Posted on 08/22/2002 6:44:48 AM PDT by KLT
President Bush has sufficient legal authority to conduct a war against Iraq under broadly drafted resolutions that Congress passed in 1991 for the Persian Gulf War and a second resolution adopted last year for the war against al Qaeda, legal experts say.
Some add that the president's position would be strengthened politically by seeking a new congressional vote on any operations in Iraq, which would require a public debate over the evidence the administration has developed against Saddam Hussein, and a discussion about what the wider consequences of the war might be on the Middle East.
Lee Casey, a partner in the Washington law firm of Baker and Hostetler, said he would prefer a congressional debate to lead to a war declaration that clearly defines the conflict while asking America's allies to line themselves up as allies, neutrals or fellow belligerents.
But Casey said he cannot dispute the White House contention that Bush already has sufficient authority to conduct the war against Iraq under the resolutions Congress already has enacted.
"Yes, he does have the legal authority to go ahead," Casey said. But seeking another vote from Congress "politically makes a lot of sense - it makes a united country," Casey said. He said a vote of congressional support would also give Bush political cover if a war with Iraq turned sour.
Congress has declared war only five times - against Great Britain in 1812, Mexico in 1846, Spain in 1898 and then World War I and World War II.
In drafting the Constitution, the Founding Fathers gave Congress the power "to make war" but later changed the language "to declare war," but gave no further explanation of the debate, leaving to historians to debate why the change was made.
It has made little difference. War has raged on several occasions under resolutions or congressional authorizations of military funding that have fallen short of declarations of war.
Among these were an undeclared war with France from 1798-80, the First Barbary Pirate War of 1801-05, and the Second Barbary Pirate War of 1815, the raid of slave traffic in Africa from 1820-23, an action against Paraguay for attacking a U.S. ship in 1859, the invasion of Lebanon in 1958, the Vietnam War of 1964-73, and the Persian Gulf War of 1990-91. The U.S. Civil War was never declared because Union lawmakers after secession regarded the conflict as an "insurrection," or a rebellion. The Korean War was conducted under a United Nations resolution.
The Persian Gulf War was conducted under a 1991 congressional resolution that states "the president is authorized...to use United States armed forces pursuant to United Nations" resolutions that found Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait and Iraq's development of weapons of mass destruction threatened the peace and security of the region.
Congress has never repealed the resolution, and for the last decade, U.S. and British warplanes have enforced a no-fly zone over Iraqi territory because Saddam Hussein never lived up to a cease-fire agreement requiring him to comply with the U.N. resolutions.
President Bush has argued that the resolution Congress passed after the Sept. 11 attacks also gives him broad authority to conduct operations in Iraq.
That resolution, which Congress passed three days after the attack, is broadly drafted. It states:
"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 Sept. 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."
The administration has been building the case that the Iraqi dictator is connected with al Qaeda, contending that Iraq is harboring terrorist refugees and al Qaeda operatives.
A congressional resolution is not equivalent to a declaration of war, which is a peculiar legal action that has consequences of its own.
Stephen Salzburg, a George Washington University law professor, said a declaration of war gives the president broad emergency powers, and triggers about 150 provisions in the law, including the right to seize ships, impose censorship, expedite licensing for nuclear facilities, and control communications. It also affects contracts and insurance policies, which are written specifically to exclude coverage from damage caused by acts of war.
The powers of the White House are so broad, Abraham Lincoln suspended the habeas corpus rights of people to appeal their detention through the courts, and the Roosevelt administration rounded up Japanese-American citizens on the West Coast and put them in camps during World War II.
© Copyright 2002 by Capitol Hill Blue
The fact is that Islam is the root enemy, but we cannot take on all of Islam.
Though Saudi citizens were among the terrorists, the Saudi goverment itself was not behind the 9-11 attacks. If it was, we'd know that by now.
I'm no blind follower of Bush. I disagree with him on some issues. But one thing I'm sure of is that he loves this country and national security is at the forefront of his concerns. His commitment in that area should be fairly obvious even to you. That's why I don't think he's trigger happy and I don't think he would deliberately do anything that would hurt our national interest. On the contrary.
I am assuming that the general population had no idea we were going to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
What was public opinion on the plans for the invasion of Normandy?
I am assuming that the general population had no idea about the specifics of the plan to invade Normandy.
How do you know that the evidence exists?
It will, in time.
How do you know?
According the the Constitution the President is the Commander-in-Chief. The congress appropriates monied and declares war. For an interesting read on this subject I'll post the following letter:
Dear William: Washington, Feb. 15. 1848[emphasis in original]
Your letter of the 29th. Jany. was received last night. Being exclusively a constitutional argument, I wish to submit some reflections upon it in the same spirit of kindness that I know actuates you. Let me first state what I understand to be your position. It is, that if it shall become necessary, to repel invasion, the President may, without violation of the Constitution, cross the line, and invade the teritory [sic] of another country; and that whether such necessity exists in any given case, the President is to be the sole judge.
Before going further, consider well whether this is, or is not your position. If it is, it is a position that neither the President himself, nor any friend of his, so far as I know, has ever taken. Their only positions are first, that the soil was ours where hostilities commenced, and second, that whether it was rightfully ours or not, Congress had annexed it, and the President, for that reason was bound to defend it, both of which are as clearly proved to be false in fact, as you can prove that your house is not mine. That soil was not ours; and Congress did not annex or attempt to annex it. But to return to your position: Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose---and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, to-day, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, ``I see no probability of the British invading us'' but he will say to you ``be silent; I see it, if you dont.''
The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good
Page 452
of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood. Write soon again. Yours truly, A. LINCOLN
Abraham Lincoln, "Letter to William Herndon", The Collected Works Of Abraham Lincoln, Roy P. Basler, ed., Vol. 1, pp. 451-452 - Online here. FYI, Mr. Herndon was a Whig, Abraham Lincoln's jr. law partner.
I don't, yet.
And you don't know that it doesn't exist.
We elect a President to carry out a number of duties, this is one of them. He isn't bound to make his case to the American public, and certainly not until he is prepared to do so.
He is the person in charge of our Armed Forces, and his only constitutionally mandated duty is to seek approval from Congress which he has already done, and Congress has given it.
You don't have civilians second-guessing Generals in a battle, nor Commanders In Chief during war.
Should the President (and Congress) feel it necessary to further define the nature of the military actions related to the response to 9/11, they will do so when needed.
Everbody wants to avoid that "pursuance" requirement. According to this reasoning, the Congress could pass a law granting ALL powers - legislative, judicial - to the President, which as we both know is ludicrous. Especially to allow bypassing the Constitution, which the Supreme Court certainly held to be illegal:
"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government."
Justice Davis, ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, (1866).
Yet your previous post seemed to suggest that you knew that the evidence exists.
And you don't know that it doesn't exist.
If President Bush presents compelling evidence of Iraqi involvment in 9/11, then I will support the invasion.
We elect a President to carry out a number of duties, this is one of them. He isn't bound to make his case to the American public, and certainly not until he is prepared to do so.
He works for us and we pay the bills.
You don't have civilians second-guessing Generals in a battle, nor Commanders In Chief during war.
I will oppose the invasion unless Bush presents compelling evidence of Iraqi involvment in 9/11.
BTW, if the harboring of Al Quaeda types in Iraq is Dubya's concern why doesn't he demand that Iraq's turn them all over (as did for Afghanistan)? I'll tell you why. Al Queda is merely a pretext.
Do you really think a strong secularist, pro equal rights for women guy like Hussein is part of Bin Laden's fundamentalist Islamic movement? I have seen no evidence of this, certainly not even to put the lives of American women and men in peril.
Since you are so trusting of Bush and Cheney (though apparently not Powell), what do you expect to happen if and when we "win?" Are you expecting to break from historical precedent which indicate that "victory" would doom us to decades of social engineering, nation building, and futile efforts to make the Kurdish lamb lie down with the Shi'ite law. Are you prepared for all the unintended consequences of mucking around in the pest-hole of Iraq?
I for one, believe the president has an excellent case...3,000 corpses and bodyparts which will never be identified...That's good enough for me...
No names or dates were changed to protect the guilty...this is as written..
Hopefully you realize that it is highly unlikely that Atta shared any details of the 9/11 attack with the Iraqi intelligence agent. After all, most analysts believe that Atta did not tell some of his fellow 9/11 terrorists the true mission until after they highjacked the planes. In addition, Iraqi had nothing that Atta needed to complete the terrorist attacks.
I've got a question or two for you ProudAmerican2:
How are you aware of the evidence of what Saddam knew or what he didn't know? Were you there?
You don't think Atta needed money or even more money then what he received in funds from Bin Laden and all his allies?
There's alot more to this story, my good friend...Until you know a great deal more of the facts, I would reserve my opinion on Iraq and their involvement...
Oh BTW, do you think that Bin Laden just sent Atta and the others here a few days before 9-11?....They had been here for years, planning this till execution date...during BILL CLINTON'S 8 long year tenure...
Oh yes, Billie Boy opened the flood gates and in they came...he bears alot of the responsibility...
Have we forgotten the first WTC bombing? Or how about the deaths of 200 someodd military in Saudi Arabia blown up in their barracks? How about the bombings of our embassies in Africa? How about the bombing of the USS Cole?
I can go on for days....
If there is compelling evidence that Saddam had prior knowledge of the attack, then the Bush administration should inform Congress and the American people. The release of declassified information verifying a link between the Iraqi government and the 9/11 attack would end this discussion.
You don't think Atta needed money or even more money then what he received in funds from Bin Laden and all his allies?
Not really. Not enough for Atta to share details of the operation with an Iraqi government agent. Details he apparently did not share with some of his fellow terrorists.
There's alot more to this story, my good friend...Until you know a great deal more of the facts, I would reserve my opinion on Iraq and their involvement...
Like I said in a previous post, if the Bush administration can offer evidence of a substantive link between the Iraqi government and the 9/11 terrorists, then I will support the invasion.
Oh BTW, do you think that Bin Laden just sent Atta and the others here a few days before 9-11?....They had been here for years, planning this till execution date...during BILL CLINTON'S 8 long year tenure...
Our immigration policy predates Clinton. Atta and his fellow terrorists would have gained entry into the United States under any other president.
Oh yes, Billie Boy opened the flood gates and in they came...he bears alot of the responsibility...
See above.
Have we forgotten the first WTC bombing? Or how about the deaths of 200 someodd military in Saudi Arabia blown up in their barracks? How about the bombings of our embassies in Africa? How about the bombing of the USS Cole?
Not linked to Iraq.
I can go on for days....
Please don't...
Problem is, there needs to be classified information...you don't want to give away your hand, before necessary..That's why misinformation is thrown out all the time...Take it from someone who knows...there is more then enough evidence against Iraq.
Not really. Not enough for Atta to share details of the operation with an Iraqi government agent. Details he apparently did not share with some of his fellow terrorists.
Who says it would have to be Atta? Many were involved in the plot...you don't think Saddam Hussein knows AlQuaeda members? Don't be nieve...
Our immigration policy predates Clinton. Atta and his fellow terrorists would have gained entry into the United States under any other president.
I agree, our immigration policy has been a mess for years...but during Clintoooon truth is, if you know anything about the Citizenship USA Program...you would know..Clintoooon and Gore obliterated every immigration law to the point where there was no test...no checking of fingerprints...no background checks...and atleast 300,000 people with major felony records came to our shores...Look it up...you'll find it...Just ask Doris Meisner...the former head of INS who reluctantly agreed to these conditions...
Not linked to Iraq.
You don't know, what was linked to Iraq and what wasn't...Saddam takes his revenge in sneaky ways...so he can condemn it and blame others...a fact, my friend.
How do you know? Do you have access to classified information?
Who says it would have to be Atta? Many were involved in the plot...you don't think Saddam Hussein knows AlQuaeda members? Don't be nieve...
Details?
I agree, our immigration policy has been a mess for years...but during Clintoooon truth is, if you know anything about the Citizenship USA Program...you would know..Clintoooon and Gore obliterated every immigration law to the point where there was no test...no checking of fingerprints...no background checks...and atleast 300,000 people with major felony records came to our shores...Look it up...you'll find it...Just ask Doris Meisner...the former head of INS who reluctantly agreed to these conditions...
The fact remains that Atta and his fellow terrorists would have gained entry in the US when Bush I and Reagan were president.
You don't know, what was linked to Iraq and what wasn't...Saddam takes his revenge in sneaky ways...so he can condemn it and blame others...a fact, my friend.
If Iraq was linked to one of those the attacks, then the Bush administration needs to make that information available to Congress and the American people.
If I did, it wouldn't be classified anymore...would it?
Loose lips sink ships.
Information About The Clinton-Gore Citizenship USA Program
Read it and weep...our Immigration laws were ridiculous to start with, but under Clinton-Gore...any that were there, were almost abolished...
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.