Congress to Vote Resolution Against Iraq

Worlnetdaily ^ | December 11, 2001 | Jon Dougherty

[Teacher317]

walk-in and compliance = walk-in and demand compliance

[madfly]

Ping

[madfly]

Ping

[BplusK]

You are right, the resolution against Iraq does not clearly state that the President is authorized to do anything.
However, I believe that such a Resolution is the first step toward some measures against Iraq.
- First here, Iraq is officially identified as an enemy.
- Then, a plan of action will be decided.
- Finally, an attack will be launched.

[madfly]

Ping

[madfly]

Ping

[Protagoras]

Though I have a lot of respect Paul, libertarians are usually out of touch with reality, particularly as it deals with the military.

Perhaps it's you who is out of touch with reality.

Paul is of the same political bent as Harry Browne,

So I can assume that you have a lot of respect for Harry Browne since you have a lot of respect for Paul.

who said the U.S. essentially deserved the September 11 attacks because of our foreign policy.

That isn't even close to what he said. I guess you have to lie when the facts aren't on your side.

Libertarians are merely conservatives who have same lack of grasp of reality as socialists.

Your grasp of reality seems to be severely impaired.

[Chairman_December_19th_Society]

However, I believe that such a Resolution is the first step toward some measures against Iraq.

I'm from the Nike school on this one. Just do it.

[madfly]

BUMP

[monday]

"Paul is of the same political bent as Harry Browne, who said the U.S. essentially deserved the September 11 attacks because of our foreign policy."

While I have to admit that Harry Browne did say this, I think you will find that most Libertarians realize that our foreign policy is just the excuse the terrorists use. 9-11 happened because of who we are not what we have done. However because Libertarians don't think we should be meddling in the affairs of others to the extent we do, it's hard for some of us to keep from mentioning it.

"Libertarians are merely conservatives who have same lack of grasp of reality as socialists."

OMG, say anything you want about us but don't call us conservatives!!! LOL just kidding:) Click here if you want to know what a libertarian really is: Advocates for Self-Government. While you are there take "The World's Smallest Political Quiz". Who knows you might have libertarian tendencies yourself?:) By the way don't tell anyone but I voted for G W Bush:)

[afuturegovernor]

We so often talk about the bad guys, I think we also consider who is doing a good job. Like these guys.

Sponsored by Reps. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Porter Goss, R-Fla., and Henry Hyde, R-Ill.,

[afuturegovernor]

Browne, who said the U.S. essentially deserved the September 11 attacks because of our foreign policy.

I saw former liberaltarian candidate Browne on the O'Reilly Factor. He was horrible. O'Reilly ate his lunch.

[monday]

"If Saddam can be shown to have participated - even a little - bomb his butt into oblivion. "

Heehee

"The United States needs no U.N. Resolution to activate our military; it needs an order from our Commander in Chief, supported by a Congressional Declaration - nothing more. When the United States, or its allies are attacked, we must respond. But we should never again respond with our military in order to comply with a U.N. Resolution."

I have to admit this was my take. Excellent post madfly!!!

[Native American Female Vet]

This resolution does not authorize the President to do anything and has nothing to do with 9/11.

No matter how much we may want Sadamm, Congress only authorized the President

"To use all necessary and appropriate force aganist those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, commited or aided the terrorist attacks that occured on Sept 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons"

So unless he has the goods on Sadamm for Sept, 11 or the goods on him that he harbored such organizations or persons, he cant just move in and do as he pleases without another specific statutory authorization for use of force from Congress.

Congress also points to this:

INTERPRETATION OF JOINT RESOLUTION SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred--

(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution;

The President can not conclude he can introduce US Armed Forces into hostilities unless he has the goods on Sadam for Sept, 11 or that he harbored such organizations or persons.

This resolution does not authorize anything and he needs to go back to Congress get an authorization for use of Military Force.

Congress has tied the Presidents hands and people need to face that fact and hold them accountable if they think it is wrong.

[madfly]

Thanks

[Chairman_December_19th_Society]

"To use all necessary and appropriate force aganist those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, commited or aided the terrorist attacks that occured on Sept 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons" So unless he has the goods on Sadamm for Sept, 11 or the goods on him that he harbored such organizations or persons, he cant just move in and do as he pleases without another specific statutory authorization for use of force from Congress.

I can drive a daisy cutter though that loophole.

The loophole?

Last two clauses. The aiding and harboring provisions.

In fact - the predicate has already been laid.

Remember the conversations between one of the hijackers and Iraqi intelligence that has already been documented in the media?

There's the aid.

Just do it.

[BplusK]

Why is Saddam stocking mass destruction weapons if he never PLANNED to use them? To PLAN terrorism is also included in the Congress' Resolution.

[Native American Female Vet]

I wrote

So unless he has the goods on Sadamm for Sept, 11 or the goods on him that he harbored such organizations or persons, he cant just move in and do as he pleases without another specific statutory authorization for use of force from Congress.

We agree then. If the president has the goods on Sadamm for 9/11 he can get him.

[lavaroise]

Whoohoo! Now let us confirm how many traitors are in the Senate. Those bstards better pass it and Dashole better not undermine the US from terrorists.

[dcwusmc]

I agree; great find from the Sierra TImes. Who needs such a resolution? It's only another step to UN-ification. The sponsors are NOT good guys; I would like to see THEM up on charges of treason. The UN is NOT our friend and its resolutions are NOT justification for an attack on ANYONE. If we have the goods on Saddammmmmm, let's go eat his lunch. This resolution stinks on ice!

David Wright