- BOSTON (Reuters) - A federal
judge on Monday rejected a legal bid by a group of U.S. soldiers and some
members of the U.S. Congress to keep President Bush from ordering an invasion
of Iraq without formal congressional approval, saying the court had no
business getting involved at this stage.
-
- U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled that a federal
court can judge the war policies of political branches of government only
when actions taken by Congress and the president are in conflict -- a situation
that does not exist today.
-
- The civil lawsuit, brought by three members of the military,
six parents of U.S. troops and six members of Congress, sought an injunction
to stop potential U.S. military action on the grounds that only Congress
has the right to declare war.
-
- Tauro dismissed the suit, which also named Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld as a defendant.
-
- The Bush administration has only lukewarm public support
for military action against Iraq, aimed at ridding it of banned weapons,
and follows major anti-war demonstrations in the United States and abroad.
-
- Reading from a written decision, Tauro referred to a
situation that "does not amount to resolute conflict between the branches
-- but that does argue against an uninformed judicial intervention."
-
- Plaintiffs -- including Democratic Reps. John Conyers
of Michigan and James McDermott of Washington -- argued Congress had neither
declared war nor taken any action to give Bush the power to wage it.
-
- The suit said the framers of the U.S. Constitution aimed
to deny presidents the imperial war-making powers of European monarchs,
and said the administration's plans for war on Iraq were unconstitutional
because they violated that separation of powers.
-
-
-
- Copyright © 2003 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.
Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited
without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable
for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance
thereon.
|
