Conyers Threatens Bush with IMPEACHMENT in Letter over Iran
by markthshark
Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:59:04 AM PDT
The ramped up rhetoric on Iran is deafening lately. To say the least, claims of Iranian meddling and fomentation in Iraq have reached an unprecedented level. But as vociferous as those claims have been, this time -- as opposed to the runup to the invasion of Iraq -- there seems to be some blowback swirling around up on Capitol Hill. They want evidence this time. Imagine that.
The truth is, the only difference between the runup to the Iraq invasion and the current buildup to a war with Iran is that this time we are the wiser. We have the benefit of hindsight this go around. We're more familiar with the modus operandi of the Bush regime now, and, we know how Dick Cheney & company will resort to bold-faced lies and slick obfuscation in making their case for perpetual war.
This time though, every piece of trumped-up evidence against Iran that Cheney comes up with or every time one of his acolytes hypes the threat, it seems to be falling more and more on a skeptical Congress. In addition, the notion of another war seems to be bombing (no pun intended) in general with the American people as well.
- markthshark's diary :: ::
John Conyers’ letter is a direct shot across Cheney’s PNAC-powered bow. Now, whether Conyers’ stark warning is due directly to his aversion to war or it goes straight to a proverbial line in the sand regarding the separation of powers is unclear. But at this point it simply doesn’t matter. America wins either way.
David Swanson over at AfterDowneyStreet.org posted Conyers’ letter:
May 8, 2008
The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500Dear Mr. President:
We are writing to register our strong opposition to possible unilateral, preemptive military action against other nations by the Executive Branch without Congressional authorization. As you know, Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power "to declare war," to lay and collect taxes to "provide for the common defense" and general welfare of the United States, to "raise and support armies," to "provide and maintain a navy," to "make rules for the regulation for the land and naval forces," to "provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions," to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia," and to "make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution ... all ... powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States." Congress is also given exclusive power over the purse. The Constitution says, "No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law."
By contrast, the sole war powers granted to the Executive Branch through the President can be found in Article II, Section, which states, "The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into actual Service of the United States." Nothing in the history of the "Commander-in-Chief" clause suggests that the authors of the provision intended it to grant the Executive Branch the authority to engage U.S. forces in military action whenever and wherever it sees fit without any prior authorization from Congress.
In our view, the founders of our country intended this power to allow the President to repel sudden attacks and immediate threats, not to unilaterally launch, without congressional approval, preemptive military actions against foreign countries. As former Republican Representative Mickey Edwards recently wrote, "[t]he decision to go to war ... is the single most difficult choice any public official can be called upon to make. That is precisely why the nation’s Founders, aware of the deadly wars of Europe, deliberately withheld from the executive branch the power to engage in war unless such action was expressly approved by the people themselves, through their representatives in Congress."
Members of Congress, including the signatories of this letter, have previously expressed concern about this issue. On April 25, 2006, sixty-two Members of Congress joined in a bipartisan letter that called on you to seek congressional approval before making any preemptive military strikes against Iran. Fifty-seven Members of Congress have co-sponsored H. Con. Res. 33, which expresses the sense of Congress that the President should not initiate military action against Iran without first obtaining authorization from Congress.
Our concerns in this area have been heightened by more recent events. The resignation in mid-March of Admiral William J. "Fox" Fallon from the head of U.S. Central Command, which was reportedly linked to a magazine article that portrayed him as the only person who might stop your Administration from waging preemptive war against Iran, has renewed widespread concerns that your Administration is unilaterally planning for military action against that country. This is despite the fact that the December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate concluded that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003, a stark reversal of previous Administration assessments.
As we and others have continued to review troubling legal memoranda and other materials from your Administration asserting the power of the President to take unilateral action, moreover, our concerns have increased still further. For example, although federal law is clear that proceeding under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) "shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance" can be conducted within the U.S. for foreign intelligence purposes, 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(f), the Justice Department has asserted that the National Security Agency’s warrantless wiretapping in violation of FISA is "supported by the President’s well-recognized inherent constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and sole organ for the Nation in foreign affairs". As one legal expert has explained, your Administration’s "preventive paradigm" has asserted "unchecked unilateral power" by the Executive Branch and violated "universal prohibitions on torture, disappearance, and the like."
Late last year, Senator Joseph Biden stated unequivocally that "the president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran, and if he does, as Foreign Relations Committee chairman, I will move to impeach" the president.
We agree with Senator Biden, and it is our view that if you do not obtain the constitutionally required congressional authorization before launching preemptive military strikes against Iran or any other nation, impeachment proceedings should be pursued. Because of these concerns, we request the opportunity to meet with you as soon as possible to discuss these matters. As we have recently marked the fifth year since the invasion of Iraq, and the grim milestone of 4,000 U.S. deaths in Iraq, your Administration should not unilaterally involve this country in yet another military conflict that promises high costs to American blood and treasure.
Sincerely,
The Honorable John Conyers
Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee
Conyers is showing some real guts lately and once again I think we need to let him know that we have his back. He sent a letter to his fellow congress critters asking them to co-sign the letter to Bush. Please contact both the Judiciary Committee and your district representative to urge them to sign onto Conyers' letter.
Conyers is on a roll, folks. Let’s get behind him and give him a push.
Peace
No comments:
Post a Comment