Baker, Christopher to head bipartisan panel to study who has power to begin, conduct and end wars

[bigtree]

Baker, Christopher to head war power panel

40 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Former Secretaries of State James A. Baker III and Warren Christopher will head a private, bipartisan panel to study a lingering and gnawing national question: Who does the Constitution say has the power to begin, conduct and end wars.

The dispute over the authority to wage war has historically divided presidents, members of Congress and scholars. Through the years, the White House gradually has assumed increased control of U.S. war-making, and it has arisen anew amid the shrill debate in the new Democratic-controlled Congress over
President Bush's war buildup in
Iraq.

Baker and former Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind., headed the Iraq Study Group that made recommendations last December to the Bush administration on Iraq war policy.

That panel, which was authorized by Congress, achieved wide notice as Bush was considering how to reshape the U.S. role in Iraq, and its findings have been embraced by many members of both parties. Bush ended up deciding to send extra troops to the war zone — essentially ignoring its recommendation that the U.S. remove its combat troops by early next year.

The war powers study is sponsored by the private Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia.

Among its 12 members are Baker, who served under the first President Bush; Christopher, who was in the Clinton administration; Hamilton; former Attorney General Edwin Meese, who was also on the Iraq Study Group; and Brent Scowcroft, a former national security adviser.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070228/ap_on_go_ot/war_powers

[hippiechick]

1. You gotta be fucking kidding me!

It's taking a bi-partisan panel of BFEE cronies to read the goddamn Constitution?

:wtf: Any 8th grader should be able to tell us, in 50 words or less.

[babylonsister]

2. So who will pay attention to whatever results they come up with?

Will this be another exercise in futility?

[Bunny]

3. Is this for real? Why would anyone think that Bush would pay any

attention to this panel?

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. Oh. My. Word! This is unreal.

[acmavm]

5. And here they haul out that old hairball Baker. Like they do

everytime bush** and his band of merry thugs need some cover. Baker and whomever will pretend to be doing some serious 'vestigating and in the end won't say or do much of anything. But they will have bought that pointy earred felonious coward in the White House some more time.

Why change strategies when it works so well, just like always.

[The Backlash Cometh]

33. They don't call him, "The Cleaner," for nuthin.

[Nickster]

6. HELL NO! Get James Baker's grubby hands off of my Constitution.

[SoCalDem]

7. JESUS CHRIST... That old reprobate Baker..AGAIN !!

This old troll has NO business deciding ANYTHING.. Has he ever even been elected to anything? same for Christopher..I'm beginning to see the wisdom in coups.. "New guys" get rid of the "old guys" so they can never meddle again

[KoKo]

9. and don't forget Lee Hamilton.......n/t

[SoCalDem]

10. The two "democrat" enablers..

and Lieberman & we have another trifecta.:(

[leftchick]

8. cut the funding cut the funding cut the funding cut the funding

that is the ONLY way to stop the ME bullshit. Does anyone believe bush is listening to anyone except the voices in his head?

:banghead:

[bigtree]

12. that effort is still subject to republican obstruction

What Reid is proposing is to put a withdrawal plan in Bush's face and FORCE him to veto it, further isolating him politically and setting the stage for Congress to (collectively) conclude that measures like impeachment are the only way to move him. The impeachment effort make no sense at all until Congress actually tries to direct him and he refuses to be directed. So far, Congress has NO bills which have directly rebuked Bush on Iraq. Are you really suggesting that they don't even register their objections in a vote?

There will have to be some form of funding legislation which is bolstered or buttressed by a plan for withdrawal. Otherwise, the cut-off of funds is going to be seen as nothing more than squeezing the troops to get at Bush.

[leftchick]

26. you are kidding right?

isolate bush? impeachment? With this congress? It is impossible to isolate bush/cheney! They take what they want and get away with it time and again. When have they been isolated at all on anything in the last five years? They got their last tax cuts for the rich for god's sakes. You have way more faith in that bunch than they deserve.

But hey, save this post in six months and I will eat crow if you are correct.

[Me.]

11. Gee....Wonder What They'll Decide?

I couldn't possibly guess.

[jwirr]

13. Historians? Isn't it a fact that since WWII we have had NO declared

wars? I can't remember what Korea and Vietnam were called but they were not voted on by the Congress like WWII. So in order to know what the Constitution says it would only be a matter of going back to see how it was used pre-WWII.

[Bandit]

18. Korea was referred as a "police action" and Vietnam as a "Conflict"

This one should be called a boondogle..

[The Backlash Cometh]

34. I'm betting on, "youthful indiscretion."

Baker can say that of Bush's mistake since Baker is an ancient Redwood.

[jwirr]

40. Good name.

[rodeodance]

14. the article has very little information. I wonder if panel was Self selected

or WHO did the selecting.

[rodeodance]

15. Here are the other members:--from the Virginia site: (Meese EEKS)

http://millercenter.virginia.edu/policy/commissions/warpowers/index?PHPSESSID=4e41a20b202be5a04957c15e25ac4363

National War Powers Commission

In keeping with its tradition of assembling national commissions of major stature, the Miller Center has convened the National War Powers Commission, a private bipartisan panel led by former Secretaries of State James A. Baker, III and Warren Christopher. The Commission will examine how the Constitution allocates the powers of beginning, conducting, and ending war.

When armed conflict is looming, debates about separation of powers and the uncertainty they often generate can impair relations among the branches of government, cast doubt on the legitimacy of government action, and prevent focused attention on policy. Armed conflicts with non-state actors and other non-traditional “wars,” as well as the courts' involvement in war powers questions, make the Commission’s work relevant.

The Commission intends to produce a report making recommendations to assist Presidents, Congresses, Courts, and other policymakers in addressing war powers issues. When they are issued, the Commission’s recommendations will be entirely prospective in nature and not applicable to the present presidential Administration or present Congress.

The Commission’s work and deliberations will entail an analysis of various legal issues, as well as historical and practical considerations. The Commission intends to rely on existing scholarship, the wide experience among its members, and the counsel of other experts. Commission members hope their report will make a positive contribution to the public debate on the proper exercise of war powers; educate the public about these crucially important issues; and promote greater agreement and more productive working relationships among the branches of government. The Commission intends to make its report and recommendations available to members of government, scholars, and the media.

Press Release | Commission at a Glance | Commissioner Biographies | United States Constitution
Frequently Asked Questions

1. Who is on the Commission?

The Commission will be led by its Co-Chairs, former Secretaries of State James A. Baker, III and Warren Christopher.

Its members are:

* Slade Gorton, former U.S. Senator from Washington;
* Lee H. Hamilton, former Member of Congress from Indiana;
* Carla A. Hills, former U.S. Trade Representative;
* John O. Marsh, Jr., former Secretary of the Army;
* Edwin Meese, III, former U.S. Attorney General;
* Abner J. Mikva, former Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit;
* J. Paul Reason, former Commander in Chief of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet;
* Brent Scowcroft, former National Security Advisor;
* Anne-Marie Slaughter, Dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University; and
* Strobe Talbott, President of the Brookings Institution.

2. Why convene a National Commission on War Powers?

[KoKo]

16. You know....this just smacks of sinister....

The same hacks who've been running our Policy with NeoCon help and now they set up their own commission.

Why do we even bother anymore... this is so OTT...well it's just :banghead:

[KoKo]

17. It GETS WORSE....read the rest here......

5. Didn’t the War Powers Resolution of 1973 address these issues?

The War Powers Resolution did address many of these issues, but both Congresses and Presidents often have ignored its substance and questioned its constitutionality for the past three decades.

6. Will the Commission publish a report?

The Commission anticipates publishing a report of its conclusions in a format to be determined.

7. What is the Commission’s web address?

For more information, visit www.millercenter.org/warpowers.

8. Is this Commission affiliated with the federal government or has it been chartered by Congress?

No. The Commission receives no taxpayer money and is not dependent on federal appropriations. It is being organized and sponsored by the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia. The James A. Baker III Institute of Public Policy at Rice University, the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University, Stanford Law School, the University of Virginia School of Law, and the William & Mary School of Law serve as partnering institutions.

9. What is the Miller Center?

The University of Virginia’s Miller Center of Public Affairs is a leading public policy institution that serves as a national meeting place where engaged citizens, scholars, students, media representatives and government officials gather in a spirit of nonpartisan consensus to research, reflect, and report on issues of national importance to the governance of the United States, with special attention to the central role and history of the presidency.

The Miller Center has more than fifty scholars and staff, including two Bancroft Prize winners. Former Virginia Governor and PBS Chairman Gerald Baliles became the Director of the Miller Center in April 2006.

10. What other National Commissions has the Miller Center convened?

The Miller Center has convened nine national commissions over the past quarter century, including the Commission on Federal Election Reform in 2001, co-chaired by Presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford. President George W. Bush commended the Commission’s report in a Rose Garden ceremony, and its recommendations in large measure have been adopted into law. The Miller Center’s prior national commissions include: Presidential Press Conferences (1981); the Presidential Nominating Process (1982); Presidential Transitions and Foreign Policy (1986); Presidential Disability and the Twenty-Fifth Amendment (1988); the Presidency and Science Advising (1989); Choosing and Using Vice Presidents (1992); the Selection of Federal Judges (1996); and the Separation of Powers (1998).

[Bobbie Jo]

21. So who's the "plant" for this "commission?"

Gates was on board for ISG...this is getting beyond ridiculous.

[WinkyDink]

24. OMG~~~Fat-boy MEESE?

[cosmicdot]

38. Carla Hills

Anderson Hills, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Hills & Company International Consultants.

Hills is considered to be a top U.S. trade negotiator and served as U.S. Trade Representative from 1989 to 1993 (President George Herbert Walker Bush). She is currently chairman of the National Committee on United States-China Relations. She formerly served as Secretary at HUD and in the Department of Justice.

Affiliations


* Vice Chairman, Council on Foreign Relations (where lots of our fellow Democrats and Republicans become 'non-partisan' on common corporate ground)

* Trustee, Forum for International Policy
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Forum_for_International_Policy

Board of Trustees

* Lawrence S. Eagleburger, Chairman
* Dwayne O. Andreas - Nixon Center
* David L. Boren
* John Mark Deutch
* Robert M. Gates <------ there's a familiar face
* Rita E. Hauser - Nixon Center
* John M. Hennessy
* Carla Anderson Hills
* Kenneth L. Lay <---- needs updating
* Harold A. Poling
* Brent Scowcroft, Resident Trustee <--- Nixon Center; and, he's on the Baker commiss, too!
* Robert S. Strauss (Trustee for Poppy Bu$h's "library foundation"; and, we thought he was a Democrat)


Carla cont'd
* Director, ChevronTexaco (since 1993)
* Director, Institute for International Economics
* Director, American International Group, Inc. (AIG - been under lots of investigation)
* Director, Lucent Technologies
* Director, AOL Time Warner, Inc.
* U.S. Board Member, International Crisis Group
* Member, Trilateral Commission

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Carla_Anderson_Hills
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Carla_Hills

Is this a corporate take-over?

Perhaps a mail campaign sending en masse copies of The Constitution with relevant sections highlighted???

Nixon Center Board and Advisors

Lee Hamilton is an advisor (and we thought HE was a Democrat)

http://web.archive.org/web/20050205063607/www.nixoncenter.org/boardac.htm

where does the non-partisan come in; and, how can our Constitution be a 'private' affair???


Affiliations

Eagleburger has either served or is serving with the following:

* Chairman Emeritus, Academy of Diplomacy
* Director, Atlantic Institute (1987)
* Director, Halliburton Company (since 1998)
* Director, ConocoPhillips
* Director, Stimsonite
* Director, Universal Corporation
* Director, Corning Corporation
* Director, COMSAT
* Advisory Board, OILspace
* Strategy Board Member, Appian Group
* Member, Council on Foreign Relations (1988, 2001)
* Member, Trilateral Commission (1992, 1998)
* Advisory Committee, AmeriCares (at least in 2004)

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lawrence_Sidney_Eagleburger


just what our Founders wanted, a country ran by think tanks and corporate Boards of Directors
:sarcasm:

[KoKo]

19. Kick.....this will go down memory hole and it's important!

[WinkyDink]

20. When did Baker become a CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR??!?

How did this thieving slickster become an all-around SAGE, fergawdssakes??

[pat_k]

27. Don't even need scholars. "Too complex for the likes of us" is fascist propaganda.

The notion that a commission is needed at all is part and parcel of the propaganda: It's far too complex for ordinary people. Need a commission to delve in. All "theories" must be explored (even fantasies that are to Constitutional principle what "intelligent design" is to science).

The illusion of complexity and the notion that knowledge and fact are illusion (i.e., all is belief and all beliefs are "valid") are the hallmarks of fascism.

They can blather on, attempting to place some "absolute" power in the executive branch, but ultimately, it is We the People, through our representatives in Congress, who are "the deciders" when it comes to the limits of executive power -- or judicial power. When we gave Congress the power to impeach, we gave ourselves a trump card. The powers that a given occupant of the Office of the President is allowed to exercise is completely up to us.

The branches are NOT co-equal.

We put a big fat thumb on the scales in favor of branch most responsive to our will.

http://january6th.org/reject-fascist-fantasy.html">How to Resist the Fascist Take-Over
Banishing Fascist Fantasies from the "Marketplace of Ideas"
. . .

Unitary Executive: American principle v. Fascist principle

The notion that the 1973 war powers act (which was passed by Congress and can be revoked or radically altered by them) empowers the President of the United States to ignore our laws must be rejected on principle -- American principle v. Fascist principle. It is lunacy to think the Constitution for the United States of America gives (or even might give) the Presidency the power to flagrantly violate the collective will of the people codified in the acts and resolutions passed by our Congress.

You do not need an expert to weigh in. You don't need a law degree, or even a high school degree, to know that absolute power like that is NEVER freely given to a leader; it is only taken by deception or force.

This is not the first time that fascists have appealed to legalistic technicality and "complexity" to thwart the will of the people, and it will not be the last.

The law is intended to serve our will, not thwart it, Too many Americans have been deceived into believing that they are helpless in the face of legal authority. Even when we are in complete agreement that the INTENT of our law is being overruled by legalisms and cynical misuse of the courts, we have submitted to authorities who tell us, "the law is the law." The spread of this fascist view of the law has had devastating consequences.

No matter how long and complex, or how "scholarly and sophisticated" in form, when an opinion yields results that violate the intent of our laws and the principles embodied in our Constitution, the opinion is a sham.

Like the story of the Emporer's New Clothes, sometimes the "authorities" and "sophisticated" are taken in far more easily than the naive. If we are to preserve our constitutional democracy, ordinary Americans must trust their own judgment and reject the sham.

http://january6th.org/reject-fascist-fantasy.html">More. . .

[WI_DEM]

22. Another panal whose advice will be disregarded? why spend the time and money for nothing?

[matcom]

23. BREAKING: Baker, Christopher To Watch "Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader" - Make Decision

:eyes:

[WinkyDink]

25. How about a Commission on War.......CRIMES?

[BlooInBloo]

28. That'll be a quick study.

[KoKo]

29. kick........

[Pacifist Patriot]

30. Am I missing something? Don't we have a Constitution that spells this out?

[Morgana LaFey]

37. Right, with lingering questions to be settled by SCOTUS??

I sure thought that was the way it worked. Must've dreamed it one night, I guess. You too??? Or maybe we saw some wild and crazy movie, pure fiction. Utopian fiction, at that.


I have to say: I don't like this at all.

[Venus Dog]

31. Baker - the guy who defended the Saudi royal family

against the 911 families - what a guy! Another conjob to steal more taxpayer money :grr:

[The Backlash Cometh]

32. WTF? Did we just outsource Congressional oversight?

I mean, WTF!

[bigtree]

43. ding ding!

first prize

[The Backlash Cometh]

44. Keep the ribbon. I wants the money.

[Rex]

35. WOW! Never have I seen a list of such total sellouts and washouts!

Looks like a World Class Traitors panel! Is Bob Novak the 'guest panel member'? :eyes:

How Fucking Pathetic. HFP.

[annabanana]

36. Irrelevant. . This question is addressed in the Constitution..

There aren't even enough (any?) elected officials on this panel to make their findings anything more important than the musings of my Great Aunts high tea companions.

[Briarius]

39. Let me give them a hint

Article 1, Section 8

"...To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;..."



it's really not that fucking complicated.

[UTUSN]

41. Shouldn't that have been done (& I think it WAS) 200 or 150 yrs ago??!!1 n/t

[Canuckistanian]

42. Warren Christopher, where have I heard that name before?

Ah yes, it's coming back to me.

First Secretary of State to Bill Clinton.

He's the man who kept America out of the Rwandan genocide (and we know how that turned out).

And he's also the man who supervised the counting of the Florida recount for Al Gore. (see above sentence for similar results.)