[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 30, 2011)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E571-E572]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   AFGHANISTAN WAR POWERS RESOLUTION

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 17, 2011

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because the return home of our 
U.S. military in the absence of a declaration of war by this Congress 
is long overdue. Members of this House must support H. Con. Res. 28, 
and help reverse the course of the unconstitutional Afghan war.
  First, the war in Afghanistan is unconstitutional.
  Article 1, Section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution grants Congress--
not the President--the power to declare war. Once that declaration is 
made by the Congress, the President can conduct war.
  The Constitution is clear and there is no debate over the fact that 
the Constitution never intended any shared decision making in declaring 
a state of war. Such a shared decision making was rejected originally 
by the Framers. Thus, without a declaration of war, the President's 
continued use of force to continue a war in Afghanistan is 
unconstitutional.
  James Madison, one of the key architects of the Constitution on 
separation of powers, said that ``this requirement for Congress to be 
able to declare war is one of the most important provisions of the 
Constitution.'' However, ten years after the conflict began in 
Afghanistan, we still have no such declaration. This significant 
authority granted to Congress is why I rise today in support of the 
gentleman from Ohio's resolution.
  Congress cannot hand over to the President our exclusive power to 
declare war. Without a declaration of war, the President's use of 
military force in Afghanistan is unconstitutional.
  The seminal case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer rejected 
the President's claim that he had authority as Commander-in-

[[Page E572]]

Chief to unilaterally seize steel production plants. Justice Douglas' 
concurring opinion contained an important recognition of the importance 
of separation of powers during war:
  ``All executive powers--from the reign of ancient kings to the rule 
of modern dictators--has the outward appearance of efficiency. 
Legislative power, by contrast, is slower to exercise . . . We 
therefore cannot decide this case by determining which branch of 
government can deal most expeditiously with the present crisis. The 
answer must depend on the allocation of powers under the 
Constitution.''
  No one in this Congress argues that the military must diminish their 
role in fighting against attacks on the United States. However, if the 
armed conflict is not defensive, the federal constitution has, 
unmistakenly provided that the Congress shall have power to declare 
war.
  This war has continued for almost 10 years and it is time to call it 
to a stop until Congress declares a clear objective to engage the 
nation in war. The Framers granted Congress the authority to make the 
decision to go to war because Congress could best assess whether the 
country was behind a war, which is a key element to any victory.
  Therefore, we must remember our constitutional duty to represent the 
voice of the American people. The cost of war comes at the expense of 
their lives, their sons, and their daughters.
  Second, the war in Afghanistan exceeds the scope of the authorization 
of the AUFMA resolution.
  The authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), is not a general 
anti-terrorism bill. The resolution never gave the President perpetual 
authority to use military force after 9/11 to any acts or plans of 
terrorism. Instead, the AUMF resolution reads:
  ``The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate 
force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines 
planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that 
occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or 
persons, in order to prevent any future act of international terrorism 
against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons.''
  The AUMF cannot be used as a cover for a full-blown war, which is 
what has occurred in Afghanistan. We are now almost 10 years into a 
full-blown war under the claim that the AUMF continues to authorize 
this war cannot be upheld. For this claim to be upheld, Congress must 
then declare war.
  The United States cannot engage in national building type activities 
that are not connected to the scope of the authorization under the 
AUMF. Should Congress determine that the military needs more or less 
authority than it has been given under the AUMF, we will act 
accordingly.
  Thirdly, the armed unmanned drones in Pakistan are unlawful.
  Another concern is that the Afghanistan action has paved the way for 
unauthorized military actions in neighboring Pakistan, including the 
use of military drones.
  The military continues to use armed unmanned drones operated by the 
CIA and conducts exercises on the ground in order to target Al Qaeda 
and the Taliban and additional terrorist groups. How can the 
administration pursue the use of drones without abandoning America's 
hallmark commitment to civil liberties?
  The use of drones has placed the United States military in a bad 
light internationally for the killings of innocent people from the use 
of drones. The New America Foundation, reportedly, estimates that 
between 867 and 1,281 deaths from drone strikes, with 277 to 435 being 
noncombatants that have died since 2004.
  The use of drones by the United States has been called ``one of 
Washington's worst-kept secrets.'' American drones may well have 
attacked jihadist groups not connected to the supporters and members Al 
Qaeda or the Taliban. This combat can not be justified under the AUMF 
authorization because the attacks exceed the scope the authorization.
  Our actions may well be increasing the rush of Pakistan jihadist 
gaining greater influence in combat in Pakistan. Increased military 
presence in Afghanistan has inflamed anti-American resentment in the 
region. Pakistan, reportedly, also has hundreds of nuclear weapons. Our 
troops may be in more danger because of the effects of compromised U.S. 
efforts in the region and the greater Middle East.
  Expansion of executive war power beyond the AUMF is precisely the 
kind of momentous decision making the Framers conferred upon the 
Congress. We must put a stop to this war in Afghanistan or else it will 
send a message to the world that our Executive Branch may pick and 
choose wherever they want to send troops or to start a war.
  The United States military is in a dozen different locations all over 
the world engaged in combat. Even now, our military is fighting in 
Libya, yet there has been no authorization or declaration from this 
Congress nor has there been any meaningful consultation with Congress.
  The burden caused by the decision to expand military activities into 
Pakistan exceeds the scope of the AUMF. Congress must support H. Con. 
Res. 28 in order keep this Country dedicated to the way the Framers of 
the Constitution structured our nation on how to commit to armed 
conflict.
  Finally, the military action appears to violate international legal 
norms.
  H. Con. Res. 28 will place the United States in a better position in 
light of our international obligations under the U.N. Charter. None of 
the mandates from the two resolutions passed in the wake of the tragedy 
on 9/11 decided that any state should engage in war.
  Instead, for example, Resolution 1373 directs member states to root 
out terrorism through means that affect the financing, harboring, 
investigating, and collaborating of terrorist groups while Resolution 
1268 strongly condemned the attacks on 9/11 and called for 
international cooperation to find the perpetrators of 9/11.
  Without a clear objective or credibility that the United States is 
acting in self defense, our country may be violating our obligation as 
a member state in the U.N. to refrain from acts of aggression that are 
unauthorized by the Charter.
  The use of drones and military operations by the CIA also conflicts 
with both article 51 and article 2. Combat for the purposes of article 
51 only authorizes the right of the use of military force if the force 
is in self-defense in the event an armed attack occurs. Article 2 of 
the Charter also prohibits the use or threatened use of force against 
another state.
  Article 51 does not grant the right of bombing, unmanned armed 
drones, nor does it describe armed force as self-defense. Unfortunately 
we have engaged in such force and accepted the risks associated with 
the use of such force. The U.S. must comply with our obligations under 
these Articles.
  The attacks on the United States on 9/11 were horrific. However, the 
horror we experienced on that tragic day does not provide any legal 
justification to use deadly force against people believed to be hiding 
in regions throughout Afghanistan. There is no justification for the 
Afghan war to be transformed into an authorization to use force 
anywhere we think terrorism exists.

                          ____________________