Posted on 12/11/2001 8:20:39 AM PST by BplusK
On December 4, a Resolution against Iraq was introduced in the Congress.
The resolution – called HJR 75, which has eight co-sponsors – states:
(1) the president and the United Nations should insist on monitoring weapons development in Iraq, as required by United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991);
(2) Iraq should allow United Nations weapons inspectors into Iraq, as required by Security Council Resolution 687;
(3) Iraq remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations; and
(4) the refusal by Iraq to admit United Nations weapons inspectors into any facility covered by the provisions of Security Council Resolution 687 should be considered an act of aggression against the United States and its allies.
Sponsored by Reps. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Porter Goss, R-Fla., and Henry Hyde, R-Ill., the bill is "scheduled for markup" tomorrow – a process whereby changes to the measure are made. Once finished, members will send it to the Rules Committee, then out to the full House for a vote.
The measure is already scheduled for markup by the full House Committee on International Relations – not even a subcommittee first. That makes this bill a high priority. The committee is scheduled to convene at 2 p.m. Eastern tomorrow.
Hyde is chairman of the International Relations committee.
Other lawmakers, especially the resolution's sponsors, appear convinced Iraq should be next on the administration's hit list.
"There is overwhelming evidence that Saddam Hussein continues full speed ahead in his quest to obtain weapons of mass destruction," Graham said earlier this month, when HJR 75 was introduced. "Without inspections and oversight from the United States and international community, I think he will eventually acquire the capability. For the security of the United States and our allies, we must not allow that to happen."
"Iraq has been operating its weapons program in the shadows," Graham continued. "If that continues, it should be viewed as a direct threat and considered an act of aggression against the United States and our allies."
Kevin Bishop, a spokesman for Graham, told WND that HJR 75 was "directly related" to the administration's ongoing terrorist war and was to be used "in addition to" existing congressional authorization.
Asked how U.S. officials know that Saddam is attempting to revitalize his weapons program – since weapons inspectors have been banned from Iraq since 1997 – Bishop said "Iraqi defectors and American intelligence agencies" have evidence pointing in that direction.
"I don't think there is anyone who disputes that Iraq is trying to obtain weapons of mass destruction," he added.
Still, others are opposed to expanding the current terror war to Iraq. In fact, entire governments remain opposed.
In an interview Sunday in Business Week, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld left open the possibility that the war could be expanded to a number of different nations suspected of harboring terrorist factions.
Asked how long the U.S. could tolerate Baghdad's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, Rumsfeld said that question was "above his pay grade."
"We've got six to 10 countries on the terrorist list. [Some] already have chemical and biological weapons programs. A number have been pursuing nuclear capabilities," he told Business Week. "When weapons were less lethal and [casualties] involved thousands instead of hundreds of thousands, or millions, of people, you could make a mistake and it wasn't terminal. [Now,] when you're dealing with that many countries and with the close linkages [among] terrorist networks ... it forces you to make different calculations."
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.
I'm from the Nike school on this one. Just do it.
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:)
Sponsored by Reps. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Porter Goss, R-Fla., and Henry Hyde, R-Ill.,
I saw former liberaltarian candidate Browne on the O'Reilly Factor. He was horrible. O'Reilly ate his lunch.
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!!!
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.
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.
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.
David Wright
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.