MARCH 2003

U.S. SOLDIERS, PARENTS OF SOLDIERS AND 12 CONGRESS PEOPLE WIN FAST REVIEW OF SUIT CHALLENGING BUSH'S AUTHORITY TO WAGE WAR AGAINST IRAQ >>>>>>>>

PLAINTIFFS SAY INVASION WILL VIOLATE CONSTITUTION: "THE PRESIDENT IS NOT
KING">>>>>>>>>

-- HEARING BEFORE THREE-JUDGE PANEL SET FOR TUESDAY, MARCH 4 --

DOE V BUSH SEEKS TO BAR BUSH FROM STARTING WAR ABSENT CONGRESSIONAL DECLARATION

BOSTON - A coalition of U.S. soldiers, parents of U.S. soldiers from seven states and a dozen U.S. congress people won a rare expedited review by a federal appeals court in Boston of a lawsuit challenging President George W. Bush's authority to wage war against Iraq.

The order, issued Tuesday, February 25 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston, came less than 24 hours after a federal judge had dismissed the case.  The plaintiffs had appealed the ruling by Federal Judge Joseph Tauro and had filed a motion for expedited review before the appellate court.

The appellate court granted that motion yesterday and scheduled oral argument before a three-judge panel for Tuesday, March 4.  The lawsuit seeks to prevent the President from ordering troops into Iraq until Congress formally declares war. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit will hold oral argument on the plaintiffs' appeal on Tuesday, March 4, at 9 a.m., at the U.S. Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Way, Boston.

"We are pleased that the federal appeals court recognizes that this case deserves immediate review," says John Bonifaz, the plaintiffs' lead attorney.  "Judicial intervention is needed to ensure that the President adheres to the Constitution before ordering troops into Iraq in what would be an illegal and unconstitutional war without a formal Congressional declaration."

The coalition of U.S. soldiers, parents of U.S. soldiers, and Members of Congress filed the lawsuit on February 13, 2003, in federal district court in Boston seeking an injunction to prevent the President from launching a military invasion of Iraq, absent a congressional declaration of war.

U.S. Representatives John Conyers and Dennis Kucinich are leading the Members of Congress who are serving as plaintiffs.  On February 21, 2003, six Members of Congress added their names to the lawsuit, doubling the number of congressional plaintiffs suing the President, and nine parents of U.S. soldiers also joined the case.

The original congressional plaintiffs are: Rep. John Conyers (MI-14); Rep. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10); Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-2); Rep Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18); Rep. Jim McDermott (WA-7); and Rep. Jose E. Serrano (NY-16).

The additional Members of Congress who joined the lawsuit are: Rep. Danny K. Davis (IL-7); Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey (NY-26); Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-15); Rep. Pete Stark (CA-13); Rep. Diane Watson (CA-32); and Rep. Lynn C. Woolsey (CA-6).

The parents in the case are from California, Michigan, Mississippi, Massachusetts, Illinois, New York, Washington State, and the District of Columbia.

The lead plaintiffs in the case are three U.S. soldiers, including a Marine currently stationed in the Persian Gulf.

The U.S. Justice Department is representing President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the named defendants in the case.

The plaintiffs say an invasion will violate Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, which states that "Congress shall have Powerâ?¦[t]o declare War."  They argue that the resolution on Iraq that Congress passed last October did not declare war and unlawfully ceded to the President the decision of whether or not to send this nation into war.

Their court papers cite historical records showing that the framers of the Constitution sought to ensure that U.S. presidents would not have the power of European monarchs of the past to wage war.

"The President is not a king," says Charles Richardson, a plaintiff in the case whose son is a U.S. Marine now stationed in the Persian Gulf.  "If he wants to launch a military invasion against Iraq, he must first seek a declaration of war from the United States Congress.  Our Constitution demands nothing less."

Richardson, along with Nancy Lessin and Jeffrey McKenzie who are plaintiffs in this case, is a co-founder of Military Families Speak Out, an organization of people who are opposed to war against Iraq and who have family members in the military. Lessin adds: "A full and complete Congressional discussion of the issues and all options must precede any move towards war, because of the irreparable harm that would result."

"President Bush recently told journalists that whether we go to war 'is not up to you, it's up to me,'" says Representative John Conyers.  "The Founding Fathers did not establish an imperial presidency with war-making power.  The Constitution clearly reserves that for Congress."

HOW DOE V BUSH DIFFERS FROM OTHER SUITS CHALLENGING PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO WAGE WAR:

The plaintiffs argue that their case is distinguishable from the Vietnam War cases and the case brought prior to the first Persian Gulf War.  They point out that the cases challenging the executive branch's authority to wage war in Vietnam were brought long after that war had started.

By the time the courts heard those cases, the U.S. Congress had passed a series of military appropriations financing the war and had passed legislation extending the military draft.  Presently, Congress has not passed any military appropriations to finance an invasion of Iraq and has not reinstated the draft.

In the case brought in 1990 by Members of Congress challenging the authority of President Bush's father to wage the first Persian Gulf War, the court ruled, contrary to Judge Tauro's ruling on Monday, that the matter was not a political question and could be subject to judicial review.  However, in that case, the court denied the requested injunction solely on the grounds that war did not appear imminent at that time.

The Doe v Bush plaintiffs point out that, according to the President and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, the nation is weeks, if not days, away from a military invasion of Iraq.  They argue that their case is far more ripe than the 1990 case.  They further argue that U.S. special operations forces are already in Iraq, laying the groundwork for a massive military invasion.

CONTACTS: Carol Klenfner (646) 495-4978
carol@andymorrisandcompany.com
Andy Morris (646) 495-4958
andy@andymorrisandcompany.com

The following is the text of John Brady Kiesling's letter of resignation to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. Mr. Kiesling is a career diplomat who has served in United States embassies from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevan.

 

Dear Mr. Secretary:

 

I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my c ountry and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal.

 

It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department I would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human nature. But until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer.

 

The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships t he world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security.

 

The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a uniquely American problem. Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to so to ourselves. Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo?

 

We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners. Even where our aims were not in question, our consistency is at issue. The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image and interests. Have we indeed become blind, as Russia is blind in Chechnya, as Isr ael is blind in the Occupied Territories, to our own advice, that overwhelming military power is not the answer to terrorism? After the shambles of post-war Iraq joins the shambles in Grozny and Ramallah, it will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks with Micronesia to follow where we lead.

 

We have a coalition still, a good one. The loyalty of many of our friends is impressive, a tribute to American moral capital built up over a century. But our closest allies are persuaded less that war is justified than that it would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift into complete solipsism. Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why does our President condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this Administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials. Has "oderint dum metuant" really become our motto?

 

I urge you to listen to America's friends around the world. Even here in Greece, purported hotbed of European anti-Americanism, we have more and closer friends than the American newspaper reader can possibly imagine. Even when they complain about American arrogance, Greeks know that the world is a difficult and dangerous place, and they want a strong international system, with the U.S. and EU in close partnership. When our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it is time to worry. And now they are afraid. Who will tell them convincingly that the United States is as it was, a beacon of liberty, security, and justice for the planet?

 

Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability. You have preserved more international credibility for us than our policy deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses of an ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an international system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of laws, treaties, organisations, and shared

(Greek police outside US Embassy tackle peace march)..... values that sets limits on our foes far more effectively than it ever constrained America's ability to defend its interests.

 

I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration. I have confidence that our democratic process is ultimately self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I can contribute from outside to shaping policies that better serve the security and prosperity of the American people and the world we share.