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

Tue Jun 28 01:49:37 UTC 2005

--- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:

> Samantha Atkins replies to Brian Lee:
> >
> > 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.

Once again, Samantha merely demonstrates that she doesn't read, even
when pointed directly at the source (as she has done repeatedly
regarding the Geneva Conventions):

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces
Against Iraq 

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and
illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of
nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the
national security of the United States and enforce United Nations
Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq; 

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a
United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq
unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear,
biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and
develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism; 

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States
intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that
Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale
biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear
weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear
weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated; 

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire,
attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and
destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development
capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors
from Iraq on October 31, 1998; 

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of
mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and
international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and
unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the
President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the
Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into
compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235); 

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of
the United States and international peace and security in the Persian
Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its
international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess
and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability,
actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and
harboring terrorist organizations; 

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations
Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its
civilian population thereby threatening international peace and
security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account
for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an
American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully
seized by Iraq from Kuwait; 

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and
willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations
and its own people; 

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing
hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States,
including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush
and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and
Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the
United Nations Security Council; 

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for
attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including
the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in
Iraq; 

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and
safety of American citizens; 

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001
underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of
weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations; 

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons
of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either
employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United
States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists
who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to
the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to
justify action by the United States to defend itself; 

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the
use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council
Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq
to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and
security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and
refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in
violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression
of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security
Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations
operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council
Resolution 949; 

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against
Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use
United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council
Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security
Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674,
and 677"; 

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it
"supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United
Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the
Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public
Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates
United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a
continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian
Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary
means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council
Resolution 688"; 

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the
sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to
support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and
promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that
regime; 

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United
States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our
common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary
resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council
resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and
security will be met, or action will be unavoidable"; 

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on
terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups
combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct
violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United
Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the
national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of
the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if
necessary; 

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on
terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by
the President to take the necessary actions against international
terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations,
organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided
the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored
such persons or organizations; 

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take
all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist
organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who
planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that
occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or
organizations; 

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take
action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism
against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint
resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law
107-40); and 

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore
international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region; 

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of
Military Force Against Iraq". 

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS 

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President
to-- 

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all
relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages
him in those efforts; and 

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure
that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and
promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council
resolutions. 

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. 

(a) AUTHORIZATION. 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. 

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION. 

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection
(a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon
there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after
exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House
of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his
determination that 

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other
peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the
national security of the United States against the continuing threat
posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all
relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq,
and 

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United
States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions
against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including
those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized,
committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September
11, 2001. 

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. -- 

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section
8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this
section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization
within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. 
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution
supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution. 

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS 

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the
Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution,
including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted
in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected
to be required after such actions are completed, including those
actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq
Liberation Act of 1998). 

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in
subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on
matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be
submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public
Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be
submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress. 

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public
Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such
report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of
Public Law 102-1. 

> 
> 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.

You are entirely right, although as an aside, I find it odd that those
who most vehemently defended the subject of an impeachment a few years
ago who quibbled in his sworn testimony as to the meaning of the word
"is", that they are demanding similar action. Keep in mind that Clinton
bombed many people to distract them from his affair.

The burden of proof is that any special prosecutor would find it well
neigh impossible make Bush testify that he has not always believed that
Hussein had WMD and/or was involved in terrorism, IN SPITE of what
repeated and historically terrible intelligence agencies claim to the
contrary. In 2003, and even today, it appears a smarter bet to believe
the opposite of whatever the CIA claims to be true, they have been
wrong so often. If CIA intel said Saddam didn't have WMD, it is
apparent that believing the contrary is and was the less risky opinion
to hold.

Whatever the facts are wrt whether Saddam had WMD, the burden of proof
of Bush's guilt is whether he believed Saddam had WMD. CIA evidence or
testimony is entirely impeachable itself. There is no hope of
convicting Bush based on anything the CIA has to say.

> 
> 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?

The Constitution says the standard for impeachment is "high crimes and
misdemeanors", which apparently does not include perjury, given
Clinton's performance. If perjury (i.e. lying in a report to congress
required by the above referenced authorization on use of force in Iraq)
is not to be included as an applicable "high crime or misdemeanor"
(perjury is in fact a felony, which is higher than a misdemeanor, but
that apparently doesn't matter if you are a democrat who feels the pain
of his interns), then you are going to have to pursue treason or
breaking his oath of office (if you tried the second, you'd have to
impeach most every elected official).

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com

____________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Sports 
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football 
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com