[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4832-4835]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     QUESTION OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule IX, I rise to a point of 
personal privilege.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has been made aware of a valid

[[Page 4833]]

basis for the gentleman's point of personal privilege.
  The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, the critical issue before this Nation 
today is not Libyan democracy; it is American democracy. In the next 
hour, I will describe the dangers facing our own democracy.
  The principles of democracy across the globe are embodied in the U.N. 
Charter, conceived to end the scourge of war for all time. The hope 
that nations could turn their swords into plowshares reflects the 
timeless impulse of humanity for enduring peace and, with it, an 
enhanced opportunity to pursue happiness.
  We are not naive about the existence of forces in the world which 
work against peace and against human security.

                              {time}  1240

  But it is our fervent wish that we should never become like those 
whom we condemn as lawless and without scruples, for it is our duty as 
members of a democratic society to provide leadership by example, to 
not only articulate the highest standards but to walk down the path to 
peace and justice with those standards as our constant companions. Our 
moral leadership in the world depends chiefly upon the might and light 
of truth and not shock and awe and the ghastly glow of our 2,000-pound 
bombs.
  Mr. Speaker, our dear Nation stands at a crossroads. The direction we 
take will determine not what kind of nation we are but what kind of 
nation will we become.
  Will we become a nation which plots in secret to wage war?
  Will we become a nation which observes our Constitution only in 
matters of convenience?
  Will we become a nation which destroys the unity of the world 
community, which has been painstakingly pieced together from the ruins 
of World War II, a war which itself followed a war to end all wars?
  Now, once again, we stand poised at a precipice, forced to the edge 
by an administration which has thrown caution to the winds and our 
Constitution to the ground.
  It is abundantly clear from a careful reading of our Declaration of 
Independence that our Nation was born from nothing less than the 
rebellion of the human spirit against the arrogance of power. More than 
200 years ago, it was the awareness of the unchecked arrogance of 
George III that led our Founders to carefully and deliberately balance 
our Constitution, articulating the rights of Congress in article I as 
the primary check by our citizens against the dangers they foresaw for 
our Republic. Our Constitution was derived from the human and political 
experience of our Founders, who were aware of what happens when one 
person took it upon himself to assume rights and privileges which 
placed him above everyone else.
  ``But where,'' asked Tom Paine in his famous tract ``Common Sense,'' 
``is the king of America?''
  ``I'll tell you, friend. He reigns above, and doth not make havoc of 
mankind like the royal of Britain. So far as we approve of monarchy, 
that in America the law is king; for as in absolute governance the king 
is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king, and there ought 
to be no other,'' said Thomas Paine in ``Common Sense.''
  The power to declare war is firmly and explicitly vested in the 
Congress of the United States, under article I, section 8 of the 
Constitution. That is the law. The law is king.
  Let us make no mistake about it. Dropping 2,000-pound bombs and 
unleashing the massive firepower of our Air Force on the capital of a 
sovereign state is in fact an act of war, and no amount of legal 
acrobatics can make it otherwise. It is the arrogance of power which 
former Senator from Arkansas J. William Fulbright saw shrouded in the 
deceit which carried us into the abyss of another war in Vietnam.
  My generation was determined that we would never see another Vietnam. 
It was the awareness of the unchecked power and arrogance of the 
executive which led Congress to pass the War Powers Act. Congress, 
through the War Powers Act, provided the executive with an exception to 
unilaterally respond only when the Nation was in actual or imminent 
danger to repel sudden attacks.
  Mr. Speaker, today, we are in a constitutional crisis because we have 
an administration that has assumed for itself powers to wage war which 
are neither expressly defined nor implicit in the Constitution nor 
permitted under the War Powers Act. This is a challenge not just to the 
administration but to this Congress, itself.
  A President has no right to wrest that fundamental power from the 
Congress, and we have no right to cede it to him. We, Members of 
Congress, can no more absolve a President of his responsibility to obey 
this profound constitutional mandate than we can absolve ourselves of 
our failure to rise to the instant challenge to our Constitution that 
is before us today. We violate our sacred trust to the citizens of the 
United States and our oath to uphold the Constitution if we surrender 
this great responsibility and through our inaction acquiesce in another 
terrible war. We must courageously defend the oath we took to defend 
the Constitution of the United States or we forfeit our right to 
participate in representative government.
  How can we pretend to hold other sovereigns to fundamental legal 
principles if we do not hold our own Presidents to fundamental legal 
principles here at home?
  We are staring not only into the maelstrom of war in Libya; the code 
of behavior we are establishing sets a precedent for the potential of 
evermore violent conflicts in Syria, Iran, and the specter of the 
horrifying chaos of generalized war throughout the Middle East. Our 
continued occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan makes us more vulnerable, 
not less vulnerable, to being engulfed in this generalized war.
  In 2 years, we have moved from President Bush's doctrine of 
preventive war to President Obama's assertion of the right to go to war 
without even a pretext of a threat to the Nation. This administration 
is now asserting the right to go to war because a nation may threaten 
force against those who have internally taken up arms against it.

                              {time}  1250

  Keep in mind, our bombs began dropping even before the United Nations 
International Commission of Inquiry could verify allegations of murder 
of noncombatant civilians by the Qadhafi regime. The administration 
deliberately avoided coming to Congress and, furthermore, rejects the 
principle that Congress has any role in this matter.
  Yesterday, we learned that the administration would forge ahead with 
military action even if Congress passed a resolution constraining the 
mission. This is a clear and arrogant violation of our Constitution. 
Even a war launched ostensibly for humanitarian reasons is still a war, 
and only Congress can declare war.
  Mr. Speaker, we saw in the President's address to the Nation on March 
28 how mismatched elements are being hastily stitched together into a 
new war doctrine. Let's review them: number 1, an executive privilege 
to wage war; number 2, war based on verbal threats; number 3, 
humanitarian war; number 4, preemptive war; number 5, unilateral war; 
number 6, war for regime change; number 7, war against a nation whose 
government this administration determines to be illegitimate; number 8, 
war authorized through the U.N. Security Council; number 9, war 
authorized through NATO and the Arab League; and, finally, war 
authorized by a rebel group against its despised government. But not a 
word about coming to the representatives of the people in this, the 
United States Congress, to make this decision.
  Mr. Speaker, at this very moment, thousands of sailors and marines 
are headed to a position off the coast of Libya. The sons and daughters 
of our constituents willingly put their lives on the line for this 
country. We owe it to them to challenge a misguided and illegal 
doctrine which could put their

[[Page 4834]]

lives in great danger, for we have an obligation to protect our men and 
women in uniform as they pledge to defend our Nation.
  This administration's new war doctrine will not lead to peace but to 
more war, and it will stretch even thinner our military. In 2007, the 
Center for American Progress released a report on the effects of war in 
Iraq and Afghanistan and the multiple, multiple deployments of our 
Armed Forces. The report cited a lack of military readiness. It cited 
high levels of posttraumatic stress and suicide. The report was 
released just before President Bush's surge in Iraq, just 1 year after 
the surge in Afghanistan. And after 8 years of war in Iraq, the 
President commits an all-volunteer Army to another war of choice. If 
the criteria for military intervention in another country is 
government-sponsored violence and instability, overcommitment of our 
military will be virtually inevitable and, as a result, our national 
security will be undermined.
  It is clear that the administration planned a war against Libya at 
least a month in advance, but why? The President cannot say that Libya 
is an imminent or actual threat to our Nation. He cannot say that war 
against Libya is in our vital interests. He cannot say that Libya had 
the intention or capability of attacking the United States of America. 
He has not claimed that Libya has weapons of mass destruction to be 
used against us.
  We're told that our Nation's role is limited; yet, at the same time, 
it is being expanded. We've been told that the administration does not 
favor military regime change, but then they tell us the war cannot end 
until Qadhafi is no longer the leader. Further, 2 weeks earlier, the 
President signed a secret order for the CIA to assist the rebels who 
are trying to oust Qadhafi.
  We're told that the burdens of war in Libya would be shared by a 
coalition, but the United States is providing the bulk of the money, 
the armaments, and the organizational leadership. We know that the war 
has already cost our Nation upwards of $600 million and we're told that 
the long-term expenses could go much, much further. We're looking at 
spending additional billions of dollars in Libya at a time when we 
can't even take care of our people here at home.
  We're told that the President has legal authority for this war under 
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, but this resolution 
specifically does not authorize any ground elements. Furthermore, the 
administration exceeded the mandate of the resolution by providing the 
rebels with air cover. Thus, the war against Libya violated our 
Constitution and has even violated the very authority which the 
administration claimed was sufficient to take our country to war.
  We're told that the Qadhafi regime has been illegitimate for four 
decades, but we're not told that in 2003 the U.S. dropped sanctions 
against Libya. We're not told that Qadhafi, in an effort to ingratiate 
himself with the West in general and with America specifically, 
accepted a market-based economic program led by the very harsh 
structural adjustment remedies of the IMF and the World Bank.

                              {time}  1300

  This led to the wholesale privatization of estate enterprises, 
contributing to unemployment in Libya rising to over 20 percent.
  CNN reported on December 19, 2003, that Libya acknowledged having a 
nuclear program, pledged to destroy weapons of mass destruction, and 
pledged to allow international inspections. This was a decision which 
President George W. Bush has praised, saying Qadhafi's actions ``made 
our country and our world safer.''
  We're told that Qadhafi is in breach of the U.N. Security Council 
resolutions, but now our own Secretary of State is reportedly 
considering arming the rebels, an act which would be a breach of the 
United Nations Security Council resolution which established an arms 
embargo. We are told that we went to war at the request of and with the 
support of the Arab League. But the Secretary-General of the Arab 
League, Amr Moussa, began asking questions immediately after the 
imposition of the no-fly zone, stating that what was happening in 
Libya, ``differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone. What we want 
is the protection of civilians and not the shelling of civilians.'' Ban 
Ki-moon, the U.N. Secretary-General, has also expressed concern over 
the protection of civilians, even as allied bombing continued during 
the international conference on Libya in England this week, stating, 
``The U.N. continues to receive deeply disturbing reports about the 
lack of protection of civilians, including various abuses of human 
rights by the parties to the conflict.'' He was alluding to possible 
human rights abuses by Libyan rebel forces. Even the Secretary-General 
of NATO, an organization which the United States founded and generally 
controls, expressed concern, saying, ``We are not in Libya to arm 
people but to protect people.'' So I ask, is this truly a humanitarian 
intervention? What is humanitarian about providing to one side of the 
conflict the ability to wage war against the other side of a conflict, 
which will inevitably trigger a civil war, making all of Libya a 
graveyard?
  The administration has told us, incredibly, they don't really know 
who the rebels are, but they are considering arming them, nonetheless. 
The fact that they are even thinking about arming these rebels makes 
one think the administration knows exactly who the rebels are. While a 
variety of individuals and institutions may comprise the so-called 
opposition in Libya, in fact, one of the most significant organizations 
is the National Front for the Salvation of Libya, along with its 
military arm, the Libyan National Army. It was the National Front's 
call for opposition to the Qadhafi regime in February which was the 
catalyst of the conflict which precipitated the humanitarian crisis 
which is now used to justify our intervention.
  But I ask, Mr. Speaker, how spontaneous was this rebellion? The 
Congressional Research Service in 1987 analyzed the Libyan opposition. 
Here's what the Congressional Research Service wrote: ``Over 20 
opposition groups exist outside Libya. The most important in 1987 was 
the Libyan National Salvation Front, formed in October 1981.'' This 
National Front ``claimed responsibility for the daring attack on 
Qadhafi's headquarters at Bab al Aziziyah on May 8, 1984. Although the 
coup attempt failed and Qadhafi escaped unscathed, dissident groups 
claimed that some 80 Libyans, Cubans, and East Germans perished.'' 
Significantly, the CRS cited various sources as early as 1984 which 
claim, ``The United States Central Intelligence Agency trained and 
supported the National Front before and after the May 8 operation.'' By 
October 31, 1996, according to a BBC translation of Al-Hayat, an Arabic 
journal in London, a Colonel Khalifa Haftar, who is leader of this 
Libyan National Army, the armed wing of the National Front, was quoted 
as saying, ``Force is the only effective method for dealing with 
Qadhafi.''
  Now follow me to March 26, 2011. The McClatchy Newspapers reported, 
``The new leader of Libya's opposition military left for Libya 2 weeks 
ago,'' apparently around the same time the President signed the covert 
operations order. And I am making that observation. The new leader 
spent the past two decades of his life in Libya? No. In suburban 
Virginia, where he had no visible means of support. His name, Colonel 
Khalifa Haftar. One wonders when he planned his trip and who is his 
travel agency?
  Congress needs to determine whether the United States, through 
previous covert support of the armed insurrection, driven by the 
American-created National Front, potentially helped create the 
humanitarian crisis that was used to justify military intervention. We 
need to ask the question. If we really want to understand how our 
constitutional prerogative for determining war and peace has been 
preempted by this administration, it is important that Congress fully 
consider relevant events which may relate directly to the attack on 
Libya.
  Consider this, Mr. Speaker: On November 2, 2011, France and Great 
Britain signed a mutual defense treaty

[[Page 4835]]

which included joint participation in Southern Mistral, a series of war 
games outlined in the bilateral agreement and surprisingly documented 
on a joint military Web site established by France and Great Britain.

                              {time}  1310

  Southern Mistral involved a long range conventional air attack called 
Southern Storm against a dictatorship in a fictitious southern country 
called Southland in response to a pretend attack. The joint military 
air strike was authorized by a pretend United Nations Security Council 
resolution. The composite air operations were planned, and this is the 
war games, for the period of March 21 through 25, 2011.
  On March 20, 2011, the United States joined France and Great Britain 
in an air attack against Libya, pursuant to U.N. Security Council 
Resolution 1973.
  So the questions arise, Mr. Speaker, have the scheduled war games 
simply been postponed, or are they actually under way after months and 
months of planning under the named of Operation Odyssey Dawn?
  Were operation forces in Libya informed by the U.S., the U.K. or 
France about the existence of these war games, which may have 
encouraged them to actions leading to greater repression and a 
humanitarian crisis?
  In short, was this war against Qadhafi's Libya planned, or was it a 
spontaneous response to the great suffering which Qadhafi was visiting 
upon his opposition? Congress hasn't even considered this possibility.
  NATO, which has now taken over enforcement of the no-fly zone, has 
morphed from an organization which pledged mutual support to defend 
North Atlantic states from aggression. They've moved from that to 
military operations reaching from Libya to the Chinese border in 
Afghanistan. North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
  We need to know, and we need to ask what role French Air Force 
General Abrial and current supreme allied commander of NATO for 
transformation may have played in the development of operation Southern 
Storm and in discussions with the U.S. and the expansion of the U.N. 
mandate into NATO operations.
  What has been the role of the U.S. African Command and Central 
Command in discussions leading up to this conflict?
  What did the administration know, and when did they know it?
  The United Nations Security Council process is at risk when its 
members are not fully informed of all the facts when they authorize a 
military operation. It is at risk from NATO, which is usurping its 
mandate, the U.N. mandate, without the specific authorization of U.N. 
Security Council Resolution 1973.
  Now, the United States pays 25 percent of the military expense of 
NATO, and NATO may be participating in the expansion in exceeding the 
U.N. mandate.
  The United Nations relies not only on moral authority, but on the 
moral cooperation of its member nations. If America exceeds its legal 
authority and determines to redefine international law, we journey away 
from an international moral order and into the amorality of power 
politics where the rule of force trumps the rule of law.
  What are the fundamental principles at stake in America today? First 
and foremost is our system of checks and balances built into the 
Constitution to ensure that important decisions of state are developed 
through mutual respect and shared responsibility in order to ensure 
that collective knowledge, indeed, the collective wisdom of the people 
is brought to bear.
  Two former Secretaries of State, James Baker and Warren Christopher, 
have spoken jointly to the ``importance of meaningful consultation 
between the President and Congress before the Nation is committed to 
war.''
  Our Nation has an inherent right to defend itself and a solemn 
obligation to defend the Constitution. From the Gulf of Tonkin in 
Vietnam to the allegations of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, 
we've learned from bitter experience that the determination to go to 
war must be based on verifiable facts carefully considered.
  Finally, civilian deaths are always to be regretted, but we must 
understand from our own Civil War more than 150 years ago that nations 
must resolve their own conflicts and shape their own destiny 
internally. However horrible these internal conflicts may be, these 
local conflicts can become even more dreadful if armed intervention in 
a civil war results in the internationalization of that conflict. The 
belief that war is inevitable makes of war a self-fulfilling prophecy.
  The United States, in this new and complex world racked with great 
movements of masses to transform their own government, must, itself, be 
open to transformation away from intervention, away from trying to 
determine the leadership of other nations, away from covert operations 
to manipulate events, and towards a rendezvous with those great 
principles of self-determination which gave birth to our Nation.
  In a world which is interconnected and interdependent, in a world 
which cries out for human unity, we must call upon the wisdom of our 
namesake, our Founder, George Washington, to guide us in the days 
ahead. He said: ``The Constitution vests the power of declaring war in 
Congress. Therefore, no offensive expedition of importance can be 
undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and 
authorized such measure.''
  Washington, whose portrait faces us every day as we deliberate, also 
had a wish for the future America. He said: ``My wish is to see this 
plague of mankind, war, banished from the Earth.''
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________