posted on March 10, 2003 08:16:26 PM new
Military Families SpeakOut -
Call To Action
From Laura Johnson Manis
[email protected]
Rock Island, IL
3-2-3
Get Up, Stand Up, stand up for your right,
Get Up, Stand Up, don't give up the fight.
-- Bob Marley
I am one of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit that seeks to prevent
President Bush from launching a military invasion of Iraq without Congressional declaration of war because to do so would be in direct violation of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which states "Congress shall have Power ... [t]o declare War.
The "October Resolution" did not declare war and unlawfully ceded to the President the decision of whether or not to send this nation into war. Furthermore, this resolution violates the War Powers Act of 1973, since there was no finding or statement in it of a clear and/or imminent threat by Iraq to this nation, which is specifically required under the War Powers Act.
On February 24, 2003 the First Circuit Court of Appeals in
Massachusetts agreed to an expedited hearing of this legal challenge to Bush's authority to invade Iraq absent a Congressional declaration of war. The Court turned down the government's request for more time. The hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday March 4 at 9 a.m. in Boston.
Ever since September 11th, the current Administration has sought to keep us scared about really stupid issues and stupid about really scary issues. If we dare to criticize, we are termed unpatriotic or cowardly. As the whole course of history teaches us, these methods are very effective.
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." -- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
Have we become so risk-adverse in this country that we believe that death is an option? Do we think that any of us are going to get out of here alive? Will we sacrifice our Constitutional responsibilities as well as liberties in order to remain 'safe'?
Our apathy has reached such proportions that, despite everything hanging in the balance, fewer people voted in the 2002 election than watched the World Series, which had one of the lowest ratings in its history. Prior to that election, our Representative and Senators cravenly compromised whatever ethics and morals they may have left by passing the October Resolution rather than risk losing their seats by opposing a popular President. Given the voter turnout, how ludicrous
was that?
For months now people have been telling me to 'get over it', to accept that it's 'out of my control', to cease and desist rather than be judged a 'crank' and of course, 'love it or leave it'. My government has told me that I should limit my efforts to buying more products, including duct tape and plastic sheeting, when it is our greed and our vast carelessness that got us into this mess in the first place, and to trust their superior wisdom and judgment.
Excuse me? Weren't we all taught in our civics classes that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely?
It is the obligation; it is the sacred duty of the citizens of a democracy to be critical of its government. As Thomas Jefferson wrote," for nothing can keep it right but their own vigilant and distrustful superintendence."
Therefore, when Military Families Speak Out asked me to join in this lawsuit, I accepted with alacrity. I have a son in the Navy (inactive) reserves who, of course, could be called back at any time. He spent six months in the Persian Gulf in 2000.
But more importantly, my late husband served in Nam during the Tet Offensive, patrolling the Mekong Delta on a Swift Boat. He certainly could have availed himself of other options in order to avoid active military duty but he felt that would have been unfair to those without his connections.
He was never the same.
For the rest of his life, he would not discuss his experiences there. He read every book and saw every movie (alone) but to speak of it was verboten. Some two decades after his return, I entered our bedroom to find him watching Letters From Nam, alone in the dark. By the glow of the television set, I could see the tears streaming down his face. That gentle and decent man went to his grave without anyone ever explaining, never mind justifying, to him why he had been ordered to do the things he did and witness the horrors he witnessed.
This can never be allowed to happen again.
My question to President Bush, who didn't even fulfill his National Guard obligations, is "How dare you? How dare you send another generation of our fine young people to fight in a war of dubious necessity that hasn't been declared by Congress? How dare you?"
My question to the members of Congress, only one of whom has a child serving in the military is, "How dare you? How dare you violate the separation of powers set forth in this nation's Constitution by delegating the authority to wage war to the Executive Branch, months in advance, without any proof of an imminent threat? How dare you?"
Our young men and women enlisted in the armed forces to defend this country, not to engage in a preemptive, offensive strike, in violation of the Constitution and international law, against a country that has done nothing, nothing, to harm us since the end of the last Gulf War.
We didn't get Saddam then and we've not been able to find Osama (whose name has not been mentioned by Bush in over a year). What makes this vengeful, oil-soaked administration think we'll be able to get Saddam this time around?
Whom we will get, however, are perhaps up to a million Iraqi
citizens. Over 50% of the Iraqi population is under fifteen years of age and over 10% of the Iraqi population is over the age of sixty.
Of what can we, the citizens -- and by definition -- the participants in a democracy, be thinking?
In conclusion, I believe the members of Congress and indeed, all Americans, would do well to commit the following words of Abraham Lincoln to heart:
Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after having given him so much as you propose. If today he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, "I see no probability of
the British invading us"; but he will say to you, "Be silent: I see it, if you don't."
The provision of the Constitution giving the war making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: 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. This our Constitutional Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood."
I have no previous experience in activism other than all the
usual '60's activities. I'm a fifty-something, widowed, social worker living in the Heartland, who refuses to concede that she is merely a member of a Focus Group.
And so here I sit typing this, a plaintiff in a lawsuit filed against the President of the United States, after having been interviewed live and worldwide on MSNBC Monday night.
I fired myself up for that interview by dedicating my performance to my late husband and all the others who have killed or been killed or have returned home to spend the rest of their lives in varying degrees of walking wounded-ness as a result of the innumerable 'conflicts' and 'police actions' in which this country has engaged itself since its last declaration of war in 1941.
The Greatest Generation's war was authorized by Congress - would that all subsequent veterans could have that consolation."
"Never believe that a few caring people can't change the world for, indeed, that's all who ever have." -- Margaret Meade
Laura Johnson Manis
Rock Island, IL
"To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand. I can do no other."
-- Martin Luther
__________________________
'We have grasped the mystery of the atom and rejected the Sermon on the Mount. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war than we do about peace, more about killing than we do about living." --WWII General Omar Bradley
"Military power is as corrupting to the man who possesses it as it is pitiless to its victims. Violence is just as devastating to the soul of the perpetrator as it is to the body and souls of those who are victims of it." --American Friends (Quakers) Service Committee
posted on March 10, 2003 08:33:19 PM new
More on the suit:
Court Challenge to Bush Heats Up…
U.S. SOLDIERS, PARENTS OF U.S. SOLDIERS AND 12 CONGRESS PEOPLE WIN FAST REVIEW OF SUIT CHALLENGING BUSH’S AUTHORITY TO WAGE WAR AGAINST IRAQ
PLAINTIFFS SAY INVASION WILL VIOLATE CONSTITUTION: "THE PRESIDENT IS NOT KING"
-- HEARING BEFORE THREE-JUDGE PANEL SET FOR TUESDAY, MARCH 4 --
DOE V BUSH SEEKS TO BAR BUSH FROM STARTING WAR ABSENT CONGRESSIONAL DECLARATION
[NOTE TO PRESS: A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit will hold oral argument on the plaintiffs’ appeal on Tuesday, March 4, at 9 a.m., at the U.S. Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Way, Boston. Plaintiffs and their attorneys will be available for interviews immediately following the court hearing.]
BOSTON – A coalition of U.S. soldiers, parents of U.S. soldiers from seven states and a dozen U.S. congress people won a rare expedited review by a federal appeals court in Boston of a lawsuit challenging President George W. Bush’s authority to wage war against Iraq.
-- more --
Doe v Bush/2
The order, issued Tuesday, February 25 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston, came less than 24 hours after a federal judge had dismissed the case. The plaintiffs had appealed the ruling by Federal Judge Joseph Tauro and had filed a motion for expedited review before the appellate court. The appellate court granted that motion yesterday and scheduled oral argument before a three-judge panel for Tuesday, March 4. The lawsuit seeks to prevent the President from ordering troops into Iraq until Congress formally declares war.
"We are pleased that the federal appeals court recognizes that this case deserves immediate review," says John Bonifaz, the plaintiffs’ lead attorney. "Judicial intervention is needed to ensure that the President adheres to the Constitution before ordering troops into Iraq in what would be an illegal and unconstitutional war without a formal Congressional declaration."
The coalition of U.S. soldiers, parents of U.S. soldiers, and Members of Congress filed the lawsuit on February 13, 2003, in federal district court in Boston seeking an injunction to prevent the President from launching a military invasion of Iraq, absent a congressional declaration of war. U.S. Representatives John Conyers and Dennis Kucinich are leading the Members of Congress who are serving as plaintiffs. On February 21, 2003, six Members of Congress added their names to the lawsuit, doubling the number of congressional plaintiffs suing the President, and nine parents of U.S. soldiers also joined the case.
The original congressional plaintiffs are: Rep. John Conyers (MI-14); Rep. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10); Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-2); Rep Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18); Rep. Jim McDermott (WA-7); and Rep. Jose E. Serrano (NY-16). The additional Members of Congress who joined the lawsuit are: Rep. Danny K. Davis (IL-7); Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey (NY-26); Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-15); Rep. Pete Stark (CA-13); Rep. Diane Watson (CA-32); and Rep. Lynn C. Woolsey (CA-6). The parents in the case are from California, Michigan, Mississippi, Massachusetts, Illinois, New York, Washington State, and the District of Columbia.
The lead plaintiffs in the case are three U.S. soldiers, including a Marine currently stationed in the Persian Gulf.
The U.S. Justice Department is representing President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the named defendants in the case.
The plaintiffs say an invasion will violate Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, which states that "Congress shall have Power…[t]o declare War." They argue that the resolution on Iraq that Congress passed last October did not declare war and unlawfully ceded to the President the decision of whether or not to send this nation into war. Their court papers cite historical records showing
-- more --
Doe v Bush/3
that the framers of the Constitution sought to ensure that U.S. presidents would not have the power of European monarchs of the past to wage war.
"The President is not a king," says Charles Richardson, a plaintiff in the case whose son is a U.S. Marine now stationed in the Persian Gulf. "If he wants to launch a military invasion against Iraq, he must first seek a declaration of war from the United States Congress. Our Constitution demands nothing less." Richardson, along with Nancy Lessin and Jeffrey McKenzie who are plaintiffs in this case, is a co-founder of Military Families Speak Out, an organization of people who are opposed to war against Iraq and who have family members in the military. Lessin adds: "A full and complete Congressional discussion of the issues and all options must precede any move towards war, because of the irreparable harm that would result."
"President Bush recently told journalists that whether we go to war ‘is not up to you, it’s up to me,’" says Representative John Conyers. "The Founding Fathers did not establish an imperial presidency with war-making power. The Constitution clearly reserves that for Congress."
How Doe v Bush Differs from Other Suits Challenging Presidential Authority to Wage War:
The plaintiffs argue that their case is distinguishable from the Vietnam War cases and the case brought prior to the first Persian Gulf War. They point out that the cases challenging the executive branch’s authority to wage war in Vietnam were brought long after that war had started. By the time the courts heard those cases, the U.S. Congress had passed a series of military appropriations financing the war and had passed legislation extending the military draft. Presently, Congress has not passed any military appropriations to finance an invasion of Iraq and has not reinstated the draft.
In the case brought in 1990 by Members of Congress challenging the authority of President Bush’s father to wage the first Persian Gulf War, the court ruled, contrary to Judge Tauro’s ruling on Monday, that the matter was not a political question and could be subject to judicial review. However, in that case, the court denied the requested injunction solely on the grounds that war did not appear imminent at that time. The Doe v Bush plaintiffs point out that, according to the President and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, the nation is weeks, if not days, away from a military invasion of Iraq. They argue that their case is far more ripe than the 1990 case. They further argue that U.S. special operations forces are already in Iraq, laying the groundwork for a massive military invasion.
