Bush Plan for Iraq Would Be a First
No OK From Congress Seen; Constitutional Issues Raised
WASHINGTON - President Bush’s plan to forge a long-term agreement with the Iraqi government that could commit the US military to defending Iraq’s security would be the first time such a sweeping mutual defense compact has been enacted without congressional approval, according to legal specialists.
After World War II, for example - when the United States gave security commitments to Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, and NATO members - Presidents Truman and Eisenhower designated the agreements as treaties requiring Senate ratification. In 1985, when President Ronald Reagan guaranteed that the US military would defend the Marshall Islands and Micronesia if they were attacked, the compacts were put to a vote by both chambers of Congress.
By contrast, Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki have already agreed that a coming compact will include the United States providing “security assurances and commitments” to Iraq to deter any foreign invasion or internal terrorism by “outlaw groups.” But a top White House official has also said that Bush does not intend to submit the deal to Congress.
“We don’t anticipate now that these negotiations will lead to the status of a formal treaty which would then bring us to formal negotiations or formal inputs from the Congress,” General Douglas Lute, Bush’s deputy national security adviser for Iraq and Afghanistan, said in November when the White House announced the plan.
Lute’s disclosure initially attracted little scrutiny. Most of the attention has instead focused on whether the pact could make it more difficult for the United States to withdraw from Iraq after Bush leaves office. Although the next president could scrap the agreement, reneging on the compact would create diplomatic problems by showing that the nation does not live up to its obligations, specialists say.
But there is now also growing alarm about the constitutional issues raised by Bush’s plan. Legal specialists and lawmakers of both parties are raising questions about whether it would be unconstitutional for Bush to complete such a sweeping deal on behalf of the United States without the consent of the legislative branch.
“There is literally no question that this is unprecedented,” said Oona Hathaway, a Yale Law School professor who has written a forthcoming law journal article about the proposed Iraq agreement. “The country has never entered into this kind of commitment without Congress being involved, period.”
At a House hearing on the pact on Wednesday, Representative Dana Rohrabacher, Republican of California and a former Reagan administration official, accused the Bush administration of “arrogance” for not consulting with Congress about the pact. If it includes any guarantees to Iraq, he said, Congress must sign off.
“We are here to fulfill the constitutional role established by the founding fathers,” Rohrabacher said, adding, “It is not all in the hands of the president and his appointees. We play a major role.”
Bush and Maliki have said they intend to complete the agreement by July 31. The two countries need to reach some kind of an agreement this year in order to create a legal framework for the continued presence of US troops in Iraq after Dec. 31, when a United Nations Security Counsel mandate is due to expire.
But the “long-term relationship of cooperation and friendship” outlined in November goes far beyond an ordinary status-of-forces agreement. It would include promises of debt forgiveness, economic and technical aid, facilitating “especially American investments” in Iraq - and the security commitments, according to Bush and Maliki’s joint declaration last November.
Facing mounting criticism over its assertion that Bush can reach such an agreement on his own, the administration has sent mixed signals about whether it intends to follow through on the plan. The New York Times today reported that administration officials told a reporter that the final pact may not have security guarantees after all, but the article did not identify its sources.
Officially, the administration has not changed the plans it announced in November. Asked to respond to the critics who say that such a pact must be approved by Congress, White House National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates each said that it was premature to talk about the pact because its final text has not yet been negotiated.
“I haven’t been involved in any discussions of what kind of form the agreement would take or anything else,” Gates said at press conference yesterday. “I do know there’s a strong commitment inside the administration to consult very closely with the Congress on this.”
But Represent Bill Delahunt, Democrat of Massachusetts, who chaired the hearing on Wednesday, asked four top administration officials - Lute, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Eric Edelman, and the State Department’s top legal and Iraq advisers, John Bellinger and David Satterfield - to appear and explain the administration’s intentions. All four declined.
However, Lute may have offered a clue to the administration’s legal arguments during the November press conference when he noted that “We have about a hundred agreements similar to the one envisioned for the US and Iraq already in place, and the vast majority of those are below the level of a treaty.” Johndroe, the White House spokesman, also mentioned the existence of such agreements in a Globe interview this week.
Legal specialists, however, say that the numerous pacts that were completed without congressional consent are not similar to the agreement Bush and Maliki outlined in November.
Other such “status-of-forces agreements” are far more limited contracts with countries that host US military bases, covering comparatively minor issues such as leasing arrangements and which country will prosecute any US soldiers accused of committing a crime.
By contrast, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden told Bush in a letter released yesterday, “As a matter of constitutional law, and based on over 200 years of practice,” Bush could not commit the US military to protecting Iraq’s security without congressional consent.
“A commitment that the United States will act to assist Iraq, potentially through the use of our armed forces in the event of an attack on Iraq, could effectively commit the nation to engage in hostilities,” Biden wrote. “Such a commitment cannot be made by the executive branch alone under our Constitution.”
Biden said yesterday he had received no reply to the letter, which he sent late last month.
Adding to the pressure, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has also repeatedly raised the topic in recent days. The New York senator has filed legislation that would block the expenditure of funds to implement any agreement with Iraq that was not submitted to Congress for approval. Her rival, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, became a cosponsor to the bill on Tuesday.
“We’ve got to rein in President Bush,” Clinton said Monday in a South Carolina debate. “We need legislation in a hurry.”
© 2008 The Boston Globe
G. W. Bush sez: “If the president does it, it must be legal. Bring it on, you whiny-bag whimps. Haven’t stopped me yet, what makes you think you can stop me now! I ought to just disband the congress and the senate, too. ‘Bout as useless as tits on a boar anyway. All this moaning about the founding fathers and that moldy old constitution, don’t you know this is a new era… it’s two thousand and … eight. Bzzt…9-11 …bzzt bzzt weapons of mass destruction… bzzt… bzzt.. tax cuts …. bzzt… terror… bzzt…”
Will the Dems in Congress collude with this usurpation of power, too? We see a few of them complaining, of course; they do that, but never anything effective. You can see them being very careful not to actually interfere with the Bushies’ arrogation of monarchic power.
Rare credit to Hillary for mentioning it, at least. But note the trick: she’s calling for “legislation”, which can be vetoed. So as long as Bush remains in office, her attempts to block him remain purely symbolic: you might even say purely political. And Pelosi and Reid have guaranteed that Bush will indeed remain in office, at least till the end of his term.
There is one bit of good news here: any agreement made without Congress’s “advice and consent” isn’t really binding, and could be simply negated by the next President, or for that matter Congress. IF THEY CHOOSE TO. So far, they seem to be just fine, except for a little complaining, with Bush’s policies.
Interesting how this article is constructed. Of the 5 defiant pols listed, the Republican comes first, about halfway through.
The 4 Dems show up in the bottom half of the article, with Clinton and Obama at the tail end.
Pelosi and Reid have effectively morphed our Congress into the “Reichstag” of the early 1930s. Anything the tyrant wants, the tyrant gets. This is why impeachment is imperative - this maniac can and will do enormous harm before his term elapses - the world cannot wait that long to rid itself of this immoral and unethical cancer we call Bush.
We are truly in the darkest days of our history. And yet, most remain either ignornat or complacent of the threat. That is why it is also imperative for all of us to continue to work constructively, spreading the truth, one by one if necessary, until we have again regained the voice of the people.
Last note - these people love to criticize the 60s as a time of chaos and anti-patriotic fervor; truth is that the 60s was the last time the people found its voice - and that is what scares the hell out of them.
Get off your asses folks - now is no time to wear thin.
Congressional approval?
Time to ink that rubberstamp again.
The Constitution? Bush wipes his ass with it.
When having a bu$h!t constitutional, no doubt.
It’s part and parcel of the Bush plan to turn Iraq into a wholly owned subsidiary of Haliburton.
Just as the US Congress already is…
Quote: “The Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper”.
The more I read the more I realise that the usa is not a nation of laws anymore. It’s a govenment of men. So, what do you yanks hope for now, a monarchy which sees barb or jenna as the next pres, or a dictatorship with bush for life.
We’d be better off with a monarchy, since the change of command is determined by birthright. It’s astronomically small, but possible, to end up with a benevolent dictator.
If the passing of the torch is whoever is the most ruthless corporate henchman, you’ll get only the most ruthless corporate henchmen.
Democrats understand the Constitution well. They use it every day. They wipe their feet on it when they get home, the line the bottom of their parrot cages with it, they use it for packing, and they use it for personal hygene. They respect it about as much as a sneezing man respects a napkin.
skippyagogo41,
actually, rumor has it that one of jeb’s sons, “jebby”, is being groomed to continue the dynasty. i can hardly suppress my enthusiasm.
see, by the time he’s old enough to be anointed, we the dumb american public, will have forgotten this bush fiasco, much as we did the previous one.
“By contrast, Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki have already agreed that a coming compact will include the United States providing “security assurances and commitments” to Iraq to deter any foreign invasion or internal terrorism by “outlaw groups.” But a top White House official has also said that Bush does not intend to submit the deal to Congress.”
King George strikes again! WTF does Congress care? It makes it easy for them not to have to make a decision. All they want to do is support the power of corporations over the people, collect corporate funding for their campaigns and collect their pay check and benefit package from “the people”. It’s like taking a walk in the park on a sunny day.
I see that the title reads “Constitutional issues raised.” This should prompt careful readers to wonder who is doing the raising.
Ah, it’s Congress. The Great Abdicators must get some reinforcement out of humiliation, considering their nonstop submission to it.
There is a Constitutional remedy to their trouble with meek acquiescence, but the Speaker of the House says it is “off the table.”
It’s off the table, as they’ve all been swept off their feet.
The Democrats should quietly inform Maliki that any deal cut by BushCo has a potential shelf life of eleven months, and that once there is adult supervision in the White House (commencing January 2009) all decisions of the previous administration will be reviewed, and amended or even terminated where deemed illegal, inadvisable, or based upon incomprehensible policy. This is basically what the Republicans did when they (George H. W. Bush, Lee Atwater, etc.) went behind President Carter’s back and cut a deal with the Iranians over the hostages. The Democrats (and the American people) owe Bush nothing. The country would have been far better served if somebody, anybody else had been elected in 2000. We know it, the Europeans know it, our enemies know it, and the Iraqis know it. Anybody who expects the next President to follow consistently with what BushCo has been doing all these years is a fool (or a Republican).
the first act the next president must do is either disavow any such agreement or submit it to congress, which may do so too. All presidential contenders and eventual nominees must be asked in their debates on this issue as the details of an agreement become clear.
[Caption competition time again, bandido]
The Constitution? Petraeus is allowed to wipe Bush’s ass with it.
THIS IS JUST TOO MUCH TO WRITE ABOUT! THE ANGER WITH THIS ADMINISTRATION AND CONGRESS IS BEYOND ANY FURTHER ENDURANCE. . . .WHY BOTHER?
Oh hogwash!
Don’t worry about rigging vote machines to steal elections, breaking international law by launching an illegal invasion/war/occupation, torturing prisoners in violation of the Geneva conventions, shattering a country and raping it for profit, killing thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians, shredding the US reconstitution, etc.
What we are worried about:
“…reneging on the compact would create diplomatic problems by showing that the nation does not live up to its obligations, specialists say.”
Ha! You have got to be kidding me- right? What planet am I on?
With the way the voting is going in the Senate, I fear that the challenge to this agreement would only result in a vote to let Bush do it without advise and consent. Perhaps that is exactly what the Bush administration wants- a nod of the Senate to change how military agreements are done. That would be a horrible legal precedent, especially with five justices willing to reinforce it. I think I’d rather see a new president submit the agreement to a stronger Democratic Senate next year to vote it down.
I’d like to see a happy planet too! Blueskys comment is just a rollover like our congress. This has got to stop! How, for example, can we get all our sick soldiers to D.C. to protest their cause, the Constitution? We have to make our selves heard. What is bush going to have to do to stifle the last of our voices? What are we going to have to do to get it back? We now all know that there is no more constitution under bush, its his house of cards to knock over now. We are giving it to him by rolling over.
Is it facinating another insider just changing hats. This administration is so inbred that a new idea hasn’t got a chance and I am sure that is how Bush wants it. These retreads didn’t do well in their first or second job but it is that old adage use the same methods and expect a different result, but this guy doesn’t want a different result. Maybe we are not suppose to recognize the grand shuffle.
“I haven’t been involved in any discussions of what kind of form the agreement would take or anything else,” [Robert]Gates said at press conference yesterday.
Sure. Why would you want to include the Secretary of Defense in negotiating, quote: “a sweeping mutual defense compact,” endquote?
Good for Biden, Hillary, and Obama. It looks like this train is being stopped in time.
Can you imagine W and his creepy crawlers setting up a treaty that would favor American investments? Holy Moley! How crass.
A good primer on where this shit comes from is Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine; it should be mandatory reading for all high school students.
‘By contrast, Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki have already agreed that a coming compact will include the United States providing “security assurances and commitments” to Iraq to deter any foreign invasion or internal terrorism by “outlaw groups.” ‘
I like the ‘deter foreign invasion ‘ bit. Surely ‘foreign invaders R us (US??) However an occupying power can neither change the constitution or law of a country or commit to long term legally binding plans.Since they can’t be binding as the afore said occupying power.
Illegal invasion, illegal occupation thus everything which flows from it is this illegal - including the troops on the ground. Further, as I understand it, Maliki allegedly travels on a foreign passport, thus, if correct, he has forgone his Iraqi nationality and comitted his allegiance to another country. Thus, it would seem, is in no legal position anyway to make deals on behalf of Iraq.
Bush and his puppet, quisling Iraqi ‘government’ are on very thin legal ice, one would have thought.