| http://www.smh.com.au/news/0109/17/world/world12.html
Concern that push for retaliation has given one man too much power By David Savage in Washington In the rush to approve a resolution giving the United States President, Mr George Bush, full authority to retaliate for Tuesday's attacks a few legislators worried about going too far. Off the Senate floor, the words spoken were: "Gulf of Tonkin resolution." In 1964, just three days after a reported attack on the US patrol boats in the gulf, near the coast of Vietnam, Congress passed a resolution giving president Lyndon Johnson the authority to use "all necessary measures" to "prevent further aggression" in South-East Asia. The measure set no limits on what the president could do, where he could use force or for how long. Years later, after the war in Vietnam was lost, many legislators came to regret their vote. On Friday Congress responded not to distant reports, involving a few ships but to an attack on US soil. However, the resolution it passed uses similar wording. It empowers Mr Bush to "use all necessary force against those nations, organisations or persons" who were behind the attacks. He can also take action to "prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the US by such nations, organisations or persons". Senator John McCain and Senator John Kerry, both Vietnam veterans, were among those who expressed concern about an open-ended authorisation to use military force. Initially, White House aides had asked for an even broader authority to "deter and prevent any related future acts of terrorism". Senator McCain and Senator Kerry said they narrowed the resolution by focusing it as a response to last Tuesday's attacks, rather than making it a blank cheque to go after terrorists everywhere. "We pretty well resolved most of the concerns," Senator McCain said, adding that he still had worries about the Gulf of Tonkin precedent. He said Mr Bush now technically had the authority to order a full invasion of Afghanistan, but added: "No one is envisioning occupying a country ... If the White House goes for an invasion it should come back to Congress again." Several experts on international law said the resolution put few limits on the Mr Bush's authority. "It's quite broad," said a University of Pittsburgh law professor, Jules Lobel. "It is not directed against anybody. For example, if the President believes Libya, Iraq, Iran and Pakistan were involved in harbouring these terrorists he could attack all of them." |
