Iraq and legality again Re: [extropy-chat] Professor Being SuedOverAnti-Agi

[Brett Paatsch]

Samantha Atkins replies to Brian Lee:

> On Jun 22, 2005, at 8:05 AM, Brian Lee wrote:
>
>> I've got two schools of thought on this:
>> 1) The Iraq war was illegal because all wars/invasions are illegal.  (For 
>> example, in WW2, Germany waged an illegal war on France,  Poland, etc. 
>> Then the allies waged an illegal war on Germany by  invading Germany. 
>> After this point it's all arguing over what the  right motivation is and 
>> that leads me to point #2).
>> 2) Since the US Congress granted war powers to invade Iraq, the US 
>> Executive was acting legally in invading Iraq. It is up to each  country 
>> to decide what is the appropriate motivation and vote. The  US voted and 
>> decided to go to war and to continue to support the  war effort.
>>
>
> It is not at all clear to me that "war powers" were granted or that  it is 
> constitutional for Congress to grant "war powers" in the sense  of 
> enabling to use military force at will without formal  Congressional 
> authorization to the President.

Samantha, I see that you are quoting Brian's use of "war powers".

Can *anyone* help Samantha and me out, and *make* clear with a
citation from the Congress *when* and on what grounds Congress
gave the US President the authorisation to use his executive discretion
including the discretion to exercise his judgement if that be his judgement,
as commander in chief of the armed forces, to invade Iraq.

This goes to the question of whether the US Congress shares responsibly
with the US President for the decision to invade (I think it does NOT, I 
think
the decision was his alone) and that the Congress simply gave him, as the
President, the power that as, post September 11, they thought the President
needed in order to give him a full range of timely options. I think they did 
not,
I stress did not, thereby authorise any subsequent abuse of power or advance
condone any action that might amount to the President breaching his oath of
office and committing high crimes and or misdemeanours. I think the Congress
was entitled to expect that the US President would act within the confines 
of
the US Constitution.

I'd like to look at the facts.

No matter how much one might want to impeach a President such is not
something to be done lightly, when America is at war, there has to be a real
case for it.

Yet surely, honourable soldiers that are citizens and are protected by the 
bill
of rights as well as other citizens of the United States ought not be left 
under
the command of a commander in chief that is willing to go to war against
US law and against his own solemn oath of office to uphold the Constitution.

It does not seem unreasonable to consider the case for impeachment,
especially as an unimpeached President that should be impeached retains
great power to harm the interests of the United States.

Can anyone provide a link to the relevant authorisation from the Congress?

I'm wondering if an impeachment of the 43 President of the US might not
be the most important part of any withdrawal with honour, or any doing
anything with honour.

Brett Paatsch