News & Politics > Briefs
edited by Lorna Tychostup

Who Wields War Power?
One aspect of the current buildup to war with Iraq which has remained largely unremarked upon is the question: Which branch of the us government has the authority to declare war? Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution states: “The Congress shall have Power...To declare War.” Attorney John Bonifaz, writing for TomPaine.com, sees this a clear indication that the Bush administration has usurped a war-making power it is not constitutionally allowed to wield. Referring to Article I, Bonifaz writes, “This simple and clear language requires that the decision of whether or not we go to war must be made by the legislative branch. By definition it specifically prohibits the president from making that decision, as the authors of the Constitution deemed the power to wage war to be too great to place in the hands of one individual.”

Last October, Congress passed a resolution granting the president broad powers to fight terrorism, and many within the administration have interpreted this as giving the president carte blanche to wage war. The resolution states, however, that the president “has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.” It does not extend power to the president to declare war—only a constitutional amendment can.

Last fall, on the eve of the passage of the anti-terror legislation, Senator Robert C. Byrd (d-wv) opposed the resolution on consitutional grounds. In remarks on the Senate floor October 3, Byrd reminded his colleagues of the wisdom of the Constitution and of “the frailty of human nature and the inherent danger of concentrating too much power in one individual. That is why the framers bestowed on Congress, not the president, the power to declare war.” Byrd quoted James Madison, who wrote in 1793: “In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not the executive department. Beside the objection to such a mixture to heterogeneous powers, the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man.”

As resistance to a “preemptive war” around the world mounts and the Bush administration becomes increasingly isolated from both former allies and public opinion in the us, perhaps it is time for the Congress awake from its mute passivity and reclaim its authority over America’s war-making capability.

—Brian K. Mahoney; Source: TomPaine.com

Bogus British Dossier
A British dossier was released on February 3 in hopes of persuading skeptics of Saddam Hussein’s efforts to hide weapons of mass destruction. Although officials claim evidence against Iraq is “solid”, there had been proof that a portion of the document was copied from three different articles, one having been written by post-graduate student Ibrahim al-Marashi on the build-up of the 1991 Gulf War. Al-Marashi was shocked that they had copied so much of his essay without asking for permission, and that key words or phrases in his paper had been changed to favor the case against Iraq.

The report was compiled by various British government officials, who had never claimed exclusive authorship of the material, nor had they credited any outside sources, but do insist it is entirely accurate.

When uk Prime Minister Tony Blair’s spokesman was pressed on the matter, he acknowledged that outside sources should have been credited, but were not. By using various public materials, they aimed to give an accurate, in-depth view of the situation without compromising intelligence sources.

The dossier may have been the most beneficial to us Secretary of State Colin Powell, whose case against Iraq was perhaps strengthened by evidence within the report. Still, the admitted plagiarism on behalf of the government, and Powell’s readiness to use the report as sufficient evidence severely undermined his credibility.

With the minor changes al-Marashi calls “cosmetic” that have come in the 12 years since his essay was published, some believe it to be careless and assumptive for Blair and Powell to have used it to help them develop their fairly dissuasive case against Iraq.

The 4,300,000 primary documents said to be used in the creation of the dossier came from direct sources in Iraq and Kuwait. But it’s the information taken from the more public sources, and the alleged plagiarism, that has unsettled and angered many. The intelligence document may not only be slightly outdated or inaccurate, but has succeeded in coming off as a weak attempt to mislead the country into supporting a possible war with Iraq.

—Tara Tornello; Source: Truthout.org

Secret Patriot Act
The Bush administration is in the midst of preparing a sequel to the usa Patriot Act passed in the wake of 9/11. The Act will give the government new powers to increase domestic intelligence-gathering, decrease judicial and public access to information, and heighten surveillance and law enforcement privileges.

The Center for Public Integrity has obtained a draft, dated January 9, 2003, of the previously undisclosed legislation. The bill, entitled the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, was drafted by the staff of attorney General John Ashcroft, but has not officially been released by the Department of Justice—although rumors of its development have been heard around the Capitol for the last few months under the alias of “Patriot Act II.”

Certain members of the Senate Judiciary Committee minority staff have been left in the dark, unaware of any updates to the Patriot Act. And as recently as mid-February, they were still being told that there is no such legislation being planned. The Committee had already developed an interest in revising the Patriot Act, following their regulations and guidelines. When told that the Center already procured a copy of the draft legislation, it was news to them.

Following the Center’s posting of the story, Barbara Comstock, director of public affairs for the Justice Department, released a statement saying that the Department staff had not presented any final proposals to the White House or Attorney General, and that it would be premature to speculate on any future decisions that are currently only at staff-level. An Office of Legislative Affairs “control sheet” shows otherwise—noting that a copy of the bill had been sent to Vice President Dick Cheney and Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert on January 10, 2003. A memo added that the proposal was entitled the “Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003.”

At the request of the Center, the draft legislation was reviewed by Dr. David Cole, a Georgetown University Law professor, who claimed it “raises a lot of serious concerns. It’s troubling that they have gotten this far along and they’ve been telling people there is nothing in the works.” In addition to the aforementioned changes of the revised Act are new death penalties, and authorized “secret” arrests.

Other significant provisions of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 include the enhanced ability of the government to deny releasing material on suspected terrorists in government custody; the denial of “worst case scenario” reports from private companies, used to detail the effects of controlled substances on a surrounding community in the case of an accident, with the reasoning that a report would be “a road map for terrorists”; and the ability to “expatriate” any American citizen who belongs to or supports any disfavored political group.

That Congress has yet to be consulted regarding the draft raises even more suspicions. As Cole remarked, “it suggests that they’re waiting for a propitious time to introduce it, which might well be when a war is begun.”

—Tara Tornello

Iraq and al-Qaeda
In the last few weeks, the Bush administration has turned away from attempting to substantiate claims of a link between the government of Saddam Hussein and the terrorist group al-Qaeda. Instead, the us and its allies have pressed for a war based on a “material breach” of un Resolution 1441, calling for Iraq to its disarm its weapons of mass destruction. Could it be that hard evidence of a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda never existed? Let’s review the evidence:

• On February 5, Secretary of State Powell gave a speech before the un laying out what he called, “the potentially...sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist network.” Powell’s key piece of evidence was a grainy satellite image of a dozen small buildings grouped around a courtyard. “Terrorist poison and explosives factory, Khurmal,” the caption read. There are problems with this evidence, however: Khurmal lies in the Kurdish-controlled portion of Northern Iraq, protected by the us-British no-fly zone, and is not under Hussein’s control. Also, villagers in Khurmal deny that their village hosts any terrorists at all. On February 5, they showed Western reporters around Khurmal and told them that the nearest encampment of Islamic extremists was in another village several miles away.

• After the release of an audiotape believed to be by Osama bin Laden on February 12, Powell pointed to evidence in the transcript that the al-Qaeda leader was urging Muslims to help Baghdad defend itself against an American attack, concluding that they were “in partnership with Iraq.” While the transcript of the tape bears this out: “It is not harmful in such conditions for the Muslims’ interests and socialists’ [Hussein’s] interests to come along with each other during the war against the crusade,” this does not prove a direct link. The tape goes on to state that Hussein is an “infidel”, and that “Socialists are infidels wherever they are, either in Baghdad or Aden.”

• UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has also insisted there are links between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda, but admitted that he did not know how deep these go, and that it is in fact “a matter of speculation.” A British Intelligence report indicated that there were “no current links” between the Iraq and al-Qaeda. The classified document noted that there has been contact between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda in the past, but that the relationship had failed due to mistrust and incompatible ideologies. The report contradicts one of the charges put forth by the us and Britain against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, claiming that he has cultivated contacts with the al-Qaeda group since the September 11 attacks, but no such time or date of inter-communication had been specified.

•Further attempts to tie Iraq to al-Qaeda include a public statement by cia director George J. Tenet, claiming intelligence officials had unearthed powerful evidence showing a connection. Tenet also believes Iraq is “harboring” senior members of the al-Qaeda network who had previously assembled a terror cell from a base in Baghdad, as well as provided training in document forgery and bomb-making to al-Qaeda members. Yet neither Tenet nor us intelligence services have furnished any evidence to bolster this claim, regardless of Tenet’s assertion that the information linking Baghdad and al-Qaeda “is based on a solid foundation of intelligence” and “comes to us from credible and reliable sources.”

—Tara Tornello & Brian K. Mahoney; Sources: Christian
Science Monitor, International Herald Tribune, Al-Jazeera