Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (39967)	8/26/2002 12:52:37 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Joint resolution for the use of force post 9/11: frwebgate.access.gpo.gov. But you should note that the administration does not presently state that the above resolution justifies invasion of Iraq. As was previously reported, the administration relies on the 1991 resolution approving attack of Iraq to liberate Kuwait: I gather you have concluded that the 9-11 resolution was limited to those events. I've tried your link and can't get in. Perhaps the gov databases are simply over used today. As for the rest of your post, as I recall from several recent articles, the Bush lawyers are looking at advancing three arguments: the Constitution permits such; the 90-91 resolutions permit such; and the post 9-11 resolution permits such. I don't seriously know the legal debates on these issues and don't plan to get up to speed because my guess is it will all be resolved on political grounds more than legal ones. Which is okay with me. It's really about legitimacy not legality. Legality is simply a subcomponent of legitimacy. I've read some stuff on the Constitutional arguments that suggest the debates, at that time, over this issue, the president's unilaterial right to declare war, were quite explicit on denying him that right. Have you read anything that's responsible that argues to the contrary. On the Gulf War resolutions, I don't plan to look at those texts and, no doubt, they could be argued both ways. However, let's say, just for discussions sake, that the Bush folk do argue they offer them a basis for not getting a congressional vote. I don't think that's the sort of cover that will last through the kinds of imperfections I sketched. First, it will be ambiguous--many will argue against it, and will never be tested, presumably, they will just go ahead and attack and tell the country they had the right under those resolutions. But the ambiguity will remain and will haunt them. Second, it's rather distant in time. So invoking it will leave the suspicion that the Bush folk thought they could not receive congressional approval, went despite it, and thus will find themselves with even more folk who do not feel on the hook with the Bush administration. So, I go back to my beginning point. If they don't foster a wide public debate and/or a congressional vote and/or some sort of UN resolution, as Baker suggests, their safety net is a very thin one. Not wise foreign policy on these grounds. Lots of other grounds it's not wise as well.