Determined to shape his own legacy in Iraq, President Bush has cut Congress out of his negotiations with the Maliki government. Despite repeated requests, the Administration has refused to share with congressional committees the text of its negotiating draft, even on a confidential basis. But elements of the proposals under negotiation have steadily leaked out from the Iraqi side, and now an Arabic-language newspaper, Asharq Al-Awsat, has published what it says is the full draft agreement.More at the link. Note I didn't find this allegation at some weirdo fringe website - it was on Yahoo News, and the authors, Bruce Ackerman and Oona Hathaway, are professors of law at Yale and the University of California, Berkeley, respectively.
The draft agreement published by Asharq Al-Awsat would clearly contravene the U.S. Constitution… the President asserts the power, as commander in chief, to commit the nation to his deal with Iraq without seeking the consent of the legislative branch…
… there is one point on which everybody agrees: The President can't unilaterally surrender his command over the military to somebody else, and tell the troops to treat this outsider as commander-in-chief. The authority he has as commander-in-chief is not his to transfer.
The published draft agreement violates this bedrock principle by creating a joint U.S.-Iraq committee and giving it, not the President, the authority to coordinate military operations, to resolve operational disputes, and even to "determine the tasks and level of the troops that will focus on training and supporting Iraqi security forces." The agreement creates only one exception: American troops can act unilaterally in self-defense without obtaining the committee's permission.
The constitutional violation is plain: The agreement would cede the President's authority over U.S. forces in the field to a committee, on which the Iraqis would have veto power…
12 September 2008
Is Bush contravening our Constitution?
There is at least one Constitutional scholar visiting TYWKIWDBI on a regular basis. He may or may not want to offer some insight into these revelations -
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I find this article to be very interesting. It is obvious that the authors object to the current "leaked" drafts of agreements with the Iraqi government...drafts which are in and of themselves questionable. But regardless of the authenticity of the leaked agreement drafts, an Executive Branch agreement does not hold the same power as a formalized, ratified treaty. Furthermore, such executive agreements are subject to the whim of the president, and can be voided by a new one. As for giving up the constitutional authority for military operations, I find this the weakest argument since a "joint" US-Iraq committee would be in a much better position to determine which military operations are of intrinsic value to the overall mission objectives. The idea is not to micro-manage, and while US troops might be responding to Iraqi conceptualized missions, I know that commanders of our own military will not allow our troops to be placed at unreasonable risk. Additionally, unlike a treaty, at any moment the president will be able to reassert control of the military command structure. Frankly, this whole article sounds like more liberal posturing. President Bush isn't running for office again guys...
ReplyDelete