Regarding that declaration of war, the Congress of the United States disagrees with you:
www4.law.cornell.edu
And that has been challenged and upheld by the USSC.
Next.
NOW: President Bush has in fact been authorized by the Congress to conduct military operations against Iraq.
------------------------------------------------------
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 |
