ON SEPT. 11, terrorists attacked the United States in an unprecedented
and brutal manner, killing thousands of innocent people, including the
passengers and crews of four aircraft.
Like everyone throughout our country, I am repulsed and angered by these
attacks and believe all appropriate steps must be taken to bring the
perpetrators to justice.
We must prevent any future such attacks. That is the highest obligation of
our federal, state and local governments. On this, we are united as a nation.
Any nation, group or individual that fails to comprehend this or believes that
we will tolerate such illegal and uncivilized attacks is grossly mistaken.
Last week, filled with grief and sorrow for those killed and injured and
with anger at those who had done this, I confronted the solemn responsibility
of voting to authorize the nation to go to war. Some believe this resolution
was only symbolic, designed to show national resolve. But I could not ignore
that it provided explicit authority, under the War Powers Resolution and the
Constitution, to go to war.
It was a blank check to the president to attack anyone involved in the Sept. 11 events -- anywhere, in any country, without regard to our nation's long-
term foreign policy, economic and national security interests, and without
time limit. In granting these overly broad powers, the Congress failed its
responsibility to understand the dimensions of its declaration. I could not
support such a grant of war-making authority to the president; I believe it
would put more innocent lives at risk.
The president has the constitutional authority to protect the nation from
further attack and he has mobilized the armed forces to do just that. The
Congress should have waited for the facts to be presented and then acted with
fuller knowledge of the consequences of our action.
I have heard from thousands of my constituents in the wake of this vote.
Many -- a majority -- have counseled restraint and caution, demanding that we
ascertain the facts and ensure that violence does not beget violence. They
understand the boundless consequences of proceeding hastily to war, and I
thank them for their support.
Others believe that I should have voted for the resolution -- either for
symbolic or geopolitical reasons, or because they truly believe a military
option is unavoidable. However, I am not convinced that voting for the
resolution preserves and protects U.S. interests. We must develop our
intelligence and bring those who did this to justice. We must mobilize and
maintain an international coalition against terrorism. Finally, we have a
chance to demonstrate to the world that great powers can choose to fight on
the fronts of their choosing, and that we can choose to avoid needless
military action when other avenues to redress our rightful grievances and to
protect our nation are available to us.
We must respond, but the character of that response will determine for us
and for our children the world that they will inherit. I do not dispute the
president's intent to rid the world of terrorism -- but we have many means to
reach that goal, and measures that spawn further acts of terror or that do not
address the sources of hatred do not increase our security.
Secretary of State Colin Powell himself eloquently pointed out the many
ways to get at the root of this problem -- economic, diplomatic, legal and
political, as well as military. A rush to launch precipitous military
counterattacks runs too great a risk that more innocent men, women, children
will be killed. I could not vote for a resolution that I believe could lead to
such an outcome.
Rep. Barbara Lee represents the 9th Congressional District, which includes Oakland, Berkeley and Alameda.
©2001 San Francisco Chronicle
###