Vt. bill barring Guard from Iraq sparks movement
Toolbox
By Louis Porter Vermont Press Bureau - Published: August 5, 2008
MONTPELIER — A bill barring the Vermont National Guard from being sent to Iraq may not have gotten far in the Legislature, but it seems to have spawned a national movement.
More than a half-dozen state legislatures will consider similar bills over the coming months, said Ben Manski, a Wisconsin man who was in Montpelier on Monday as part of his work supporting such initiatives.
The Vermont bill was introduced in January by Rep. Michael Fisher, D-Lincoln, who said that the legal authorization for the use of National Guard troops in Iraq had expired. The conditions that were the basis for the war — including United Nations' resolutions and the ousting of Saddam Hussein — no longer exist, Fisher said. Another authorization allowing the overseas use of National Guard troops is needed, or they should return home, supporters of the bill argued.
That bill did not advance in the Vermont Legislature. However, it led state lawmakers from New Jersey to Oregon to introduce or begin considering their own legislation, said Manski, a Madison, Wis., attorney and director of Liberty Tree Foundation, which supports such legislation.
"The legislators in other states have been quite willing to step forward and follow in Michael Fisher's footsteps," Manski said.
In fact, the bills being considered in some states go further than Fisher's resolution, which asked that National Guard troops from Vermont not be sent to Iraq. The proposed legislation in Oregon, for example, talks about National Guard use in Afghanistan under a different federal authorization to use military force, and would, if passed, make changes in the state's statutes governing the use of the Guard.
Such bills may not have become law in Vermont or elsewhere, but they have given a mechanism for anti-war activists to look for changes, Manski said.
"Until Vermont, they did not have model legislation," he said.
Ben Scotch, an attorney and former head of the American Civil Liberties Union Vermont who has been active in the anti-war movement in the state, said the lessons in other states could help Vermont lawmakers, as well.
"It may have started here but it matured outside the state," said Scotch, who met with Manski on Monday.
As for Vermont, Fisher said he expects to re-introduce a version of the bill in its home state if voters return him to Montpelier after this fall's election.
The fact that there will be a new president when the Legislature returns does not mean the questions raised by the bill do not need to be answered, Fisher said.
"They lead to questions that are a lot bigger than the Iraq war," he said. "Whoever wins the presidential election, these issues are going to stay with us."
During a public hearing convened by Sen. Vincent Illuzzi, R-Essex/Orleans, on the issue in February, Harvard law professor David Barron said that congressional spending bills to support the war amount to continued federal authorization of the war.
But Fisher said that is not enough.
"In a constitutional democracy and in a question as big as whether we go to war, a de facto authorization is not enough," Fisher said. "I continue to bump into Guard families and Guard members who are shaking their heads about how they find themselves in this situation" of extended deployments.
Still, Fisher is not under any illusion about the likelihood of the measure succeeding.
"It will be a challenge to pass the bill but we will work hard to bring the arguments forward," he said.
Contact Louis Porter at louis.porter@rutlandherald.com
39