|
Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Berkeley, filed a lawsuit with 30 other lawmakers this week to stop President Bush from withdrawing from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty without congressional consent.
In a separate move Wednesday, Lee introduced legislation in the House of Representatives calling for the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty to be upheld. The bill aims to stop nuclear proliferation, which could spark another nuclear arms race, Lee said.
The lawsuit's backers say Bush's unilateral decision to withdraw from the treaty is unconstitutional, and the president should have sought congressional approval. Lawmakers filed the lawsuit on Tuesday.
"The constitution does not give the president the ability to unilaterally withdraw from a treaty. We think that he should comply with the (Anti-Ballistic Missile) treaty and withdrawing from it is not acceptable," Lee said in a telephone interview yesterday.
"Nonproliferation should be the order of the day," Lee added.
Lee said she hopes the lawsuit and the legislation will spark a debate over Bush's unilateral decision. Lee added that an open debate may lead to support within the Senate.
She believes the money used to develop an Anti-Ballistic Missile system would be better spent on social projects, such as increasing spending on education.
"Grassroots organizing and support is critical in any effort the House and Senate make on any issue," she said.
Neither the White House nor the Department of Defense returned calls requesting comment.
Bush announced in December he would withdraw from the treaty in six months. His administration has declared the treaty obsolete in the post-Cold War world.
The president has also argued in favor of a missile defense system to defend the nation against ballistic missile attacks from rogue nations.
The groundbreaking 1972 Anti- Ballistic Missile Treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union banned anti-ballistic missile systems to curb "the race in strategic offensive arms (and) decrease the risk of outbreak of war for nuclear weapons."
The treaty allowed either nation to withdraw from the treaty if it "jeopardized" a nation's "supreme interests."
But one public policy expert said withdrawing from the treaty may prove essential in protecting national security. Iraq, Iran and North Korea could be capable of launching a simple ballistic missile attack against the United States within 10 years, said Michael Nacht, dean of UC Berkeley's Goldman School of Public Policy and former assistant director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency under the Clinton administration.
"If you want to be protected in 2010, you've got to start (developing a defensive anti-ballistic missile system) now," Nacht said.
"The countries that are desirous of having nuclear weapons are already trying their hardest to get them," Nacht said. "If they had no desire to harm us, then they have nothing to fear."
But Nacht pointed out that it is unclear whether Bush can legally withdraw from a treaty unilaterally without congressional consent. Normally the Senate ratifies all treaties, but it remains unclear whether they must approve a withdrawal from a treaty.
Lee estimates the lawsuit has a fifty-fifty chance of winning, given the Supreme Court's composition. But she remains wary of the fate of her proposed legislation in the Republican-led House.
"This is serious business," Lee said. "Anytime the president violates the constitution, we should file a lawsuit. It is very important to say very clearly that we think withdrawing from the treaty is bad policy and bad law. Ultimately, it is the Supreme Court's decision."
|
If you have come to this page from an outside location click here to get back to mindfully.org |