-Caveat Lector-
Our Illegal War
by Congressman Helen Chenoweth
Rep. Helen Chenoweth - Congress must reclaim its authority
When the order was given for American military personnel to attack Yugoslavia,
it was not issued following a declaration of war from Congress.
Nor was the order given by the President as a means of repelling a sudden attack
on America by a foreign aggressor, or as a measure intended to rescue Americans
abroad from unexpected peril.
In fact, the order to attack Yugoslavia didn't even follow the pattern set in
Korea and Vietnam, in which our nation was committed to protracted foreign wars
through unilateral presidential action.
On March 23rd, the order to commence hostilities was given to an American
general by a Spanish Marxist - NATO Secretary-General Javier Solana.
"I have just directed the Supreme Allied Commander of Europe, General [Wesley]
Clark, to initiate air operations in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,"
announced Solana, who insisted that the attack "is intended to support the
political aims of the international community." Congress played no role in
defining those political aims, which means that the American people - in whose
name Congress is empowered to act - were not permitted to play any role in the
decision to commit our nation to war.
In the run-up to our war with Yugoslavia, Congress was permitted by its leaders
to carry out an impotent charade of debate. On March 11th, the House approved a
non-binding resolution endorsing the use of American troops to enforce a peace
agreement between the Yugoslav regime of Slobodan Milosevic and secessionist
leaders in Yugoslavia?s Kosovo province. On March 23rd, just hours before Solana
issued the order to begin the bombing, the Senate approved a resolution
supporting the military campaign. But Clinton Administration officials,
including the President, had by that time made it clear that while they sought
approval of the military action from Congress, they did not consider it
necessary for Congress to authorize the military strike on Yugoslavia.
A few senators seemed to understand the constitutional implications of these
actions. Senator Don Nickles (R-OK) pointed out, "If we start a massive bombing
campaign, we?re going to war." Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) described the prospect
of waging an undeclared aggressive war upon Yugoslavia as "a precedent I don?t
want to be involved in." Even more pointed were the comments of Senator Pete
Domenici (R-NM). "I say shame on the President," declared Domenici, momentarily
forgetting that Bill Clinton has repeatedly demonstrated that he is incapable of
shame. "If this is such an important matter, why couldn?t [the President] trust
the United States Senate and United States House and ask us whether we concur?"
In order to appreciate the depth of the Administration?s deception regarding the
war over Kosovo, it is necessary to understand that the war was "authorized" by
NATO long before the bombing began on March 24th. The day after the war began,
the London Telegraph reported that General Clark, NATO?s supreme military
commander, "received his activation order for hostilities last October. The
order was the official moment when authority over the forces to be used was
transferred to him from the top brass of the member countries supplying them.
The supreme commander does not need new permission from politicians or diplomats
whenever he wishes to change tactics, or increase or scale back operations."
(Emphasis added.)
At 1:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time on March 24th, with American bombers en route
to Yugoslavia and just minutes before the first explosions were reported on the
ground in Kosovo, White House spokesman Joe Lockhart explicitly admitted that
the power to take our nation into war had been surrendered to a foreign official
- namely, the NATO Secretary-General. Lockhart was asked by correspondent Helen
Thomas, "Who gives the green light on this now? Is t the President himself, or
the Supreme Commander of NATO...?" Lockhart replied, "The Supreme Commander of
NATO acts on the authority of the political leaders of the NATO countries, and
he has that authority."
In brief, the power to declare war in Kosovo was exercised by NATO
Secretary-General Solana; the power to make war was given to NATO?s Supreme
Commander; the President of the United States played the role of "selling" the
war to the public, and Congress was tacitly told that its duty was to
rubber-stamp the decision to take our nation into war, and to authorize payment
of the resulting expenses.
"No power but Congress can declare war," observed Daniel Webster in 1846, "but
what is the value of this constitutional provision, if the President of his own
authority may make such military movements as must bring on war?" The
Administration?s actions in committing our country to enforce, through military
action, diplomatic initiatives in Kosovo presented Congress with a fait
accompli.
The only recourse left to Congress was to defund military deployments to which
the Administration had previously committed our country - but the political will
for that is not evident. Unfortunately, the majority in both houses of Congress
have abdicated their responsibility and have acquiesced in the usurpation of
their powers. The passivity of the House in allowing Bill Clinton to carry out
an illegal war is particularly galling in light of the fact that the same body
impeached him last December for much less serious crimes.
Under the Constitution, explained Alexander Hamilton, "It is the province and
duty of the Executive to preserve to the Nation the blessings of peace. The
Legislature alone can interrupt those blessings, by placing the Nation in a
state of War."
By surrendering to a series of executive usurpations (those of Bill Clinton
being the most brazen), Congress has abandoned the separation of powers and
embraced in its place a version of fuhrerprinzip - the "leader principle" - in
which Congress meekly endorses the decisions of an imperial
"commander-in-chief."
"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," wrote Abraham Lincoln in 1848. The royal war-making prerogative, which
permitted one man to commit his country to war, was regarded by our Founding
Fathers "to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions," Lincoln
explained.
For this reason, the statesmen who gathered at the Constitutional Convention of
1787 "resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the
power of bringing this oppression upon us."
James Madison?s notes on the Convention record the care with which the Founders
assigned the power to declare war to the legislative branch. This was done, as
George Mason of Virginia noted, for the purpose of "clogging rather than
facilitating war." At the initiative of Madison and Elbridge Gerry, the original
language authorizing Congress to "make" war was changed to the power to
"declare" war, thereby (in Madison?s words) "leaving to the Executive the power
to repel sudden attacks."
In an April 2, 1798 letter to Thomas Jefferson, Madison further elucidated the
reasoning behind this careful assignment of powers. "The constitution supposes,
what the History of all [governments] demonstrates, that the [executive] is the
branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has
accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war in the legislature."
Alexander Hamilton, who favored a strong Executive branch, observed in The
Federalist, No. 69: "The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and
navy of the United States. In this respect, his authority would nominally be the
same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to
it."
(Emphasis added.) Where the power of the English king "extends to the declaring
of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies," Hamilton
explained, the authority of the U.S. President "amounts to nothing more than the
supreme command and direction of the land and naval forces, as first general and
admiral" after the declaration of war has been issued by Congress.
The text of the Constitution itself (Article II, Section 2) specifies, "The
President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States,
and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service
of the United States...." In other words, "Commander in Chief" describes a
specific and limited role played by the President. Rather than Congress having a
Commander in Chief before which it must prostrate itself, it has in the
President an executive it may entrust with delegated war-making authority.
It bears repeating that in the Kosovo war, the role of commander in chief, by
the Administration?s own admission, has been assigned to NATO?s Supreme
Commander, who exercises (in Hamilton?s words) "the supreme command and
direction of the land and naval forces" called into service by Secretary-General
Solana. Perhaps, given Mr. Clinton?s own history of "loathing" for the military,
personal cowardice, and bottomless corruption, it is of benefit to the morale of
American servicemen fighting in Yugoslavia to know that it is General Clark who
serves as their commander in chief. Nevertheless, this arrangement gravely
undermines the constitutional mechanisms designed to protect our liberties and
national sovereignty.
In my remarks to the House of Representatives during the March 11th debate, I
reminded my colleagues that nothing in the laws or the Constitution suggests
that a determination by the United Nations Security Council or by the North
Atlantic Council (NATO?s governing political body) is a substitute for a
congressional declaration of war. furthermore, by making war on a sovereign
nation, NATO acted in violation of both its own charter and that of the United
Nations.
The North Atlantic Treaty states that NATO will "refrain in [its] international
relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the
purposes of the United Nations." The document specifies that NATO was created to
defend "the territorial integrity, political independence or security" of its
members in exercising the right of "collective self-defense recognized by
Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations." Whatever one thinks of the
actions of the Milosevic regime in suppressing a secessionist movement within
its own borders, it must be admitted that the Yugoslav regime did nothing to
threaten the "integrity, political independence or security" of NATO members.
Thus NATO?s attack on that regime violated the alliance?s founding treaty.
Furthermore, NATO?s commitment to act in harmony with "the purposes of the
United Nations" requires that the alliance be bound by the UN Charter. Article
2, section 7 of the UN Charter states, "Nothing contained in the present Charter
shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially
within the domestic jurisdiction of any state"; the suppression of Kosovo?s
ethnic Albanian secessionist movement is clearly within Yugoslavia?s domestic
jurisdiction.
Under the precedent set in the Kosovo war, America may find itself committed to
military intervention in ethnic conflicts around the world. Should we attack
Turkey to protect the Kurds, who chafe under Turkish rule? Should we go to war
with China in support of independence-minded Tibet? Will U.S. planes attack Sri
Lanka in defense of Tamil separatists, or bomb targets in India on behalf of
Muslims in Kashmir? The logic of the Kosovo precedent dictates that U.S. troops
can be committed to war, without congressional sanction, anywhere in the world
where atrocities are captured by the camera lens.
The war on Yugoslavia, we must remember, was brought about by NATO?s demand that
Milosevic consent to the foreign occupation of his country by an international
army, which would enforce the terms of an agreement intended to grant "autonomy"
to ethnic Albanian rebels. When Milosevic refused to permit the occupation, NATO
threatened to bomb his country, and ultimately carried out that threat. Once
again, the Clinton Administration has been devastatingly candid about key facts.
On February 10th, in testimony before the Committee on International Relations,
Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Thomas Pickering confirmed that
Kosovo is part of Yugoslavia?s sovereign territory, and that an attack upon
Yugoslavia waged because of Milosevic?s refusal to allow foreign intervention
would be nothing less than an act of war.
It is a remarkable spectacle to see the Clinton Administration and NATO taking
over from the Soviet Union the role of sponsoring "wars of national liberation."
More remarkable still, and even more unsettling, is the fact that the
beneficiary in the case of Kosovo - the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) -
is a collection of Maoist drug-peddlers and terrorists who have been armed by
Iran and provided with training and support by Saudi terrorist financier Osama
bin Ladin, who is the world?s most notorious sponsor of international terrorism.
When Bill Clinton, in an earlier crime against the Constitution, unilaterally
launched missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan, he claimed that his target
was the terrorist network operated by bin Ladin. However, in Kosovo, Bill
Clinton has committed America?s military might to the support of bin Ladin?s
Balkan allies, and the policy of the Clinton Administration seeks the creation
of a Balkan outpost for bin Ladin?s terrorist network.
The New American was the first national publication in this country to document
the KLA?s narco-terrorist background ("Diving into the Kosovo Quagmire," March
15th issue), and I made this magazine?s findings available to many of my
colleagues on Capitol Hill. Although few U.S. publications have looked into the
KLA?s role in international narco-terrorism, the Times of London for March 24th,
in a story published just before NATO commenced airstrikes upon Yugoslavia,
reported that the KLA, in "the judgment of senior police officers across
Europe," is "a Marxist-led force funded by dubious sources, including drug
money." Police forces in three Western European countries, together with
Europol, "are separately investigating growing evidence that drug money is
funding the KLA?s leap from obscurity to power," continued the report.
A report filed on the same day by Steve Rodan of the World Tribune described how
an "autonomous" Kosovo under KLA control could serve as a springboard for
Iranian sponsored terrorism throughout Europe and beyond. According to Western
European security experts, wrote Rodan, "Iran, Saudi Arabia and some of their
terrorist beneficiaries have exploited the fighting to establish a sphere of
influence that spans from Greece to the Austrian border."
NATO?s willingness to go to war on behalf of Muslim ethnic Albanians in Kosovo
could ignite insurrections across Europe, to which the KLA?s terrorist sponsors
would eagerly lend support.
"The concern of European strategists is that an Iranian sphere of influence
would do greater damage to such Western countries as Britain, France and
Germany," reported Rodan. "France has about two million Muslims, most of them
poor and alienated. Britain has about 1.5 million." A European diplomat told
Rodan, "Once these minorities feel that they can obtain the support of NATO, we
could see flare-ups everywhere."
We could see "flare-ups" within our own nation as well - and the Kosovo
precedent would justify military intervention by the "international community"
to settle such conflicts within our own borders. Consider the case of the
southwestern United States, a region referred to as "Aztlan," the mythical
homeland of the Aztecs, by such militant groups as the "Brown Berets." Aztlan
radicals have announced their intention to conduct la reconquista - the
re-conquest - of that region through unrestrained illegal immigration, as well
as subversion and violence. It is not difficult to foresee a future scenario in
which the "international community" authorizes the use of military force in
support of "autonomy" for Aztlan, in the same way that the war in Yugoslavia was
launched in support of "autonomy" for an Albanian Muslim-dominated Kosovo.
Had Congress performed its constitutional duty, all of these facts would have
been rigorously examined before our nation found itself committed to an illegal
war in Yugoslavia. We would have demanded that the President make his best case
to the people?s representatives in a formal request for a declaration of war.
This would have given us the opportunity to require that he defend an alliance
with drug-dealing Marxists bent upon promoting terrorism throughout Europe. Had
Congress been willing to exercise a check on presidential ambitions by
withholding funds for the envisioned military deployment, we would have learned,
in a timely fashion, about the unconstitutional arrangement through which the
power to declare war was delegated to a Spanish Marxist, and the power to make
war was assigned to NATO?s military commander. Had we acted with statesman-like
deliberation, we would have soberly discussed and contemplated the implications
of the Kosovo precedent for our nation?s future.
It was our duty to do all of this before deciding whether or not to interrupt
"the blessings of peace - by placing the Nation in a State of War." Instead,
Congress submitted to the usurpations of a corrupt, impeached President, and
made itself complicit in his crimes against our Constitution and our national
sovereignty.
Congress can reclaim the powers it has surrendered. Indeed it must, if our
descent into tyranny and the erosion of our sovereignty are to be arrested. But
this will not happen until a critical mass of public understanding is reached,
and informed pressure is brought to bear. The actions of an imperial President
can, as Lincoln warned, "bring this oppression upon us" - but only if, through
our indifference, we allow those malign designs to flourish.
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
