Posted by andreas from p3EE3C58B.dip.t-dialin.net (184.108.40.206) on Sunday, September 22, 2002 at 8:11AM :
New Nighted SStates of America
The sweeping war authorities sought by Bush remind exactly of the Nazi so-called "Ermächtigungsgesetz"(- Total- Empowerment Law).
It's indispensable prequel then was the "Reichtagsbrand" (Fire/Burning down of the German Parliament") staged by the Nazis themselves for justifying their power grab just as in our time the 11/9 events were an insider job of the power elite .... in order to ...
But, I already posted here some pertinent & tell-tale docs.
For the rest, search & see the relevant material & discussions on the web.
Editor Matthew Rothschild comments on the news of the day.
September 20, 2002
RESOLUTION OF FARCE
On Thursday, the President sought the crown. He asked Congress to grant him the authority "to use all means that he determines to be appropriate, including force," to fight Iraq and "restore international peace and security in the region."
The vastness of this request was amazing.
Bush would be empowered to decide, by himself, when to go to war against Iraq, and the entire U.S. arsenal--including nuclear weapons--would be available to him. He could go to war today or three months from now, without approval of the U.N. Security Council, and despite any effort by Saddam Hussein to let U.N. inspectors into Iraq.
No act of war or aggression by Saddam Hussein would be necessary for Bush to attack.
Forget about international law and a casus belli.
The king wants a war; the king can have a war.
And not just in Iraq.
By granting the President authority to "restore international peace and security in the region," Congress would be giving Bush, and his successors, carte blanche to go to war any time against any country there, and note that "the region" is undefined.
If he wants to wage war against Iran, this resolution would justify it.
If he wants to wage war against Syria, this resolution would justify it.
If he wants to wage war against Saudi Arabia, this resolution would justify it.
And there is no expiration date on the resolution. It is a recipe for war without end.
This kind of Presidential authorization makes even the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution pale in comparison. And it would take away Congress's constitutional right to declare war in that entire part of the world.
It's a power grab the likes of which we may never have seen before, and it is based on specious reasoning.
In the "whereas" sections, Bush's draft relies on U.N. Security Council resolutions from twelve years ago that almost entirely had to do with getting Iraq out of Kuwait. It's more than a bit disingenuous to cite those yellowing resolutions today as justification instead of relying on a new U.N. Security Council resolution. But the Bush Administration isn't certain it can win a new U.N. resolution, so it is relying on these ancient ones.
In another "whereas" section, the draft resolution says there is a "high risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons [of mass destruction] to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its armed forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so."
But Saddam Hussein understands that if he launches a surprise attack against the United States, he's a dead man. That's why he didn't use chemical and biological weapons against the United States in 1991. And Richard Butler, former head U.N. weapons inspector, says it's very unlikely that Saddam Hussein would dish his weapons off to international terrorists.
The Bush Administration is using the worst kind of scare tactics to make Congress roll over. And while many in Congress are already supine, at least a few have stood up.
"Unilateral military action by the United States against Iraq is unjustified, unwarranted, and illegal," said Representative Dennis Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio. "The Administration has failed to make the case that Iraq poses an imminent or immediate threat to the United States. . . . If the United States proceeds with a first strike policy, then we will have taken upon our nation a historic burden of committing a violation of international law, marking the United States, a nation whose people have traditionally defended democracy, as aggressors."
"War against Iraq should not be our first choice, but rather our last resort," said Representative Tammy Baldwin, Democrat of Wisconsin. "Absent an imminent threat, you must exhaust all other tools before hauling out the machinery of death and destruction."
Other Representatives speaking out against the war include: ; Danny Davis (D-IL), Peter DeFazio (D-OR), Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), Sam Farr (D-CA), Bob Filner (D-CA), Barney Frank (D-MA), Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL), Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-MI), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Jim McDermott (D-WA), Major Owens (D-NY), Lynn Rivers (D-MI), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Diane Watson (D-CA), and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA).
On the Senate side, Democrat Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, stood tall. "Clearly, the Administration's proposed language authorizing the use of force is unacceptable," he said. "As it is written, it is incredibly broad. Not only does it fail to adequately define the mission in question, it appears to actually authorize the President to do virtually anything anywhere in the Middle East, a proposal that no doubt will alarm many of our most important allies in the fight against terrorism. This proposal is a case of the Administration telling Congress to stop asking questions and literally 'leave it all to us.' To endorse such language would be irresponsible."
As for the Republicans, Representatives Dick Armey and Ron Paul of Texas have questioned the wisdom of this war, as has Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.
All of these courageous elected officials deserve our praise. And we need to do all we can nonviolently to pressure those members of Congress who are caving to the President.
Tell them that war is not the way.
Demand that they uphold international law.
Urge them to pull back from the precipice.
-- Matthew Rothschild
-- signature .
Post a Followup