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

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,

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

(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.

(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.

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.

(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.

(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.

My friend, I'm not even sure how to answer you. One of the Presidents "enumerated powers" is to command the military. Projecting power is something that is solely in his domain. Now you may be a libertarian (an I'm pretty libertarian in most things too) but your understanding of the use of military power is pretty shallow. When the President moves the 5th fleet off the coast of Lybia does that mean he needs an act of war?

When he sends special forces into a country to rescue Americans does he need an act of war? If he declares a blockade around Cuba to prevent nuclear weapons from being placed there does he need an act of war? Those are examples of using our military power to forward our interests. There are many things the military can do aside from killing "innocent" people.

The President projects military force as he thinks is in our best interests. That IS CONSTITUTIONAL. Now at some point he is waging war and that requires a Declaration of war. The question is where does that start.

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

You aren't the only one my friend. Reagan has been my hero since I was a teen. I still have mementos hanging on my wall. I was only 19, I didn't have a lot to do with him personally, I had breakfast with him and Nancy once. I crawled around Central America fighting commies, delivering weapons, and other such things you probably wouldn't believe.

I'm from NC so Jessie Helms was a staple. I first met him when I was 13 and worked on his campaign. I was sitting in his office on that faithful day asking him to come out and speak to 500 students I had demonstrating on the Senate steps for the $50 million humanitarian aid bill for the Contras. He never made it. :-)

In that case, perhaps you should make one or more of those staffers a partner.

My executive assistant is more important than my partner! Its important to know what you are good at an more so what you are not good at. Spelling isn't my thing, unfortunately! It's hard when you can write on a doctoral level but need a spell check to do so. God gives us all flaws to keep us humble. My thorn in the flesh is spelling. I'm embarrassed when I spell something like Libya wrong but it's good for me to get called down! Thank you

We will soon be neighbors, sort of. My hubby and I are moving to (rural) eastern TN soon. We are abandoning the once-magnificent Golden State. I was just a sprout when RWR was our great governor, but those were indeed golden days. Smokey Mountains/Blue Ridge here we come. We will do our part to keep TN bright, American red. :)

I’d be interested to hear some of your Helms and RWR stories. I adored Helms.....hehehehe. He was one really sharp dude.

p.s. I think you meant “fateful”, not “faithful.” ;)

If moving forces was to combat piracy ,then no declaration needed.

Some will,might,have said: when you go to another country you are at the mercy of their system,not ours;so it behooves one NOT to go to places known to be dangerous or that are known to harbor people who hate you".That is don't expect the rest of us to rescue you from stupidity.

Probably be best if Congress passes a resolution approving the blockade or whatever the very next day they are in session.

I really believe we had no business in the Balkans, and some of the other adventures are questionable.

Of course,if we had a rational energy policy that meant American owned and directed companies supplied the majority of our needs from American oil,gas,coal,hydro, and nuclear, then we might need go into fewer sandpits!

There is nothing in the Constitution that says we have to be attacked before the President can use force

Of course there is. The Constitution specifically gives the power of declaring both all-out war AND limited offensive hostilities to the Congress.

The only power given to the president is as CINC of the armed forces AND the Constitution limits the exercise of this power to those times when the armed forces are "called" to be used.

Art 2, Sect 2: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;"

We can pretend that the modern evolution of the power of the presidency with the military means what it means today, but then we can also pretend the liberals are right about the 2d amendment, about abortion, and about the commerce clause.

The president DIRECTS THE military in conflict WHEN it has been given a mission by the Congress.

Well Justice, I'm glad you cleared that matter up. I'll repeat, there is nothing that prevents the President from using the STANDING military (which didn't exist at the time of the Constitution) for most anything he wants; except for funding by Congress as a check and balance.

This is what I don't like here. If this was a Republican President we would all be on the other side of this. Many here are constitutional "experts" when it applies to the Democrats. If Reagan were in office they would be all for us attacking Libya.

Give it a break. The President has the power to do what he is doing.

If this was a Republican President we would all be on the other side of this

I've been around FR a long time. There are multiple offensive military ops during that time, and I think I have established a track record of consistency on this one. Perhaps it's because of military experience; perhaps it's because I can read, but it is fair to say that I've always stood for the principle of Congressional authorization of military offensive operation.

Well I can appreciate the fact that you are military, you aren’t alone in that. I can appreciate the fact you can read, me too. Maybe you personally are consistent, more power to you. I’m just saying in general people aren’t.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.