Bush pushing ahead with illegal, unconstitutional "agreement" withIraq to keep US troops there forev

Published on Friday, January 25, 2008 by The Boston Globe

Bush Plan for Iraq Would Be a First

No OK From Congress Seen; Constitutional Issues Raised

by Charlie Savage

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."

"Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names" <PopUlist349@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:31de6ab7-d32a-417c-8fc6-8b58ec09e40f@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

> Published on Friday, January 25, 2008 by The Boston Globe

> Bush Plan for Iraq Would Be a First

> No OK From Congress Seen; Constitutional Issues Raised

The Constitution of the United States

Article. II. - The Executive Branch

Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power,

Appointments

"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to

make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;"

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec1

The Senate ALREADY voted him permission.