Here is the authorization to wage war on Iraq. See a dissenting conservative opinion below.
Joint Resolution Authorizing the Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Friends Committee on National Legislation
Washington Newsletter, October 2002
On October 10, the House and Senate passed identical resolutions authorizing the use of force against Iraq, H.J. Res. 114/S.J. Res.
45. The final vote in the House was 296-133 for the resolution, and 77-23 in favor in the Senate. The joint resolution provides broad
authorization for the President to wage unilateral, preemptive war against Iraq at his discretion. Although the resolution passed
both houses by significant margins, the opposition vote was notably larger than expected. Many members who voted for the
resolution also spoke out on the floor during debate expressing strong support for resuming UN weapons inspections and deep
concerns over the costs and consequences of a possible unilateral, preemptive war.
The first two pages of the resolution review the evidence and relative authorities upon which the authorization rests. The final
three sections lay out the conditions of authorization and reporting requirements. The operative sections of the resolution cover
three main areas.
* Support for efforts through the UN. The resolution states congressional support for efforts by the President to work through the
United Nations Security Council to enforce resolutions related to Iraq. However, the joint resolution is not binding in this regard and
does not compel the President to work with the UN.
*Authorization for Use of Unilateral Force. The main operative portion of the resolution reads:
The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in
order to 1.) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and 2.) enforce all
relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
Within 48 hours of U.S. military action against Iraq, the President is required to report to the leadership of Congress that diplomatic
or other peaceful means are no longer adequate and that U.S. military action against Iraq will not impede the war on terror. The
resolution does not provide any standards by which the President should make these determinations or any mechanism through
which the Congress could challenge the President's determinations. The resolution also does not rule out the use of nuclear
weapons in a U.S. attack against Iraq.
* Reporting to Congress The joint resolution requires that the President report to Congress at least once every 60 days on actions
taken under the authorization of force. Reports should include information on any use of force employed against Iraq as well as
"the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions" (i.e., planning for post-war operations in
Iraq). The resolution does not include active congressional oversight beyond this reporting process for U.S. military action against
Iraq.
Congress's joint resolution does demonstrate modification and some limitation of the White House's original discussion draft.
However, the joint resolution remains a near-blanket authorization for unilateral, preemptive war, to be undertaken at the
President's discretion. It also suggests a number of troubling questions.
* What are U.S. obligations as a member of the UN? The UN Security Council-not the U.S.- is responsible for enforcing UN Security
Council resolutions. Although the congressional resolution supports efforts to work cooperatively with the UN, ultimately it leaves
the enforcement of Security Council resolutions in the hands of the President, usurping the UN role.
* Is preemptive, unilateral attack against a "continuing threat" legal under international law? Under the UN Charter, attacks by
individual states against other nations are justified only in response to an actual attack or in cases of imminent threat of attack.
The congressional resolution defines the threat posed by Iraq as a "continuing threat" and authorizes preemptive, unilateral U.S.
military action. Will this resolution set a new precedent for preemptive attack by other nations against perceived threats?
* How will the President determine when diplomatic and other peaceful means have failed? The international community strongly
supports a resumption and completion of UN weapons inspections. Weapons inspectors are ready to return to Iraq, and Iraq has
signaled its willingness to admit them to all sites covered by UN Security Council resolutions. Will the President allow a reasonable
time for UN weapons inspections and disarmament efforts to be carried out successfully before pursuing other actions? The UN
Security Council-not the President of the U.S.-should determine when inspections and other peaceful, diplomatic efforts have failed.
* Should there be limits on what constitutes the "necessary and appropriate" use of force? The resolution does not rule out the
possible use of nuclear weapons.
* How would a massive, preemptive, unilateral U.S. assault on Iraq defend U.S. national security or enforce UN Security Council
resolutions? What is the immediate threat that Iraq poses to U.S. national security? If it is a threat of weapons of mass destruction
and possible support for terrorism, how will initiating a war that could lead to the use of chemical, biological, or even nuclear
weapons and that might sow more seeds of anti-U.S. sentiment in the Middle East help protect national security? Moreover, once a
war is underway, it will be impossible to enforce UN Security Council resolutions which call for inspections to verify and destroy
weapons of mass destruction.
* How long will this authorization remain in effect? There is no date of expiration for the authorization of force, and the resolution
does not address the possibility of long-term U.S. occupation of Iraq.
* Has Congress surrendered its constitutional responsibilities for overseeing U.S. foreign and military policies? Aside from minimal
reporting requirements, the resolution does not provide an active oversight role for Congress in a U.S. war against Iraq. The
potential costs of such a war- financial, humanitarian, and political-should demand greater congressional caution and oversight than
the resolution provides.
thirdworldtraveler.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
=================================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another article about the authorization with more details:
Roll Call - Congressional
Sunday, October 13, 2002
Roll Call Report Syndicate
WASHINGTON - Here's how New Hampshire members of Congress were recorded on
major roll call votes last week.
House
V Iraq War Authority: Voting 296 for and 133 against, the House on Thursday approved
a measure (HJ Res 114) granting any U.S. president authority to wage war on Iraq
unilaterally or in keeping with "all relevant" United Nations resolutions.
Majority Whip Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican, said: "Once a madman like Saddam
Hussein is able to deliver his arsenal, whether it's chemical, biological or nuclear
weapons, there's no telling when an American city will be attacked at his direction or with
his support. A nuclear-armed Iraq would soon become the world's largest safe haven and
refuge for the world's terrorist organizations. Waiting to act until after Saddam has
nuclear weapons will leave free nations with an awful dilemma."
Pete Stark, a California Democrat, said: "The bottom line is that I do not trust the
president and his advisers. . . . We are voting on a resolution that grants total authority
to a president who wants to invade a sovereign nation without any specific act of
provocation. This would authorize the United States to act as the aggressor for the first
time in our history. And it sets a precedent for our nation or any nation to exercise brute
force anywhere in the world without regard to international law or international
consensus."
A yes vote was to adopt the res olution.
Voting yes: Rep. John Sununu, a Republican; Rep. Charlie Bass, a Republican.
V Two-Step Authority: Voting 155 for and 270 against, the House on Thursday rejected
an alternative to HJ Res 114 (above) that sought to require President Bush to first seek
United Nations authorization of U.S. military action against Iraq. If he failed to obtain
U.N. support for multilateral action, he would then return to Congress for unilateral
authority.
A yes vote backed the alternative.
Voting no: Sununu, Bass.
V Ballot Reform: The House on Thursday adopted, 357 for and 48 against, the
conference report on a bill (HR 3295) to improve the conduct of federal, state and local
elections. The bill is a response to the 2002 electoral fiasco in Florida and other states. It
requires states to allow voters to cast provisional ballots when their registration is at
issue and to immediately correct ballot errors. States also must set uniform definitions of
what constitutes a legal vote on different types of equipment and absentee ballots. The
measure later cleared the Senate and was sent to President Bush.
The bill authorizes $3.9 billion to states over three years for purposes such as training
poll workers; establishing uniform, computerized statewide lists of registered voters;
replacing antiquated punch-card and lever-operated voting machines with more reliable
modern systems and improving ballot access for the disabled.
To register to vote under terms of the bill, individuals must provide identification such as
a driver's license or the last four digits of their Social Security numbers. Those registering
by mail must show identification when they cast ballots.
The bill establishes a federal commission made up of two Democratic and two Republican
appointees to oversee the distribution of grants to states and set voluntary guidelines
for voting systems and procedures.
A yes vote approved the conference report.
Voting yes: Bass.
Not voting: Sununu.
Senate
V War On Iraq: Voting 77 for and 23 against, the Senate on Friday joined the House
(above) in approving a measure (HJ Res 114) granting presidential authority to deploy
U.S. forces "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate . . . to defend the national
security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq and enforce all
relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
John McCain, an Arizona Republican, said: "Saddam Hussein continues to acquire,
amass and improve on his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. He continues to
attempt to acquire a nuclear weapon. These are all well-known facts. So if you believe
that Saddam Hussein . . . is not going to abandon his request for his weapons, then the
longer we wait, the more dangerous he becomes."
Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat, asked: "How many of our military people, men and
women, (will) it take to go to this war? What will the casualties be? How much will it
cost? How long will we have to stay there? What happens afterward? What is the impact
in the region? Will Saddam Hussein use his weapons of mass destruction on the
battlefield against our people? And what protections do they have? Those are just a few
questions. . . . They have not been answered."
A yes vote backed war with Iraq.
Voting yes: Sen. Bob Smith, a Republican; Senator Judd Gregg, a Republican.
V Two-Year Limit: The Senate on Thursday rejected, 24 for and 75 against, an
amendment to HJ Res 114 (above) putting a two-year limit on presidential authority to
wage war against Iraq. The war resolution has no termination date and is not limited to a
specific president.
A yes vote backed a two-year limit.
Voting no: Smith, Gregg.
V Multilateral Authority: Voting 24 for and 75 against, the Senate on Thursday rejected
an amendment to HJ Res 114 (above). The amendment sought to require President Bush
to first seek a United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing an attack on Iraq. If
he failed to secure that, he would then return to Capitol Hill to obtain Congressional
authority for the invasion.
Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, said: "Let us go to the U.N. Let us go together. Let us
go multilaterally. Let's have the strength of the world community behind us because it
avoids a lot of negative consequences and gives us great strength in proceeding against
Saddam to go with the world."
Jesse Helms, a North Carolina Republican, said: "Even as the president develops a
coalition, we cannot yield to a few countries like China or Russia that would allow
Saddam to evade full disarmament. . . . (The president) displayed the essence of
leadership, moving forward in the face of evil. Diplomacy absent demonstrated resolve -
which was our policy too often in the past - will continue to prove absolutely
ineffectual."
A yes vote backed the amendment.
Voting no: Smith, Gregg.
V Wider War Authority: Voting 88 for and 10 against, the Senate on Wednesday tabled
(killed) an amendment giving presidents authority under HJ Res 114 (above) to also
combat the terrorist organizations Abu Nidal, Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestine Islamic Jihad
and the Palestinian Liberation Front. Backers said these groups threaten American
security at least as much as Iraq, while opponents said the Constitution already confers
presidential authority to take them on militarily, and that to broaden the resolution would
cost it support in Congress and the United Nations.
Joseph Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat, who voted to table, said that as commander
in chief, the president already has "the inherent authority under the Constitution and the
laws of the United States, to take exactly the action that the . . . amendment would
specifically authorize him to do."
Bob Graham, a Florida Democrat, said, "We are not dealing with one evil, as evil as
Saddam Hussein might be. We are dealing with a veritable army of evils" that poses "the
most serious urgent threat . . . including a threat to Americans at home."
A yes vote was to kill the amendment.
Voting yes: Smith, Gregg.
cmonitor.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
=================================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The dissent:
Congress Must Declare War on Iraq
by W. James Antle III
02 September 2002
Why arguments that Bush does not need Congressional
approval to declare war on Iraq are flawed.
Conservatives, regardless of their own position on whether the United States should
invade Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein, should all agree about the importance of the
federal government adhering to the U.S. Constitution. This is why it is troubling to read
arguments that President Bush does not need a congressional declaration of war to move
against Iraq.
Not only are conservative pundits and talk-show hosts (such as Rush Limbaugh) making
such claims, but both The Washington Post and the Associated Press have reported that
White House lawyers have advised the president he does not need congressional
authorization for an Iraq war. Such advice represents a blatant disregard for the
Constitution, which unambiguously assigns the power to declare war to Congress.
Invading a country without direct provocation, even if the Bush administration is correct
in its calculation that it poses risks that must be dealt with preemptively, is certainly an
act of war and thus is constitutionally permissible only with congressional approval.
Defenders of the Congress-doesn’t-need-to-approve view claim that President Bush
should use the 1991 congressional authorization of force against Iraq and concomitant
United Nations Security resolutions, still in effect, as his legal justification for an invasion.
Let us hope Al Gonzales’ staff provides better legal counsel on other constitutional
matters. First, consider the original intent of the members of Congress who enacted the
first resolution authorizing military intervention against Iraq over a decade ago. At that
time, Iraq had invaded and annexed Kuwait, a sovereign nation, and was threatening
other sovereign nations in the region. Then-President George Bush sought to eject
Saddam Hussein’s forces from Kuwait. Iraqi aggression against Kuwait also led to the U.N.
Security Council resolutions in question.
[NOTE: I, LL, believe the above argument may be flawed. The Versailles Treaty that ended WW2 was signed in 1919. Hitler's violations of it did not become apparent until 1935, 16 years later, with the re-introduction of German military forces into the Rhineland. Did the passage of time nullify the clause prohibiting that? I think not. And the fact is that the German commanders who moved into the Rhineland had sealed secret orders to pull out if they met Allied opposition. Had France and/or Britain met force with force there, WW2 may very well have been prevented and Hitler could very well have been overthrown because of his blunder.]
True, Congress did even then make a reference to Hussein’s attempts at developing
weapons of mass destruction. But this was a single “finding” in the preamble, not the
central animating purpose of the resolution in the same way that it is at the center of
the case for invading Iraq today. The arguments related to international law are even
more constitutionally dubious – nowhere in the Constitution is it stipulated that an
international body’s resolutions may supersede the role of Congress in declaring war or in
anything else – and arguably just as far removed from the original intent of those who
drafted the U.N. resolutions against Iraq. It strains credulity to argue that resolutions
and an act of Congress that the first President Bush clearly found inadequate as a basis
for marching on Baghdad following Iraq’s expulsion from Kuwait can be cited as
authorization for regime change by a second President Bush a decade later. Even during
Desert Storm, many of our coalition partners and some members of Congress who voted
to authorize the use of force specifically felt that entering Iraq to remove Hussein was
outside the parameters of the agreed upon mission. If this muddled constitutional thinking
passes for conservative policy, it does not bode well for a constitutional prosecution of
the war on terrorism. Congressional assent to military intervention isn’t an elastic thing
that may be endlessly re-used by different presidents even after the motivating
circumstances have changed.
The Framers explicitly rejected presidential wars at the Constitutional Convention, with
Elbridge Gerry going so far as to say that the idea is one he “never expected to hear in a
republic.” James Madison, often called the Father of the Constitution, had this to say
about constitutional war powers in 1793: “…The power to declare war, including the
power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature . . .
the executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is
not cause for declaring war." The Framers were well aware of the propensity of
unchecked kings to drag their nations into war and wished to avoid this in the new
republic. The power to commit a nation to war, placing young men and women in harm’s
way, is too great to be entrusted to any one person.
Full disclosure: I am an Iraq conflict skeptic. Loathsome as Saddam Hussein is, there is
no compelling connection between his regime and 9/11. He has not supplied chemical and
biological weapons – which he already has a supply of – to terrorist organizations in the
past. Indeed, the most notorious examples of him using such weapons himself have been
motivated by his own political self-preservation. There is evidence that he responds to
deterrence and while the containment of Iraq since the Gulf War has not been perfect, it
has been good enough to prevent any aggression outside Iraqi borders – even Kuwait
does not support a U.S. military campaign against its onetime invader. A war against Iraq
seems to me to be unrelated to the campaign against al Qaeda and, at worst, it could
undermine it by intensifying Arab hatred of Americans and jeopardizing the intelligence
cooperation we need to successfully wage a multifaceted war against international
terrorism.
Many people I respect – House Majority Leader Dick Armey, Sen. Chuck Hagel, Secretary
of State Colin Powell, Doug Bandow and Gene Healy from the Cato Institute – are similarly
skeptical. But I also respect many of the hawks pushing for an Iraq war – National
Security Advisor Condolezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and above all
Vice President Dick Cheney. Preemption is perfectly valid in principle and in practice,
provided that we are acting against threats that are real or at least probable rather than
purely speculative. The arguments of both sides should be heard and carefully weighed
by the American people and their elected representatives in Congress.
President Bush should ignore his advisors and heed the Constitution. If Iraq is to the next
front in the war on terror, the nation must be committed. To secure that commitment,
the president must make his case and Congress must make its verdict.
intellectualconservative.com |
