"Surge" Without Congressional Approval Is Impeachable Offense

[proud2BlibKansan]

By Francis Boyle
Professor of international law at the University of Illinois

01/06/07 "Information Clearing House" -- -- "Concerning the proposed 'surge' by the Bush administration of 20,000-plus U.S. troops into Iraq, this requires further authorization by the U.S. Congress under the terms of the War Powers Resolution. Section 4(a)(3) makes it quite clear that the War Powers Resolution is triggered ... 'In the absence of a declaration of war , in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced ... (3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation....'

"We currently have about 140,000 troops in Iraq. Sending in an additional 20,000-plus would 'substantially enlarge' those forces. Therefore, the Bush administration would require further authorization from Congress for this euphemistic 'surge,' which is really a substantial escalation. Failure to obtain additional authorization from Congress for this substantial enlargement of U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq would constitute an impeachable offense under the terms of the United States Constitution for violating the Constitution's War Powers Clause and Congress's own War Powers Resolution."

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article16079.htm

[Rick Myers]

1. This is important! Spread the word!

Escalation without approval is a crime!

K and R

:kick:

[54anickel]

2. I think they've got a way around it - The troop surge that isn't

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/01/06/the_troop_surge_that_isnt/

snip>

The report calls for accelerating the arrival of four Army brigades and two Marine regiments that are already preparing to go to Iraq in early 2007 and delaying the departure of the 15 brigades now in Iraq by three months each. That is not a surge of new troops. That is a three-month overlap of scheduled troop departures and arrivals.

The report details this overlap strategy for the 2007 rotation but has no concrete plan for 2008 and beyond. Only then will the real damage from the American Enterprise Institute proposal surface. To sustain the deployments, units that have been accelerated in 2007 will have to stay longer than their one-year rotations, and units whose deployments were extended will go back to Iraq in 2008 and 2009 with less than one year of rest.



snip>

Notably, the report comes from Washington-based military observers, not from the generals in Iraq who are charged with strategy. Those commanders have overlapped units to increase troops before; during Iraqi elections in 2005 and this past fall in Baghdad. They also have 15 US brigades in Iraq, only five of which are in Baghdad. If the commanders thought that three or four extra US brigades in Baghdad would turn the tide, they could have arranged that. The fact is that the generals in charge of Iraq, George Casey and John Abizaid, have said they do not want more US troops. They want more Iraqi troops, and they know the Army and Marines cannot sustain 30,000 additional troops in Iraq.

Kagan, who has advocated troop increases in Iraq of up to 75,000, claims that the additional troops needed can be replenished with the increased Army end strength that the president and Congress are likely to authorize this year. But the Army still has not recruited all the 20,000 additional troops Congress authorized in 2004 and cannot grow as rapidly as Kagan wishes.

[tavalon]

11. At the risk of being annoying, I have decided to repeat this message to anyone using "surge"

Please don't call it a surge unless you place it in quotes and preferably with the caveat "supposed" in front of it. Otherwise, you are helping the republics to frame the debate. Don't help the other team please

[54anickel]

12. Not annoying - I just pasted from the article title. Old habit of not messing

with a headline per LBN rules. I'll be more attentive in the future. Thanks.

[Imagevision]

3. One would think that pelosi And reid would be aware of this criteria...?

[Tom Joad]

4. I doubt if congress will take any action whatsoever.

[Jcrowley]

5. K&R n/t

[Nevernose]

6. You could argue over the definition of "substantial"

My math skills are weak, weak, weak, but I come up with 20,000 being about 15% of 140,000. A good argument, or at least a rational one, could be made that 15% isn't "substantial."

Of course, if it isn't substantial, then why bother sending them at all? It's a catch-22 against the Bush administration.

[proud2BlibKansan]

7. I thought about that too

It will be interesting to see what happens with this surge.

[The Backlash Cometh]

9. My guess is that he needs this to show the Iraq forces that he's not on his

last legs. That he can still command the Congress. It's the first conflict between him and the new Dem Congress. That's why the Congress must not blink.

[tavalon]

10. Please don't call it a surge

unless you place it in quotes and preferably with the caveat "supposed" in front of it. Otherwise, you are helping the republics to frame the debate. Don't help the other team please.

[The Backlash Cometh]

8. Bush is so impeachable, that he leaves marmalade tracks everywhere

he goes.

[yodermon]

13. Text of the War Powers Act section in question

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/warpower.htm

SEC. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--

(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;

(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or

(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation; the president shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth--

(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;

(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and

(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

(b) The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad

(c) Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.

No language in the act clarifies what "substantially enlarge" means. (?)