Congress vs. President

The US Congress should “order” Bush not to increase troop levels in Iraq, not merely send him a powerless, nonbinding message that it does not approve of his plan. If Congress really believes it is not in the national interest, it has the constitutional authority and the moral responsibility to stop him from doing it. Congress can overrule the president on any decision, including all military policies. A two-thirds vote in both houses overrides a presidential veto, and the president must then obey and implement whatever law Congress has passed, on penalty of impeachment if he fails to do so.

As Congressman Ron Paul correctly writes, “The role of the president as commander in chief is to direct our armed forces in carrying out policies established by the American people through their representatives in Congress. He is not authorized to make those policies. He is an administrator, not a policy-maker. Foreign policy, like all federal policy, must be made by Congress. To allow otherwise is to act in contravention of the constitution.”

Many people who should know better seem to believe that the president somehow has the authority, all by himself, to determine the military and foreign relations policies of the United States of America. This belief is dangerous nonsense. “Congress makes the laws. The president faithfully executes the laws. The Supreme Court interprets the laws.” And the president is obligated to obey and implement that law, even if he disapproves of it. If he fails to do so, Congress can impeach him and remove him from office, for the high crime of deliberately refusing to execute a law duly passed by Congress. The Supreme Court ruled decisively on this subject in the early days of our country, when the Founding Fathers’ intentions were fresh and clear in people’s minds.

The case was Little vs. Barreme (1804) and involved President John Adams giving orders which contradicted an Act of Congress, regarding a military action in a time of semi-declared war. And the Supreme Court ruled that the president’s actions were illegal, because they violated an Act of Congress.

Legislative power always supersedes Executive power. The tail must not wag the dog.

William McGinnis, Alexandria, Virginia, US published 28 January 2007

Sports for Women

Raid Qusti’s report “Hail Is Kingdom’s Fattest City: Study” (Jan. 23) tells us that 45 percent of Saudi women and 23.5 percent of Saudi men are obese. Much of the “credit” for the higher rate of obesity — almost double — should go to those who have banned physical education for girls. It is hard to believe that the ban is in force even in segregated schools which are exclusively for females where sporting activities would not expose them to any male gaze. No one knows why there is such a ban. Islam, which encourages both men and women to be physically fit and active, does not demand it. The argument that women can do aerobics at home does not stand scrutiny because they cannot be done without learning how to do they properly, which could be done at school. When physical education is banned in schools, girls are effectively denied the right to be physically fit. It is a scientifically established fact that physical fitness is absolutely essential for intellectual development. It is not just boys who need these qualities. Girls, who also have lives of their own and will one day become wives, mothers and grandmothers, need them. It is high time the policy-makers moved fast on this and took the right decision. Further, if schools introduce group activities into the curriculum which includes sports, they would teach women, as they do men, to interact with each other, cooperate in achieving a shared goal, depend on one another and acquire many positive qualities that are absolutely essential for healthy social life and a well-integrated society. It is not just in schools that women should have sports facilities. There is a growing need for sports centers exclusively for them in our cities and towns. True, there are some, but they are too few, poorly equipped with no professional staff, and too expensive. Hence, denied opportunities for any healthy activity, women go and entertain themselves in shopping malls, mixing with men, spending money and eating fast food. Wouldn’t it be better to build a few recreational centers for women with gyms, swimming pools and facilities for other healthy activities, creating jobs for them and allowing them to take care of themselves in the proper way? Wouldn’t it be better for their families? Is it not better for husbands to have physically fit wives and for children to have active, happy and healthy mothers? Or is it that men in the Kingdom are afraid that women who are physically fit could become physically stronger?

Umm Latifa, Jeddah published 28 January 2007

Sports for Women [2]

One solution, which has worked for men and women all over the world, is for Saudis too to move their bodies and do some work. The women can try getting up in the morning and making breakfast for their children and husbands. If they do that, their men and kids will not begin their days filling themselves up with junk food. They can also try cleaning homes, sweeping floors and cooking food. They will prove to be better exercises than beating up maids.

Muhammad Jamal, Riyadh published 28 January 2007

Poor Coverage

I regret to say that your coverage of the recent Pakistan-South Africa match was not satisfactory. The impressive win of the Pakistan cricket team over South Africa was downplayed on Jan. 23. Almost all your readers from the subcontinent are ardent cricket fans who read the newspaper beginning with its sports pages — and that too with cricket news.

By the way, it never fails to surprise me to see Gavaskar’s column getting larger paper space than the news of the game itself. That is very unfair to your readers for whom details of the game, which would enable them to judge the performance themselves, are of more interest than learning which player Gavaskar liked. In fact, Gavaskar’s comments are not objective. His biases and prejudices make his longwinded analyses partisan and boring. His comments always revolve round Tendulkar, Dravid, Sehwag and Kumble; other players hardly find a mention.

Abdul Muneer Dar, Dammam published 28 January 2007

Good Job

As a visitor to the Kingdom to perform Haj, I was impressed by the boldness with which you reported events and debated issues. There are not many newspapers in the Muslim world that have the courage to print the truth and report boldly on the crimes America is committing against Muslims around the world. The very first issue I saw was dated Jan. 2, which carried reports such as “Mahathir slams ‘Barbaric Lynching’ of Saddam,” Linda Heard’s “An Ugly Chapter in Iraq’s History” and letters to the editor that were bold and forthright.

I commend you and thank you.

Abbas Ali Mohammed, Karachi published 28 January 2007

New Iraq Policy

The 21,500 more troops that President Bush is sending to Iraq are not going there to help Iraqis. Bush’s “New Iraq Policy” is only going to get more Iraqis and American troops killed and shatter the lives of more Iraqis. “It’s my responsibility to put forward the plan that I think will succeed,” said Bush about his new move. He noted that Iraq was about to pass “legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis.”

The new law gives 10-year exploration and development rights to foreign oil companies. That helps us to understand the plan that Bush thinks will succeed. We also understand the plan that Vice President Cheney and his Halliburton have for Iraq.

Shabeer Chathamangalam, Dammam published 28 January 2007

War for Oil

The report “US Rules Out Direct Talks With Iran” (Jan. 24) raises a natural question: Why not? Why can’t there be talks between Iran and the US to sort out the problems? One reason is that the whole ruckus is about getting control over oil. Iraq was a “success”; what is happening over there now is only “collateral.” Iran is next in line. Hence it gets worried about the US global presence in the Middle East. Some day, others who have oil will also fall out of favor with the US and then things will be much the same. Someone from those countries will be picked as the villain — the Saddam or Ahmadinejad to demonize, because that will make it easier to sell to the people and the world as acceptable an attack on that country. The media-machines will do the rest.

N.B., Riyadh published 28 January 2007