HELP! Need to find Congress resolution which gave Bush power to fight terrorism.

Free Republic | 4/14/03 | ez

[ez]

Now that we are discussing possible action against Syria, certain nay-sayers have claimed that Bush must go to Congress for permission to attack them.

While we know this is not true, there was a resolution passed just after 9/11/01 that gave Bush the power to use military force against terrorists and the nations that harbor them. The one we used to take the Taliban out of Afghanistan.

After searching with Search Engines for a while I have been unable to locate that bill. Can anyone help?

[ez]

We need to establish that Bush has the power from Congress to attack Syria if he decides they are harboring terrorists.

[ez]

Bump.

[Support Free Republic]

---

"Please contribute to FreeRepublic and make these posts go away"
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar! Thanks Registered

[k2blader]

Here is Senate Joint Resolution 23, Authorization for Use of Military Force (pdf version).

[CROSSHIGHWAYMAN]

CONGRESSIONAL DEMS ARE LEADING THE SYRIA SANCTIONS LEGISLATION

[ez]

Thanks...now how do I cut and paste from a pdf file? I want to keep this info around as ammo against the "Bush must ask Congress" and the "Bush is destroying the Constitution" crowd.

[Indy Pendance]

Is this it?

Senate Joint Resolution 23, the "Authorization for Use of Military Force."

[Indy Pendance]

Senate Joint Resolution 23
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad, and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence, and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States,
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.
Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE
This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for Use of Military Force"
SECTION 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES
(a) That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks
that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) 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.

[k2blader]

Here is the HTML version of the same per Google. It should be easy enough to copy & paste, tho' you may have to format a bit.

[Indy Pendance]

PDF Conversion

[DaisyCutter]

House Version in plain text

[ez]

Thanks. I have boiled it down to just the sections needed to justify an attack against Syria if needed.

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


(a) That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations...he determines ...harbored such organizations or persons,

[ez]

Thanks again.

[ez]

Here is the President's Congressional "Declaration of War" against Syria if he decides they are harboring terrorists.

[Bonaparte]

JR 23 should be read alongside the War Powers Resolution. The 60 days are not up and there is time to deal with Syria under the same authorization.

[k2blader]

Glad to help. :-)

[k2blader]

Thanks for the reference.

[Gunslingr3]

(a) That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Not that the courts will ever bother themselves to intercede in the dispute (witness their reaction to the lawsuit against Clinton for breaching the War Powers Act while bombing Kosovo), but isn't that just a carte blanche for the President to declare war on whomever he pleases? Can the Congress pass a resolution handing this power over to the President when the Constitution saddles them with the responsibility?

[ez]

Can the Congress pass a resolution handing this power over to the President when the Constitution saddles them with the responsibility?

Since the Congress has the power to declare war, they can wield it in any way they see fit, I have always argued. That includes ceding it to the President in specific instances, but not in perpetuity.

If anyone has a beef about Bush's power to wage war in this case, they can only argue that Congress made this resolution too broad. As it reads, he is the sole judge of who may be attacked, although he must be able to logically connect it to possible terrorist attacks in the future... not hard.

I think he could therefore go into Syria at will.

[mrsmith]

"although he must be able to logically connect it to possible terrorist attacks in the future"

But he also has to connect it specifically to the Sept 11 attack. The resolution doesn't apply to all terrorists.
persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons,

He has inherent self-defense powers of course.

[ez]

But he also has to connect it specifically to the Sept 11 attack. The resolution doesn't apply to all terrorists.

I disagree. The second half applies to "such organizations or persons." You read it as if it says "those organizations or persons."

Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad are all "such organizations" as those who perpetrated 9/11.

[ez]

such (OF THAT TYPE) predeterminer, determiner, pronoun
of a particular or similar type:

Please note that "such" means of a similar type. Therefore,

or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

pretty much refers to anyone of a nature similar to Al Queda whom he decides might attack us in the future.

[mrsmith]

"The second half applies to "such organizations or persons." You read it as if it says "those organizations or persons.""

Yes, that's what it means, not "like" or "similar".

The congressional debate made it clear that this was directed against the 9-11 perps and their friends.

[ez]

I'm not buying that. The law is what it says, and it says "such organizations and persons."

[mrsmith]

Some stuff from the Congressional Record (you can use the dates and page numbers to find more if you'd like):

Friday, September 14, 2001
Mr. CUNNINGHAM: Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my strong, unconditional support for the congressional authorization that will enable our Nation to act swiftly and firmly against those responsible for unleashing the deadliest attack on our Nation in its history.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART:, as America prepares to reclaim its security and punish the murderers who struck our Nation this week, I ask unanimous consent that it shall be in order at any time without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House, House Joint Resolution 64, to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States;
Mr. HASTERT, I rise in support of this resolution , which authorizes the President to use all force necessary to bring to justice those nations, operations, and people responsible for the cowardly act that was perpetrated upon this Nation on September 11, 2001.
Pages S9413-16
Use of Force Authorization : By a unanimous vote of 98 yeas (Vote No. 281), Senate passed S.J. Res. 23, to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Pages H5638-83
Pursuant to the earlier order, the House was considered to have passed S.J. Res. 23, to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States. H.J. Res. 64 was then laid on the table.

[ez]

I appreciate the research you did to post those quotes from the record, but you're still arguing that the res means something other than what it says. I don't know if "such" was used purposefully or not, but it does give Bush the power to use military force against other organizations and persons similar to AlQueda, and the nations which harbor them, if he decides they present a danger of future attack against the US.

If I had to guess, I would say the authors knew how broad this mandate was. In effect, it is the Bush Doctrine codified into law.

[mrsmith]

No problem, I already had the quotes on my computer from the "enemy combatant" arguments.
When reasonable people can interpret a law differently the intent of congress must be looked to.

Anyway, I hope you had fun with the libs!