I don't understand. If the Democrats passed this legislation is it not binding? Wouldn't it force the US to withdraw the vast majority of troops within six months?
Cheers, Ken Hanly --- Yoshie Furuhashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is this the best the Democrats can do? -- Yoshie > > <http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/02/02/how_to_end_the_war.php> > How To End The War > Russ Feingold > February 02, 2007 > > Russ Feingold is a United States senator from > Wisconsin. > > Our founders wisely kept the power to fund a war > separate from the > power to conduct a war. In their brilliant design of > our system of > government, Congress got the power of the purse, and > the president got > the power of the sword. As James Madison wrote, > "Those who are to > conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be > proper or safe > judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, > continued or concluded." > > Earlier this week, I chaired a hearing in the Senate > Judiciary > Committee to remind my colleagues in the Senate > that, through the > power of the purse, we have the constitutional power > to end a war. At > the hearing, a wide range of constitutional scholars > agreed that > Congress can use its power to end a military > engagement. > > The Constitution gives Congress the explicit power > "[to] declare War," > "[t]o raise and support Armies," "[t]o provide and > maintain a Navy" > and "[t]o make Rules for the Government and > Regulation of the land and > naval Forces." In addition, under Article I, "No > Money shall be drawn > from the Treasury, but in Consequence of > Appropriations made by Law." > These are direct quotes from the Constitution of the > United States. > Yet to hear some in the Administration talk, it is > as if these powers > were written in invisible ink. They were not. These > powers are a clear > and direct statement from the founders of our > republic that Congress > has authority to declare, to define and, ultimately, > to end a war. > > If and when Congress acts on the will of the > American people by ending > our involvement in the Iraq war, Congress will be > performing the role > assigned it by the founding fathersdefining the > nature of our > military commitments and acting as a check on a > president whose > policies are weakening our nation. > > There is plenty of precedent for Congress exercising > its > constitutional authority to stop U.S. involvement in > armed conflict. > > In late December 1970, Congress prohibited the use > of funds for > introducing United States ground combat troops into > Cambodia or > providing U.S. advisors to Cambodian military > forces. In late June > 1973, Congress set a date to cut off funds for > combat activities in > Southeast Asia. > > More recently, President Clinton signed into law > language that > prohibited funding after March 31, 1994, for > military operations in > Somalia, with certain limited exceptions. And in > 1998, Congress passed > spending legislation that prevented U.S. troops from > serving in Bosnia > after June 30, 1998, unless the president made > certain assurances. > > Congress has the power to end military engagements, > and there is > little doubt that decisive action from the Congress > is needed to end > U.S. involvement in the war in Iraq. Despite the > results of the > election, and two months of study and supposed > consultationduring > which experts and members of Congress from across > the political > spectrum argued for a new policythe president has > decided to escalate > the war. When asked whether he would persist in this > policy despite > congressional opposition, he replied: "Frankly, > that's not their > responsibility." > > Last week Vice President Cheney was asked whether > the non-binding > resolution passed by the Foreign Relations Committee > that will soon be > considered by the full Senate would deter the > president from > escalating the war. He replied: "It's not going to > stop us." > > In the United States of America, the people are > sovereign, not the > president. It is Congress' responsibility to > challenge an > administration that persists in a war that is > misguided and that the > nation opposes. We cannot simply wring our hands and > complain about > the administration's policy. We cannot just pass > resolutions saying > "your policy is mistaken." And we can't stand idly > by and tell > ourselves that it's the president's job to fix the > mess he made. It's > our job to fix the mess, too, and if we don't do so > we are abdicating > our responsibilities. > > Yesterday, I introduced legislation that will > prohibit the use of > funds to continue the deployment of U.S. forces in > Iraq six months > after enactment. By prohibiting funds after a > specific deadline, > Congress can force the president to bring our forces > out of Iraq and > out of harm's way. > > This legislation will allow the president adequate > time to redeploy > our troops safely from Iraq, and it will make > specific exceptions for > a limited number of U.S. troops who must remain in > Iraq to conduct > targeted counter-terrorism and training missions and > protect U.S. > personnel. It will not hurt our troops in any > waythey will continue > receiving their equipment, training, salaries, etc. > It will simply > prevent the president from continuing to deploy them > to Iraq. By > passing this bill, we can finally focus on repairing > our military and > countering the full range of threats that we face > around the world. > > As the hearing I chaired in the Senate Judiciary > Committee made clear, > this legislation is fully consistent with the > Constitution of the > United States. Since the president is adamant about > pursuing his > failed policies in Iraq, Congress has the duty to > stand up and use its > constitutional power to stop him. If Congress > doesn't stop this war, > it's not because it doesn't have the power. It's > because it doesn't > have the will. > > > -- > Yoshie > <http://montages.blogspot.com/> > <http://mrzine.org> > <http://monthlyreview.org/> > Blog: http://kenthink7.blogspot.com/index.html
