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
How is this any different from the argument (made by gun control advocates) that since the founders could not have anticipated the rate of fire of semi -automatic rifles and pistols, that therefore the second ammendment should only apply to muzzle loading muskets?
Stain; I think if Saddam hasn't been tipped off by now, he is the dumbest, most naieve, person in the world.
Regards
There is more, much more....but it will all come in time...
Don't know if you remember how we put off invading Germany in WWII....Just give the Germans Czechloslovakia and Poland...Now that would have been great foreign policy...Hitler almost won...or have we forgotten...
The point made then, that is still pertinent today, is this: Why have a written Constitution if it can be broken on a mere whim? That was answered almost two hundred years ago as well:
"The powers of the legislature are defined and limited, and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal obligation."Thankfully, unlike liberals and dims, I don't believe in a "living" Constitution. If I disagree with what is written, or believe that some new power needs to be granted, I'd utilize the proper, legal method of obtaining those changes - via amendment as described in Article V.
Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, (1803).
Perhaps by paying a little more attention to what's going on today, rather than what went on in the 19th Century, you would know the answer to that.
Perhaps by paying a little more attention to what went on in the 19th Century, rather than to what's going on today, you would know the answer has already been given. Those gentlemen that you are so keen to dismiss are the same men that wrote the Constitution.
Freegards,
4CJ
Austin, you are right on the money. We seem to change "enemies" like I change socks.
First it was OBL., the most evil person in the world.(By the way, has anybody seen him or Elvis lately). Then it is the evil axis. I think that consisted of Korea, Viet Nam, Iran,Tehran,ect.,ect.,
Then it was everbody in the world that harbored, or was suspected of harboring terrorists.
Then it was everbody, or country in the world, that was either "with us, or against us".
Ireland, I am sorry to say, has been harboring terrorists for 100's of years.Where do they fit in. I haven't heard any mention of bombing them as yet.
I understand GB, has a huge terrorist network. What about them. What about the Euopean countries.?..It is starting to wear thin with me. The only people who are being terrorized are the American public, and that IMHO, if being done by our own Govt.
Dawgs; If that is what it takes to keep all the US from fighting among ourselves, and putting up with the security(paronoia)nonsense, then I say lets get with it.
Talk is cheap, it takes money to buy whiskey.
Regards
I'm curious, how have you been terrorized?
Guess I will just have to wait.
Don't know if you remember how we put off invading Germany in WWII....Just give the Germans Czechloslovakia and Poland...Now that would have been great foreign policy...Hitler almost won...or have we forgotten...
With our policy of containment, Saddam is not even a regional threat.
Reread your posts. If you can not spot the inconsistency, then I will give you some help.
I claim no knowledge of any information that the president and his cabinet may, or may nor have. I do recognize that in order to go before Congress to ask for further financing of this conflict, the president must make his case to them.
When he makes a strong case for intervention, then I will support the invasion.
As such, I know that when the time comes, the evidence will be brought forth.
How do you know that?
Don't try to hang on to floating straws when you're drowning.
Are you talking to yourself?
P.S. You supported the action against Afghanistan? Based on what?
Strong evidence of an Al Queda presence in the country.
Please, by all means, do so.
"How do you know that?"
Because that's what the law calls for, he has to go before Congress with a reason WHY he wants to go ahead with the invasion.
"Strong evidence of an Al Queda presence in the country."
But, did you see strong evidence of the Taliban in our country?
Did you see any evidence of an al-Qaida presence in Afghanistan?
It does no such thing ["suggest that you knew that the evidence exists"].
"I know that the evidence MUST exist if Bush goes before Congress to ask financing for further actions, he's required to have a reason why it is needed. But's that's a far cry from my saying that I have knowledge of that proof."
In the first statement you assert that you are not claiming that you know that the evidence exists. In the very next sentence you claim that the evidence must exist if Bush appears before Congress.
Because that's what the law calls for, he has to go before Congress with a reason WHY he wants to go ahead with the invasion.
No. He has forty eight hours after he invades before he has to justify the invasion to Congress. Congress can not even stop him at this point.
But, did you see strong evidence of the Taliban in our country?
No, because the Taliban is not in our country.
Did you see any evidence of an al-Qaida presence in Afghanistan?
Anyone who knew anything about the situation in Afghanistan knew that Al Queda had a strong presence in the country.
And the inconsistency is where?
I am not privy to that proof, but I do know that in order to come before Congress, Bush needs a provide a reason.
It would be useless to do so without one.
"Congress can not even stop him at this point."
Bunk...Congress can defund him at any time, and effectively bring the whole thing to a stop.
"...the Taliban is not in our country."
But you supported their overthrow?
"Anyone who knew anything about the situation in Afghanistan knew that Al Queda had a strong presence in the country."
So, if Bush stands before Congress and says, "anyone who knows anything about the situation in Iraq, knows that Saddam Hussein is involved with terrorists", you would support the invasion?
You want to talk about inconsistencies?
Get yourself a mirror.
Containment, and how are we gonna contain and control what Saddam Hussein does? It's his country, and he does whatever he likes, he's a dictator...
Perhaps you're referring to Clinton's policy of appeasement....now that makes more sense...Appease, Appease, Appease...That was one of Clinton's magic words..
The basis for U.S military action in Afghanistan was the refusal of the Taliban to turn over Osama Bin Laden and others associated with him. When they refused our ultimatum, we started bombing. The Taliban never denied that OBL was in the country although they attempted to cast doubt on whether or not he was guilty.
In order to create a parallel situation in Iraq, you would have to make some demand of Saddam which he would then refuse to comply with.
Someone's posts are getting sillier and sillier.
Tuco-Bad, meet my friend, ProudAmerican2.
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.