United for Peace of Pierce County, WA - We nonviolently oppose the reliance on unilateral military actions rather than cooperative diplomacy.

Army Times reported Wednesday that members of Congress serving on a Joint House committee had an "incredulous reaction" to two Bush administration officials' assertion that "[t]he 2002 congressional authorization to go to war in Iraq gives [the administration] the authority to conduct combat operations in Iraq and negotiate far-reaching agreements with the current Iraqi government without consulting Congress."[1] -- Nor, according to the administration, is an extension of the U.N. mandate required, AP reported Wednesday.[2] -- The Washington Post published a report on Thursday, noting that "U.S. officials are traveling to Baghdad this week with drafts of two documents — a status-of-forces agreement and a separate 'strategic framework' — that they expect to sign with the Iraqi government by the end of July. It is to go into effect when the current U.N. mandate expires Dec. 31."[3] -- Karen DeYoung quoted Rep. Gary L. Ackerman (D-NY 5th), who described the administration's doctrine as an "open-ended, never-ending authority for the administration to be at war in Iraq forever with no limitations. . . . I don't think anybody argues today that Saddam Hussein is a threat. Is it the government of Iraq that's a threat?" -- After the hearing, Assistant Secretary of State Jeffrey T. Bergner penned a letter to members of Congress saying that the administration's authority to act exists with or without a U.N. mandate, pointing out that "Congress has repeatedly provided funding for the Iraq war." -- "Democrats, and some Republicans, maintained that any such agreement — particularly if it includes a defense commitment — would require Senate ratification," DeYoung wrote. -- "The administration has claimed executive authority, but has pledged that the agreement will contain no troop commitments and no promise to defend Iraq, and will not constrain the next president. -- But Democratic lawmakers have demanded details of the proposed agreements and also assurances that Congress will have veto power. The administration declined until Tuesday to provide a senior official to discuss the drafting of the agreements or negotiations with Iraq. -- During a tense joint hearing of the House Foreign Affairs oversight and Middle East subcommittees, David Satterfield, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's chief Iraq adviser, did not answer to lawmakers' satisfaction questions about Congress's role in the agreements. Ackerman gave him 24 hours to respond. -- Bergner's letter, said Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA 10th), 'creates the basis for a constitutional confrontation.'" -- BACKGROUND: A joint "Declaration of Principles" was signed in November by U.S. President George W. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, laying down a framework negotiations of "agreements between the two governments with respect to the political, cultural, economic, and security spheres" — an attempt to evade the requirement under the U.S. Constitution that treaties be ratified by the U.S. Senate (Article II, Section 2: "[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur . . .") so as to establish long-term U.S. bases in Iraq, which although a virtually taboo subject in American mainstream media (the hearing in question is being ignored by the New York Times) is undoubtedly the active intent of national security élites in the U.S. -- Such bases will remain in place for about a century, which is how long it will take to extract Iraq's immense reserves of petroleum and natural gas. -- For a review of Congress's "partisanship, complacency, and corruption" in yielding its authority to the executive and abdicating its responsibility to defend the Constitution and the Republic, see Chalmers Johnson, Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic (New York: Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt, 2007), pp. 259-68, and, of course, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., The Imperial Presidency (Boston & New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2004; orig. ed. 1973), passim....

The Bush administration says the 2002 congressional authorization to go to war in Iraq gives it the authority to conduct combat operations in Iraq and negotiate far-reaching agreements with the current Iraqi government without consulting Congress.

The assertion, jointly made Tuesday by U.S. Ambassador David Satterfield and Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Mary Beth Long, drew an incredulous reaction from Democrats on a Joint House committee during a hearing on future U.S. commitments to Iraq.

“It's the view of the administration that as long as there’s trouble in Iraq that you have authorization of this Congress to continue there in perpetuity and define trouble as you desire?” asked Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y.

“We have authorization to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq,” Satterfield replied. “The situation in Iraq continues to present a threat to the United States.”

The Bush administration also feels it does not need to seek the authorization of Congress to ratify two pending agreements with Iraq: a “Strategic Framework” that would govern “normalized” relations with the U.S., and a Status of Forces Agreement that would govern the “authorities and protections” of U.S. troops in Iraq past Dec. 31, the expiration of a U.N. resolution that the administration says authorizes their presence.

The agreements will “not tie the hands of the next president or, indeed, this president,” Satterfield said. “They will ensure that every policy option remains on the table. The size of the U.S. presence in Iraq, the missions to be performed by such forces, if forces are present, are decisions for the president and for the next president to make.”

And the president, the two officials said, can negotiate those agreements with the government of Iraq.

“You don’t intend to submit this particular Status of Forces Agreement with its authority to fight to the Congress for its approval?” asked Rep. Bill Delahunt, D-Mass.

“The secretary of defense has already testified, and I believe Secretary [of State Condoleezza] Rice has reiterated, that it is our intent and our obligation to coordinate with the members,” Long replied.

“Coordination is a lovely word, and I know consultation and notification are also words that are being used and will be used,” Delahunt said. “But I used the word, authorization,’” Delahunt said. “It’s the position of this administration that they do not need to come before Congress to receive authorization?

During a combative exchange with Ackerman, Satterfield sought to allay the fears of critics who say the administration is trying to position itself to lock in a permanent U.S. presence in Iraq.

“The framework and the Status of Forces Agreement will not include a binding commitment to defend Iraq or any other security commitments that would warrant Senate advice and consent,” Satterfield said. “I wish to be clear: They will not establish permanent bases in Iraq, nor will they specify in any fashion the number of American forces to be stationed there. Congress will be consulted throughout the process.”

But Ackerman pointed out that if language in the November 2007 U.S.-Iraq Declaration of Principles is adopted, it would give U.S. troops in Iraq the authority to defend Iraq against an attack -- which he said amounts to a license to wage war.

The principles, Ackerman pointed out, state that the U.S. and Iraq “intend to negotiate agreements” in which the U.S. would “provide security assurances to the Iraqi Government to deter any external aggression and to ensure the integrity of Iraq's territory.”

Satterfield said the Strategic Framework will not include any such commitment. At the same time, he said, “As would be the case of an attack on any friend and partner of the United States, the administration would have to consider, in consultation with the Congress, what would be the best measures to take in defense of United States’ interests in such an eventuality.”

“If Iraq is attacked, are you stating uncategorically that the administration will take no action?” Ackerman said.

“I can only state that the administration is responsible for the defense of the interests of the United States,” Satterfield said. “It will act in accordance with those interests, but I cannot and will not speculate on hypotheticals.”

The president cannot make an international agreement that exceeds his own constitutional authority, said Oona Hathaway, an associate professor of law at Yale University who took part in a follow-on panel. “If he acts in absence of a congressional grant, he can only rely on his own independent constitutional powers,” she said.

A typical SOFA is negotiated by the president, she noted. But anything that includes an authority to fight, as this proposal appears to do, she said, “Becomes an agreement that really must be submitted to Congress for approval either as a treaty or as a congressional-executive agreement.”

** Administration Says President Can Keep Troops in Iraq Even After U.N. Mandate Expires **

The administration can keep troops in Iraq into next year even after the current U.N. mandate governing operations there expires and without Congress' permission, a senior State Department official told a Democratic lawmaker on Wednesday.

In a letter to Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y., David Satterfield said military operations can continue "beyond the end of this year under the laws passed by Congress and the president's authority as commander in chief."

Satterfield's statement reaffirms the administration's position that it does not need international or congressional approval to conduct military operations around the world, particularly when going after terrorists. Democrats counter that the president's assertion is in violation of the Constitution and hurts the U.S. image abroad.

"It's ludicrous to think that we have entry into any country because there's an individual there that we don't like," Ackerman said in an interview.

Particularly if the U.N. mandate expires, "I think the world would see our place in Iraq as totally illegitimate at that point," he said.

Satterfield, the State Department's top adviser on Iraq, sent the letter in response to a pointed exchange with Ackerman a day earlier during a House hearing.

With the U.N. mandate set to expire at the end of the year -- and neither Iraq nor the U.S. wanting to extend it -- the two countries are negotiating a long-term security plan that would take its place. The closely held draft document foresees a flexible agreement that would allow the U.S. and Iraqi governments to adapt and shift responsibilities as conditions change.

While officials say it would not tie the U.S. to specific troop levels or establish permanent bases in Iraq, the plan is expected to preserve the U.S. right to hunt down top foreign fighters inside Iraq's borders.

Administration officials have said they probably will not seek Senate approval of the plan because the agreement will not be a treaty that provides Iraq with specific security guarantees. This position has prompted a backlash in Congress, where Democrats have proposed legislation that would render the agreement null and void without the Senate's blessing.

In his statement, Satterfield cites two legislative measures that he says gives the administration cover to remain in Iraq: the 2001 and 2002 resolutions authorizing force in Iraq and against nations harboring al-Qaida terrorists.

Democrats and some Republicans have questioned whether the 2002 authorization of force in Iraq still applies legally because it referred to the need to get rid of Saddam Hussein and eliminate the threat of weapons of mass destruction. Since the 2003 invasion, Hussein has been captured and killed, and weapons of mass destruction were not found.

NO NEED FOR LAWMAKERS' APPROVAL OF IRAQ PACT, U.S. REASSERTS
By Karen DeYoung

The Bush administration yesterday advanced a new argument for why it does not require congressional approval to strike a long-term security agreement with Iraq, stating that Congress had already endorsed such an initiative through its 2002 resolution authorizing the use of force against Saddam Hussein.

The 2002 measure, along with the congressional resolution passed one week after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks authorizing military action "to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States," permits indefinite combat operations in Iraq, according to a statement by the State Department's Bureau of Legislative Affairs.

The statement came in response to lawmakers' demands that the administration submit to Congress for approval any agreement with Iraq. U.S. officials are traveling to Baghdad this week with drafts of two documents -- a status-of-forces agreement and a separate "strategic framework" -- that they expect to sign with the Iraqi government by the end of July. It is to go into effect when the current U.N. mandate expires Dec. 31.

Rep. Gary L. Ackerman (D-N.Y.), whose questions at a House hearing Tuesday elicited the administration statement, described it as an "open-ended, never-ending authority for the administration to be at war in Iraq forever with no limitations." The conditions of 2002 no longer exist, he said.

"I don't think anybody argues today that Saddam Hussein is a threat," he said. "Is it the government of Iraq that's a threat?"

The proposed agreement has become a contentious issue in the presidential campaign. Democratic candidates and their allies on Capitol Hill have charged that the administration is trying to lock in a U.S. military presence in Iraq before the next president takes office.

According to yesterday's statement, the administration's interpretation of the 2002 resolution is that "Congress expressly authorized the use of force to 'defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.' "

In a letter to Ackerman, Assistant Secretary of State Jeffrey T. Bergner said that authority exists with or without a U.N. mandate. In addition to the resolutions, he wrote, "Congress has repeatedly provided funding for the Iraq war." Democrats have failed in several attempts to curtail funding for the Iraq war.

The Iraqi government said late last year that it will not agree to renewal of the U.N. mandate for foreign troops there beyond 2008, and the administration announced that it was opening negotiations with Baghdad on a new bilateral agreement to replace it. A declaration of principles signed by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and President Bush in December said the agreement would include "security assurances and commitments" to Iraq to deter foreign aggression. [NOTE: In fact, this document is dated Nov. 26, 2007. --H.A.]

Democrats, and some Republicans, maintained that any such agreement -- particularly if it includes a defense commitment -- would require Senate ratification. The administration has claimed executive authority, but has pledged that the agreement will contain no troop commitments and no promise to defend Iraq, and will not constrain the next president.

But Democratic lawmakers have demanded details of the proposed agreements and also assurances that Congress will have veto power. The administration declined until Tuesday to provide a senior official to discuss the drafting of the agreements or negotiations with Iraq.

During a tense joint hearing of the House Foreign Affairs oversight and Middle East subcommittees, David Satterfield, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's chief Iraq adviser, did not answer to lawmakers' satisfaction questions about Congress's role in the agreements. Ackerman gave him 24 hours to respond.

Bergner's letter, said Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-Mass.), "creates the basis for a constitutional confrontation."