The rush to war: Assessing both UK and US checks and balances

[xenophon41]

Neruotik (and LC), yes, Congress can rescind the resolution whenever there’s political will to do so. My fear is that such political decision making is supposed to done before major commitment to war, and any attempt to “correct” an Executive mistake after the fact will be impaired both by the natural “rally round the flag” zeitqeist of a war, and by the necessity to avoid precipitous withdrawal from a geopolitical region we’ve unilaterally made unstable. What the Congress has done is to recognize a potential need for military action and defer that future decision to the President.

When Congress deliberates on the subject of war, is it not a valid expectation that they either decide on a specific declaration or decide to make that decision later rather than just give the future discretion away? Sure, they’ve retained oversight, but the Constitution doesn’t say “Congress shall have oversight over Executive conduct of war”!

[Neurotik]

Well, London, I have to be honest. While Congress certainly can rescind its invitation at any time, it’s not entirely clear constitutionally whether they can stop the president from sending in troops. There’s a reason the War Powers Act has never really been enforced…it’s quite likely it would get struck down in court.

There really is no precedent for this sort of thing, since the Supreme Court refuses to touch it with a forty foot pole. Probably rightly.

Presumably, if Congress expressly forbade the president from opening hostilities with Iraq at this time, he would have to obey or face impeachment. I don’t think Congress is going to do that, though, seeing as how the Republicans control it. They could also just refuse to fund it, but that has political complications if the troops are already in the field, for obvious reasons.

[Neurotik]

Sure, xeno, it’s a valid expectation. At least, it’s not an invalid one.

The Constitution doesn’t say a lot of things, but it has been ruled constitutional for Congress to give legislative jurisdiction to certain executive organizations like the EPA, etc. It’s certainly constitutional for Congress to do the same here. Like I said, if they decide it’s a bad idea they can just rescind the resolution.

[MC_Master_of_Ceremonies]

Sam Stone, I am not explicitly anti-war as I would like to see Saddam removed because he is a tyrant, though I would add I strongly suspect Bush’s motives and methods.

But in all of the countries that you cite (excepting Israel) as in support of the US, the overwhelming majority of the public are AGAINST a war (except possibly Austrailia which is only about 60% against a war) with Iraq. Also the leaders of most of those countries have offered only conditional or grudging support to Bush and voiced severe reservations. With the further exceptions of Mr. Blair and Mr. Howard (though their exception may not necessarily be warranted) none of those leaders could actually be said to support Bush because they believe war is the right thing, they support him for POLITICAL reasons.

On another note London’s Calling, 30 in your list of possibilities is so unlikely as to be an impossibilty, the only time the Queen could get rid of an elected Prime Minister was if the population of Britain was getting ready to overthrow him by force.

[ElvisL1ves]

Hmm, LC, I’m confused. Your country is supposed to be the closest ally Bush has, yet it’s part of “old Europe”. Dunno whether to listen or not.

But, in assessing US political power, you may be putting too much weight on formal organizational rules and not enough on the intangible and behind-the-scenes kinds of power that prevail here more than there, AFAIK. While Congress does have the formal power to declare war, or to rescind a declaration (although it has never happened), they also have authority over funding. There have been cases of Congress cutting off funds for a military action they disapproved of, but only after the private dealings with the White House have broken down. Although different parties may control the different branches, they are all subject to elections on a rigid basis (a strength of the system, which controls the timing of many things). A President can only have his way for a short period, and so can a Congress, and they are both subject to popular will of a noninstitutional variety.

Sam, you really need to learn about honest interpretation of polls.

[SuaSponte]

*Originally posted by London_Calling *
Ahh, on preview I see Sua has posted ……we may be here for a while yet……more later old chap, in a rush to work……

I’m here all week for your dining and dancing pleasure.

Sua

[bordelond]

*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
**Well, we can put to rest the idea that the U.S. is planning on going in alone. The U.S. now has the explicit support of eight continental European countries, plus Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Israel, Australia, Britain, and a few others.

In fact, it’s looking more and more like France and Germany are the unilateralists here. The U.S. has been trying to make the case before the world. The U.S. has been working with the U.N. France and Germany just unilaterally told everyone to go to hell. And they’re in an ever-shrinking minority.**

Excellent Canadian article on this point. David Warren writes for the Ottawa Citizen:

**The one concession to opponents was announced not by Mr. Bush, but by Colin Powell. The U.S. will declassify and publish damning evidence of Saddam Hussein’s defiance of UN resolutions next week – even at the risk of telegraphing war targets and compromising intelligence sources. This will give erstwhile allies one last chance to dismount their high horses. The Russians appear eager to be given the opportunity, the French seem to be looking for a still taller steed, as President Jacques Chirac sails toward the non-ambiguity of German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder’s position: to oppose U.S. action no matter what the evidence, and no matter who else is on side.

…

On another front, the news for Israel is grim. In addition to the increasingly radical anti-American crowing of the French rooster, there is a hardening of that country’s anti-Israel posture. Mr. Chirac is trying to lead Europe in demanding the imposition of a “peace plan” that would force Israel to abandon its forward defences, regardless of concessions by the Arab side.

These two hardening positions – anti-American and anti-Israeli – are themselves corollaries of a more comprehensive power grab within the European Community, by Mr. Chirac and Mr. Schroeder, who have also agreed between them to arbitrarily extend the ruinous Common Agricultural Policy for another seven years. They are both exploiting and fuelling anti-American, anti-Israeli, and now anti-British shifts in European public opinion, to restore the French-German axis at the heart of the EC – sidelining the British and arresting the progress toward equality of new members in the East.
**

[Monty]

Well, London, in my world “proof” is something along the lines, instead of the gibberish you just posted, of “Hey, I desire to blow the country of Iraq up” or “I want to go to war just because I want war” or something like that. So far, Bush and the administration have conistently called on Iraq to honor its commitments made after they got whipped in the Gulf War (you might recall that it was Iraq that invaded Kuwait) and also to account for the biological and other weapons they were known to have not so long ago.

[Sam_Stone]

But in all of the countries that you cite (excepting Israel) as in support of the US, the overwhelming majority of the public are AGAINST a war (except possibly Austrailia which is only about 60% against a war) with Iraq. Also the leaders of most of those countries have offered only conditional or grudging support to Bush and voiced severe reservations. With the further exceptions of Mr. Blair and Mr. Howard (though their exception may not necessarily be warranted) none of those leaders could actually be said to support Bush because they believe war is the right thing, they support him for POLITICAL reasons.

Well, how about we let them speak for themselves? Here is the full text of the letter the eight European nations sent to the Washington Post:

**United We Stand **
*Eight European leaders are as one with President Bush.

Thursday, January 30, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST

(Editor’s note: This article is written by Jose María Aznar, Jose-Manuel Durão Barroso, Silvio Berlusconi, Tony Blair, Vaclav Havel, Peter Medgyessy, Leszek Miller and Anders Fogh Rasmussen.)*

The real bond between the U.S. and Europe is the values we share: democracy, individual freedom, human rights and the rule of law. These values crossed the Atlantic with those who sailed from Europe to help create the United States of America. Today they are under greater threat than ever.

The attacks of Sept. 11 showed just how far terrorists–the enemies of our common values–are prepared to go to destroy them. Those outrages were an attack on all of us. In standing firm in defense of these principles, the governments and people of the U.S. and Europe have amply demonstrated the strength of their convictions. Today more than ever, the trans-Atlantic bond is a guarantee of our freedom.

We in Europe have a relationship with the U.S. which has stood the test of time. Thanks in large part to American bravery, generosity and farsightedness, Europe was set free from the two forms of tyranny that devastated our continent in the 20th century: Nazism and communism. Thanks, too, to the continued cooperation between Europe and the U.S. we have managed to guarantee peace and freedom on our continent. The trans-Atlantic relationship must not become a casualty of the current Iraqi regime’s persistent attempts to threaten world security.
In today’s world, more than ever before, it is vital that we preserve that unity and cohesion. We know that success in the day-to-day battle against terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction demands unwavering determination and firm international cohesion on the part of all countries for whom freedom is precious.
The Iraqi regime and its weapons of mass destruction represent a clear threat to world security. This danger has been explicitly recognized by the U.N. All of us are bound by Security Council Resolution 1441, which was adopted unanimously. We Europeans have since reiterated our backing for Resolution 1441, our wish to pursue the U.N. route, and our support for the Security Council at the Prague NATO Summit and the Copenhagen European Council.

In doing so, we sent a clear, firm and unequivocal message that we would rid the world of the danger posed by Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. We must remain united in insisting that his regime be disarmed. The solidarity, cohesion and determination of the international community are our best hope of achieving this peacefully. Our strength lies in unity.

The combination of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism is a threat of incalculable consequences. It is one at which all of us should feel concerned. Resolution 1441 is Saddam Hussein’s last chance to disarm using peaceful means. The opportunity to avoid greater confrontation rests with him. Sadly this week the U.N. weapons inspectors have confirmed that his long-established pattern of deception, denial and noncompliance with U.N. Security Council resolutions is continuing.
Europe has no quarrel with the Iraqi people. Indeed, they are the first victims of Iraq’s current brutal regime. Our goal is to safeguard world peace and security by ensuring that this regime gives up its weapons of mass destruction. Our governments have a common responsibility to face this threat. Failure to do so would be nothing less than negligent to our own citizens and to the wider world.
The U.N. Charter charges the Security Council with the task of preserving international peace and security. To do so, the Security Council must maintain its credibility by ensuring full compliance with its resolutions. We cannot allow a dictator to systematically violate those resolutions. If they are not complied with, the Security Council will lose its credibility and world peace will suffer as a result. We are confident that the Security Council will face up to its responsibilities.

Messrs. Aznar, Durão Barroso, Berlusconi, Blair, Medgyessy, Miller and Fogh Rasmussen are, respectively, the prime ministers of Spain, Portugal, Italy, the U.K., Hungary, Poland and Denmark. Mr. Havel is the Czech president.

[Neurotik]

*Originally posted by MC Master of Cermonies *
With the further exceptions of Mr. Blair and Mr. Howard (though their exception may not necessarily be warranted) none of those leaders could actually be said to support Bush because they believe war is the right thing, they support him for POLITICAL reasons.

Remind how if they are supporting Bush in the face of massive public opposition, they are doing it for political reasons?

[kniz]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
** Criminey. When the farce becomes a farce, is it a double farce or a farce squared? Or still just a plain farce? **

I for one don’t think you were in the wrong thread Lib. I was astounded when Kennedy said that the inspections were working. I know the man isn’t stupid, therefore he has to be full of shit.

Listening to the Prime Minister of Italy today, I personally think he should be given dual citizenship, because he is more American than many of the nay-sayers that have their American citizenship.

Also I’m willing to bet anyone that France will jump on the bandwagon, but I’d love it if she missed the boat. And my heart starts fluttering thinking about the Germans becoming peace lovers. Isn’t that absolutely adorable? These two prove the saying about “strange bedfellows”.

[UDS]

*Originally posted by kniz *
Listening to the Prime Minister of Italy today, I personally think he should be given dual citizenship, because he is more American than many of the nay-sayers that have their American citizenship.

So people who agree with the current policy of the current US administration are “American” (even if they are in fact Italian) and people who disagree with it are “Unamerican” (even if they are in fact American).

Scary.

[jjimm]

*Originally posted by kniz *
Listening to the Prime Minister of Italy today, I personally think he should be given dual citizenship, because he is more American than many of the nay-sayers that have their American citizenship.

:eek:

Dissent and democratic debate is unAmerican, is it?

:eek:

[MC_Master_of_Ceremonies]

*Originally posted by Neurotik *
**Remind how if they are supporting Bush in the face of massive public opposition, they are doing it for political reasons? **

Not for reasons of national politics, but international politics.

[Zoe]

My understanding of recent polls is that President Bush’s support has fallen 30% since 9/11. Usually a President’s popularity will increase immediately after a State of the Union Speech and then fall again. Who wouldn’t love a President who promises lower taxes, the removal of Suddam, a better economy, better schools and better health care? What’s not to love?

From what I have seen, there is a large percentage of U.S. citizens who simply remain undecided. They are what keeps either side in this controversy from having a steadfast majority.

I do think that Colin Powell will be able to convince more people than President Bush can. But I want to see more than the rooftops of buildings were WMD are supposedly stored.

Regarding the Congressional retraction of Bush’s right to go to war:

Like I said, if they decide it’s a bad idea they can just rescind the resolution.

Sure. And we all know how efficient Congress is.

I believe that war is coming and that Saddam will be ousted. I also believe that there will be blood on our hands for generations to come because of what this will do to the Middle East and beyond.

I expect Bush’s popularity to soar once we are at war.

Regarding protests:

But, if some of the things I heard was correct, Bush may get his declaration even if he goes in without a un resolution. If that happens, and the powers that be provide him with what he needs, the most youwill see from us is another vietnam era protest. The most I said, but not likely. I think our lessons from that have taught the protesters that you can go too far even exercising your freedoms.

(Bold type added.)

One of the lessons I learned from the Vietnam era was that Presidents can lie and government leaders can be willing to sacrifice the lives of Americans to protect those lies and their political careers. I also learned that protests can make a positive difference.

[Zorro]

I just want to answer the original question. I’m not happy with the UK’s checks and balances. There are no effective ones. This is in fact a one-party state. Tony has an overwhelming Commons majority, so if he says the Earth is flat, the Labour Party whips will make sure that the statement is approved in the Commons. Then if the Lords pipe up and point out that the Earth is in fact spherical, Tony can hit them with the Parliament Act and overrule them.

The only thing that the people can do about it is to exercise out ancient right to petition, which is one of the most pathetic attempts at pretending to give the people some control of their government ever.

And of course Tony doesn’t actually have to ask for anyone’s opinion to start a war.

I’m going to Hyde Park on February 15th. And then Tony can dismiss half a million marchers as a bunch of marginal malcontents. Just like he did for the Countryside March.

Christ, it’s about as democratic as Zimbabwe here.

[Neurotik]

*Originally posted by MC Master of Cermonies *
**Not for reasons of national politics, but international politics. **

Yeah, I was pretty sure that’s what you meant.

I had something else to say, but I forgot. Hopefully it will come back to me.

[Truth_Seeker]

*Originally posted by SuaSponte *
**
What “rush to war”? **

Too right. Here’s a GD thread on the proposed war on Iraq that is well over a year old.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=99542&highlight=iraq

This has got to be the most bizzare lead-up to a war in the whole of human history. When has any country ever spent 18 months discussing, negotiating, voting and agonizing over whether it’s really necessary to fight a war, what the best way to fight it might be, how much it would cost, how the common folk in Nigeria would react, etc., etc., ad nauseum? Some “rush.” It’s like watching a cross between Wagner’s Ring cycle and a Noh play.

[Latro]

Don’t be silly.
The past 18 months were necassary to build up the troops.
All the talk is just to pass the time.

[Sam_Stone]

Are you kidding? The military buildup didn’t start until about six months ago.

The buildup for the first Gulf war took six months. This one could have been done much quicker, because about a third to a half of the number of troops are being used. The buildup has taken this long because it was being delayed while the issue was debated.

A ‘Rush to War’? If we debated this for another 50 years and then decided to go, the brain-in-a-jar of Ted Kennedy would be screaming that there was no reason to ‘rush to war’.

These arguments that there hasn’t been enough debate are simply bizarre. The entire country has been debating this issue at length since last spring. Remember all those accusations of wagging the dog before the election? That’s now six months ago, and the debate was in full swing.

Let’s face it - the debate has been carried out, and Bush’s side won. The American people support the war. We are now at the point where added delays won’t be seen as time for more necessary debate, but as waffling. In the mean time, the economy is stalled while everyone holds their breath for war, the window for cool weather in Iraq is closing, and Saddam is getting more time to prepare any weapons he may be thinking of using.

We’re going to see either a coup in Iraq or military action within two or three weeks now. And no one can claim that it was a ‘rush’ to war.