I've also heard the claim that actions undertaken as part of NATO or the U.N. are somehow exempt from the constitutional requirement, but the fact that a war is fought with allies does not make it any less of a war (Congress declared war during World War II; it also voted to authorize the first Gulf War and the attack onÂ Afghanistan even though they were done, respectively, through theÂ U.N. and NATO).
I can't put an exact percentage to it, but I'd say I find myself in agreement with Glenn Greenwald's opinions on constitutional issues in the high 90's. Let me also preface by saying I oppose US imperialism. I'm also a pacifist. Concerning Libya, while there is no doubt that there are Americans in "high" places with ulterior motives (oil), there is no doubt in my mind that Qaddaffi has the greater sin in this matter. In addition, I have used the argument that the US didn't declare war concerning Afghanistan or Iraq.
So, what about this Libyan situation? Is there anything different about it vis-a-vis Declarations of War, etc.?
Look, the US is part of NATO. NATO is a treaty. The US is signatory. That treaty calls for mutual defense. The US Constitution expressly binds the nation to such signed treaties as the highest law of the land (the US). If any NATO member is attacked, the government and people of the US have already committed to their defense. The Declaration of War, per se, is agreed to in advance. Now, that in and of itself doesn't answer Glenn's question about the UN. It begins to though.
The US is signatory to the UN Charter documents (not all but certainly the founding documents). I've seen it argued between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. There are those who say that Declarations, per se, are not as binding as other international documents. That argument is the same that is used to say that while the Declaration of Independence is a founding document of the US, it is not law as the US Constitution is law. I disagree for matters of spirit. However, that's not good enough for most for this debate about Libya and the UN and NATO, etc.
The whole point of the UN in terms of international law, of which the US is a party, is to protect rights of nations and peoples and individual people. There are numerous international instruments/documents that evidence this. I won't list them all here. The US is signatory to many and certainly enough of them to make clear that the US is supposed to hold that the treatment Qaddaffi had been dishing out to the dissenters in Libya was a clear violation of international law (and the US Constitution for the reason I mentioned above). What does that law require? Frankly, it requires the Security Council to enforce it militarily if necessary. Therefore, in the simplest terms, the US is obligated to support any UN effort to enforce the international law. Whether the US does consistently or not is irrelevant to the point. It should be consistent. Even still, it shouldn't be violent, but that's a theological point on my part that Glenn is probably not much interested in. He may agree on other moral grounds though. I won't prejudge him about that. He has never struck me as an advocate for violence as the solution.
The truth of the matter is that all of the permanent members of the Security Council, and I would argue all Security Council members and UN member-states, are literally to police the world. I realize that's not a popular view, but it's the truth. That policing is actually supposed to be as effective as the most effective policing on a local level. The people of the whole world are supposed to be protected from violence and criminality including if inflicted by the government of a particular nation-state against it's own people and regardless of membership in the UN.
Local police departments are violently coercive. They are hopefully as restrained in that as possible while still getting the "job" done. I would have it that everyone would have the Christian law written on his or her heart such that such police wouldn't be necessary but rather each person's conscience would keep the peace in the highest sense. However, it is a fact, it is the current reality, that in most places, were there no local police, greater evil than the coercion of the "reasonable" police would certainly come forth. Shame on those who would bring it, but they are blind and deaf to the truth.
My issues regarding Afghanistan and Iraq were that the basis for the attacks on each were lies and that the Congress was hiding behind them. In addition, the term "war" as contemplated under the Constitution and international law certainly applied to both Afghanistan and Iraq while it likely does not concerning Libya. The US is not at "war" with Qaddaffi in that sense, albeit the range of connotations for the term certainly includes war of a type. I know I'm not splitting hairs here. The US says that it is not seeking to overthrow Qaddaffi even though it has made clear that it no longer finds his government legitimate. Being Frank again, let me say that the difference escapes me. I think the US is playing word games that it should not and that are unnecessary. The UN does have the authority to declare a ruler no longer a ruler. Self-determination is about the people of a nation, not some absolute monarch or dictator.
Also concerning Afghanistan, the Congressional authorization was too vague and open-ended. Proof as to who was behind 9/11 and how various parties tied in was never forthcoming. Torturing a confession out of someone violates the very international law of which I speak. Al Qaeda was never shown to have been behind 9/11. Bin Laden actually denied he was behind it, and the US never showed any proof otherwise. Yet, the US attacked and invaded Afghanistan for being a training ground and "safe harbor" for al Qaeda. As for Iraq, not one reason given before the attack and invasion stood up. The evidence against Qaddaffi though is irrefutable. It matters!
So, my position about the US and its current actions against Qaddaffi's regime is well-reasoned and supported by national and international law as those fit together in this situation.
I'm not sure of Glenn's ultimate objective or ideology. Non-intervention would seem to be it, but he'd have to tell me one way or the other. If it is, is it absolute? Is he a total pacifist, as am I?
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)