I. Democracy D. 1. Foreign Policy – Peace and Disarmament, item i.
Current language of plank that is being addressed
“Our government does not have the right to justify preemptive invasion of another country on the grounds that the other country harbors, trains, equips and funds a terrorist cell.
Proposed revision or amendment of the current language, or proposed new plank. This is to be added to item i after the existing sentence:
“We urge that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed by Congress on September 14, 2001 in response to the attacks on September 11, 2001 be repealed. The AUMF delegates to the president additional powers not mentioned in the Constitution, and abdicates the responsibility of Congress to declare war. It has been cited as justification for actions in Afghanistan, Cuba (Guantanamo Bay), Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Iraq, Kenya, Libya, Philippines, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. Numerous studies have shown that the “War on Terror” has created an ever-increasing number of terrorists and has added significantly to the destabilization of the Middle East. It serves to maintain the US in a state of perpetual war.”
The additional statement is valuable in that it includes a critique of the “war against terror” that shows how metaphors convert into justifications of the use of force in military actions that cannot achieve any military resolution. This is a lesson on language and ecologically sound policies.
1
Suggestions:
1) Urge is a weak word. War is devasting except to the profiteers.
2) replace has been with it is cited…
3) replace have shown with show
4) replace has created with
fester or create
5) is dramatically and systematically destablizing the Middle East causing death, destruction, and suffering to millions of innocents and the environment while demolishing and DU polluting known cultural centers and heritage architecture that date back thousands of years.
#1: replace “urge” with “demand”
#2 & #3: good suggestions
#4: replace “has created” with “creates”
#5: ok, but include the final sentence too:” It serves to maintain the US in a state of perpetual war.”
spell out DU for those who do not know what it stands for.
I support the added language, and suggest rewording “…to the destabilization of the Middle East…” to read: “…to destabilization and humanitarian crises in the Middle East and beyond…” Many of the countries listed as impacted are not in the Middle East, and it is important to affirm not only the political instability, but also the human costs imposed by these unconstitutional acts of war.
I support the proposed added language, which is much needed, with the following edit: replace “…and has added significantly to the destabilization of the Middle East…” with: “…has destabilized countries in the Middle East and beyond, and created humanitarian crises.” The list of affected countries includes many not in the Middle East, and the consequences of our military actions are not just political but involve massive human suffering, which should be recognized here.
I support this proposal. The war on terror is nothing but a weak justification for US Imperialism.
What needs to be amended first is to add the other pretexts, like exporting democracy, stopping alleged WMD use, and so forth.
The AUMF is almost a moot point after 1a already pointed out the UN Charter is law domestically; Congress should declare the AUMF null and void, not repeal it, since it had no authority to pass such a law in the first place. Then they and/or the courts need to establish the code and/or case precedents to make the Charter self-executing so it can be enforced.
The AUMF is regularly used for grandstanding by duopoly politicians who want to appear anti-war.
(the rest of section D fawns too much on the UN’s authority. A relic of the old colonial order, its power to intervene in the internal affairs of sovereign states is as often used to harm their people as to help them).
Responding in part to earlier observations, I wonder if the following rewrite might prove acceptable to the proponents,
“We therefore demand repeal of the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed by Congress on September 14, 2001 in response to the attacks on September 11, 2001. The AUMF confers powers not mentioned in the Constitution on the Presidency and removes responsibility for declaring war from the Congress. The AUMF has been cited as justification for actions in Afghanistan, Cuba (Guantanamo Bay), Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Iraq, Kenya, Libya, Philippines, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. Numerous studies have shown that the “War on Terror” has created an ever-increasing number of terrorists and has added significantly to the destabilization of the Middle East. It serves to condemn the US to perpetual war.”
Says what is needed in an effective way, although I still suggest expanding the second to last sentence, after “terrorists,” to read “…and has added significantly to civilian death and suffering, and to destabilization in the Middle East and beyond.” That gives a fuller picture of the damage, and makes repealing the AUMF a moral as well as practical imperative.
Elie’s rewrite improved the proposed language. I offer this edit to Elie’s rewrite in an effort to further refine the language:
We therefore demand repeal of the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed by Congress on September 14, 2001 in response to the attacks on September 11, 2001. The AUMF confers powers not granted by the Constitution on the Presidency and in practice removes responsibility for declaring war from the Congress. The AUMF has been cited as justification for actions in Afghanistan, Cuba (Guantanamo Bay), Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Iraq, Kenya, Libya, Philippines, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. The “War on Terror” has created an ever-increasing number of terrorists and has added significantly to the destabilization of the Middle East, in particular, and it serves to condemn the US, and therefore the world, to perpetual war.”
Edits include:
‘ not granted’ instead of ‘mentioned’
added ‘in practice’
removed ‘Numerous studies…’
added ‘in particular’ and ‘therefore the world’ and made the last 2 sentences one sentence since the subject of the later is the War on Terror.
We don’t need to refer to unnamed studies for this language to be self evident. I prefer concise language that does not go into unnecessary justification(s).
Tommie James
North Carolina Delegate
Thank you,Delegate Tommie James. Yes, of course! It is an honor to have my attempt at clarity improved, and done so collaboratively.
As an aside on language. (demand vs. urge). Depending on the situation ‘demand(s)’ may have about it a pathetic aspect (the admission of helplessness, stamping ones foot, . . .) and a confession of helplessness. In speaking to power, ‘urge’ may suggest to the holder of power, the suggestion that a failure to respond might threaten that power. That the petitioner has resources, or alternatives, if her petition is not considered.
Not just the AUMF but the War Powers Act needs to be repealed.
Discussion among Greens should be that the President must not ever assume the role of Commanding by becoming a Commander in Chief witout a FORMAL Call into Service, subject as well to Congress actually Declaring WAR as required by Article I Section 8. If this needs clarification our Constitution can appropriately redefine the executive role of the President. I would like to see this as nuclear war, even Limited Nuclear War is actively discussed as now possible by Professors in military academia (UNM) , it is only a matter of time before a bad, irreversable Presidential decision is made.
We should note the Presidential oath of office calls for the President to protect and DEFEND. Surely we all can agree the Executive was always considered as being the loose cannon in the model of self governance whose preamble starts with “We the People” not “Me the President.”