution expresses the deep conviction of this Congress, and of the American people, that President Bush should continue to work through the United Nations Security Council in order to secure Iraqi compliance with UN resolutions. Unfettered inspections may or may not lead to Iraqi disarmament. But whether they succeed or fail, the effort we expend in seeking inspections will make it easier for the President to assemble a global coalition against Saddam, should military action eventually be needed.

Third: This resolution makes it clear that, before the President can use force in Iraq, he must certify to the Congress that diplomacy has failed, and that further diplomatic efforts alone cannot protect America's national security interests, nor can they lead to enforcement of the UN Security Council resolutions.

Fourth: This resolution protects the balance of power by requiring the President to comply with the War Powers Act and to report to Congress at least every 60 days "on matters relevant to this resolution.''

This resolution gives the President the authority he needs to confront the threat posed by Iraq. It is a fundamentally different and better resolution than the one the President sent us. It is neither a Democratic resolution nor a Republican resolution. It is now a statement of American resolve and values.

It is more respectful of our Constitution, more reflective of our understanding that we need to work with our allies in this effort, and more in keeping with our strong belief that force must be a last resort, not a first response.

Because this resolution is improved, because I believe that Saddam Hussein represents a real threat, and because I believe it is important for America to speak with one voice at this critical moment -- I will vote to give the President the authority he needs.

I respect those who reach different conclusions.

For me, the deciding factor is my belief that a united Congress will help the President unite the world. And by uniting the world, we can increase the world's chances of succeeding in this effort, and reduce both the risks and the costs that America may have to bear.

With this resolution, we are giving the President extraordinary authority. How he exercises that authority will determine how successful any action in Iraq might be.

In 1991, by the time the President's father sought Congressional support to use force against Iraq, he had secured pledges of military cooperation from nearly 40 nations, and statements of support from scores of others. He had already secured the backing of the United Nations. And he had already developed a clear plan of action.

In assembling that coalition, the legitimacy of our cause was affirmed. Regional stability was maintained. The risk to our soldiers was lessened. America's burden was reduced. And, perhaps most importantly, Iraq was isolated. At this point, we have done none of those things. That is why, unlike in 1991, our vote on this resolution should be seen as the beginning of a process, not the end.

For our efforts in Iraq to succeed, President Bush must continue to consult with Congress and to work hard to build a global coalition. That is not capitulation. It is leadership, and it is essential.

In my view, there are five other crucial steps the Administration must take before any final decision on the use of force in Iraq is made.

First and foremost, the President needs to be honest with the American people -- not only about the benefits of action against Iraq, but also about the risks and the costs of such action. We are no longer talking about driving Saddam Hussein back to within his borders. We are talking about driving him from power. That is a much more difficult and complicated goal.

A story in this past Sunday's Philadelphia Inquirer suggests that top officials in the Administration "have exaggerated the degree of allied support for a war in Iraq.'' The story goes on to say that others in the Administration "are rankled by what they charge is a tendency'' by some in the Administration "to gloss over the unpleasant realities'' of a potential war with Iraq.

A report in yesterday's Washington Post suggests that "an increasing number of intelligence officials, including former and current intelligence agency employees -- are concerned the agency is tailoring its public stance to fit the Administration's views.''

I do not know whether these reports are accurate. We do know from our own national experience, however, that public support for military action can evaporate quickly if the American people come to believe they have not been given all the facts. If that should happen, no resolution Congress might pass will be able to unify our nation. The American people expect, and success demands, that they be told both the benefits and the risks involved in any action against Iraq.

Second: We need to make it clear to the world that the reason we would use force in Iraq is to remove Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I would prefer that this goal had been made explicit in this resolution. However, it is clear from this debate that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction are the principal threat to the United States -- and the only threat that would justify the use of United States military force against Iraq. It is the threat that the President cited repeatedly in his speech to the American people Monday night. It may also be the only threat that can rally the world to support our efforts. Therefore, we expect, and success demands, that the Administration not lose sight of this essential mission.

Third: we need to prepare for what might happen in Iraq after Saddam Hussein. "Regime change'' is an easy expression for a difficult job. One thing we have learned from our action in Afghanistan is that it is easier to topple illegitimate regimes than it is to build legitimate democracies. We will need to do much better in post-Saddam Iraq than the Administration has done so far in post-Taliban Afghanistan.

Iraq is riven by religious and ethnic differences and demoralized by a repressive government and crushing poverty. It has no experience with democracy. History tells us that it is not enough merely to hope that well-intentioned leaders will rise to fill the void that the departure of Saddam Hussein would leave. We must help create the conditions under which such a leader can arise and govern.

Unless we want to risk seeing Iraq go from bad to worse, we must help the Iraqi people rebuild their political and economic institutions after Saddam. That could take many years, and many billions of dollars -- which is another reason we must build a global coalition. The American people expect, and success demands, that we plan for stability, and for economic and political progress in Iraq after Saddam.

Fourth: we need to minimize the chances that any action we may take in Iraq will destabilize the region. Throughout the Persian Gulf, there are extremists who would like nothing more than to transform a confrontation with Iraq into a wider war between the Arab world and Israel, or the Arab world and the West.

What happens if -- by acting in Iraq -- we undermine the government in Jordan, a critical ally and a strategic buffer between Iraq and Israel? What happens if we destabilize Pakistan and empower Islamic fundamentalists? Unlike Iraq, Pakistan already has nuclear weapons -- and the means to deliver them. What happens if that arsenal falls into the hands of Al Qaeda or other extremists?

We can tell the Arab world that this is not a fight between their nations and ours. But a far better way to maintain stability in the Gulf is to demonstrate that -- by building a global coalition to confront Saddam. That is why the Administration must make every reasonable effort to secure a UN resolution, just as we did in 1991. With UN support, we can count a number of Arab countries as full allies. Without UN support, we can't even count on their air space. We expect, and success demands, that any action we take in Iraq make the region more stable, not less.

Fifth and finally: we cannot allow a war in Iraq to jeopardize the war on terrorism. We are fighting terrorist organizations with global networks, we need partners around the globe. Some -- including the chairman of the President's own Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board -- doubt whether we can count on this continued cooperation in the war on terror if we go to war against Iraq.

I do not know if that is true. I do know, however, that the military, intelligence and political cooperation we receive from nations throughout the world is critical to the war on terrorism. Saddam Hussein may yet target America. Al Qaeda already has.

The American people expect, and our national security demands, that the Administration make plans to ensure that any action we take in Iraq does not distract or detract from the war on terror. If they fail to do so, any victory we win in Iraq would come at a terrible cost.

Monday night, in his speech to the nation, the President said: "The situation could hardly get worse for world security and the people of Iraq.'' Yes, it can.

If the Administration attempts to use the authority in this resolution without doing the work that is required before and after military action in Iraq, the situation there -- and elsewhere -- can indeed get worse. We could see more turmoil in the Persian Gulf, not less. We could see more bloodshed in the Middle East, not less. Americans could find themselves more vulnerable to terrorist attacks, not less.

So I stress again, Mr. President: This resolution represents a beginning, not an end. If we are going to make America and the world safer, much more work needs to be done before the force authorized in this document is used.

Some people think it is wrong to ask questions or raise concerns when the President says our national security is at risk. They believe it is an act of disloyalty. I disagree. In America, asking questions is an act of patriotism. For those of us who have been entrusted by our fellow citizens to serve in this Senate, asking questions is more than a privilege. It is a Constitutional responsibility.

The American people have serious questions about the course of action this resolution could set us on. Given the gravity of the issues involved, and the far-reaching consequences of this course, it is essential that their questions are answered. I support this resolution. And for the sake of the American people -- especially those who may be called to defend our nation -- I will continue to ask questions.

On one point, however, I have no questions. I believe deeply and absolutely in the courage, the skills, and the devotion of our men and women in uniform. I know that if it becomes necessary for them to stand in harm's way to protect America, they will do so with pride and without hesitation, and they will succeed. They are the finest fighting force the world has ever known.

For their sake -- for the sake of all Americans, and for the world's sake -- we must confront Saddam Hussein. But we must do so in a way that avoids making a dangerous situation even worse.

"We still have a choice today; non-violent co-existence or violent co-annihilation. We must move past indecision to action. If we do not act, we shall surely be dragged down the long, dark, and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight." MLKING

 http://democrats.com/elandslide/petition.cfm? / www.jpost.com