Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq (What about Libya?)

The White House ^ | October 16, 2002 | United States Congress

[MinorityRepublican]

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.

[mvpel]

The War Powers Act gives him the authority to do what he is doing.

Actually, I don't think it does.

150 USC 1541(c): The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

There is no declaration of war, there is no statutory authorization as far as I know, and there is no attack on US territory or armed forces.

The 48-hour report requirement doesn't override these basic restrictions on the prerequisites for commencing hostilities against a foreign nation. And launching Tomahawk missiles into sovereign territory counts as "hostilities."

[mvpel]

Can you cite something that overrides 50 USC 1541(c)?

Presidents have said, from the moment Nixon vetoed this law, that the President’s constitutional authority as commander in chief overrides this law, so the War Powers Act which requires Congressional authorization, an attack on the US, or a declaration of war before commencing hostilities, has been played down by many different presidents, now to include Obama.

[politicalmerc]

The separation of Powers Doctrine in the Constitution doesn't allow for Congress to restrict the President by legislation. The part of the law you are reading is the Congress' interpretation of the President's Constitutional powers. Since interpreting the law is the Judicial Branches' job, that is just their opinion.

All that having been said, the war powers act was the democrats way of trying to restrict republican presidents like Nixon from acting without their approval. There is a real question whether or not the whole thing is constitutional. Congress can not tell the President what he can and can't do with the Military. They can Defund the operation, but he is the CIC.

This has never really been before the Supreme Court and it isn't going to be. Suffice it to say, what you are reading are not "restrictions" they are "interpretations" of the Constitutional powers of the President. The whole "law" is suspect, that's why it is just a joint resolution.

[politicalmerc]

Can you cite something that overrides 50 USC 1541(c)?

You did it quite nicely. The Constitution: specifically the Separation of Powers Doctrine. Congress can't tell the President what to do or not do with the military. Their opinion of what his powers are under the Constitution, even if codified in the law are nice but not binding.

In my opinion the Constitution also gives the President the right to use force to counter act the threat of force against us, or to simply enforce or advance our interests. There is nothing in the Constitution that says we have to be attacked before the President can use force. That was the Congress trying to limit the President by legislation.

[CT Hillbilly]

thanks for the clear post...I actually understood that with only a half a cup of java in my bloodstream.

[Old Retired Army Guy]

You only need Congressional approval if the President is a Republican.

[mvpel]

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” -Sen. Obama, 12/20/2007

[P-Marlowe]

Thanks for posting that. This is clearly an illegal war under that statute.

[hoosierham]

You actually believe the president can use miltary force to "advance our interests"?

Then the Constitution and the very concept of limitations on government power mean nothing.

I ,for one, don't want all these rogue warrior types roaming the world killing people "to advance our interests";neither do I want any president ordering up a war to boost poll numbers.

If Congress hasn't declared a war ,or it is not in response to an attack upon the US,then we ought to stay out of the fight.

[FreeReign]

You actually believe the president can use miltary force to "advance our interests"? Then the Constitution and the very concept of limitations on government power mean nothing.

I believe the point is that the War Powers Act is Unconstitutional.

The question of whether a president can use military force without a DoW or not should only be answered based on what's in the Constitution.

[Grampa Dave]

My trophy wife and I watched Whorealdo last night for a few minutes on FOX and Whorealdo seemed ready to climax over what his beloved 0b0z0 had done.

Then after a few minutes of Fox this morning, my intelligent and long memory possessing Trophy Wife asked how many countries were backing this bombing versus GW’s Iraq situation.

When I told her 5 countries for this versus over 40 for GW, she just shook her head.

[Grampa Dave]

On another thread, just a nobody, posted a great reply and links to show the difference between this war and GW’s war against Iraq.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2691712/posts?page=18#18

Wow...how times sure have changed. Now 5 countries make up a coalition? They along with a single UN resolution and no Congressional approval now constitutes a legitimate declaration of war on a country? A sovereign nation that has not threatened us nor harbored those who would do us harm, nor have launched a war of aggression against their neighbors, nor do they possess or plan on making WMD and have not violated more than a dozen UN resolutions? This is what passes for a legal war these days?
From an article Saturday, March 19, 2011 7:05 pm:
In a joint statement to Gadhafi late Friday, the United States, Britain and France — backed by unspecified Arab countries...

Yeah, unspecified because they do not exist, but hey, the “coalition” is hoping some of them will join them.

According to this website there were 52 countries in the Coalition of the Willing in March-April 2003, 15 of which provided boots on the ground. In March 2004 there were 53 countries with 34 providing troops.

17 UN resolutions were promptly ignored by Iraq along with harboring of known terrorists, large payments to suicide bombers, known terrorist training camps, WMD and its use on their citizens, over a year of warnings and a Congressional Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq and all of these led to an illegal, immoral, war of choice and agression by President George W. Bush.

But this fiasco? All is well in Barry’s World. [BARF!]

18 posted on Sunday, March 20, 2011 9:07:53 AM by Just A Nobody ( (Better Dead than RED! NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA))

[manc]

Bush went to congress to declare war, open transparency

obama takes his family/MOTHER IN LAW to Rio on our dime and orders a war.

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm,
lets see, Libya one UN resolution ignored in 24 hours.
Iraq, years of ignoring 17 UN resolutions.

GOP WHY ARE YOU NOT OUT THERE DEMANDING HE COME BACK AND SORT THIS CRAP OUT?
Media go into cover for obama drive AGAIN.
no mention of protests, illegal war, rush to war, on vacation with his family and the frigging MOTHER IN LAW.
Why am I paying for this freeloader to live in then white house and go on fancy vacations?

The world is a mess right now and he’s on vacations or doing basketball or playing golf
THIS IS A PISS TAKE BY THE MEDIA AND THIS FAMILY
Where are the protests from the anti war left, code pink will they now attack Clinton like they did with Dr Rice?

[ratsreek]

Kucinich calling for Obama’s impeachment for no congressional authorization.

Fat chance.

[ratsreek]

Not I. I want those muzzies and ragheads to kill as many of each other as possible. It’s insanity to stop them. I couldn’t care less which side wins. I sure as hell don’t want to expend so much as one tank of jet fuel on those people. And misslies at $1M a pop? GMAFB.

[MinorityRepublican]

Broken clock........

[ratsreek]

Libya. If you were really sitting with Helms when that happened one would think you could spell “Libya.” It’s not that I’m a spelling Nazi, but when someone makes an unusual claim such as yours it carries more credibility if a mere five-letter word that is the main subject is spelled correctly.

I’m not saying you weren’t really there. I’m just suggesting you get it right when making that claim if you expect to be believed.

[ratsreek]

The left used to want to save the whales. Now they want to save the ragheads. Too bad the ragheads want to kill us.

The more they kill each other, the better off we are. Our only involvement should be air-dropping munitions to both sides.

[politicalmerc]

Well for me, sitting with Helms isn’t an unusual claim. I wasn’t trying to impress you. I use to work for Reagan when I was younger. So sitting with Helms is the least of it. Typos happen, and my spelling has never been the best. :-)

[ratsreek]

I envy you that experience. RWR is one step below God in our household.

:)