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
I read the speech and couldn't find any evidence linking Iraq with Al Queda. Nice try...
FReegards...MUD
HA!!
Nawwww...
I knew damned well Karen would give y'all a hug.
...when all was said & done.
By waiting for the next round of cowardly terrorist attacks we are sitting ducks....but the PC police are out in full force, and we all know what short memories the public at large has...how soon they forget...
NYCop, you guys are truly the bravest....we in other branches of law enforcement owe you a great debt of gratitude.
FreeGards From Your Government Counterpart,
Karen AKA KLT
I knew about the meeting between Atta and an Iraqi intelligence agent. However, the meeting is not sufficient grounds for an invasion. At a minimum Atta would have had to share information about the impending 9/11 attack with the Iraqi intelligence agent. Given the overwhelming emphasis on secrecy common in terrorist organizations, I doubt Atta shared that information at a meeting in a public place or anywhere else. After all, Atta apparently did not even share the full plan with all of his fellow 9/11 terrorists.
DeLay does present a good argument that Hussein is a brutal dictator, but none of that information is new. Iraq just does not represent a threat to our security.
And surely you don't think an individual as infamous as Abu Nidal lived in Baghdad without his knowledge and therefore his acquiescence do you?
If you believe that the U.S. can "win" a war to end terrorism throughout planet earth, you are aiming toward a hopelessly utopian goal, so utopian that you are providing a blank check for an endless war footing (and the trampling of the Constitution which it entails) for the U.S. If this goal of perpetual, undeclared, unwinneable war becomes the basis for policy, you can kiss goodbye to the limited-government, pro-bill of rights dreams of the founding fathers.
Now...I certainly agree that we needed to retaliate against Al Queada but this doesn't mean that we should the federal government a blank check to chase windmills to the end of time.
Your revisionist theory that we have stayed in the Chicken Coop bears no relation to reality. Your policy of intervention certainly has been given a fair try and has failed.
Dude, wake the hell up! Interventionism was started when Soviets put nuke tipped rockets in service after Sputnik and continues today with Saddam invading Kuwait and support of international terrorism.
Was the WTC us intervening? Us proselytising unappologeticaly our sense of morals? You need to know the difference between Islam and Christianity, and your own breed of bipolar fear mongering on the altar of anti-interventionism.
I am glad that you have apparently backed off your claim that we have stayed in the Coop....since the hard truth has been that the chickens have been roaming around pell-nell for quite some time.
Invasion because of non-compliance with UN resolutions. Right...
We have a remedy for the weekly attacks -- an armed response.
And surely you don't think an individual as infamous as Abu Nidal lived in Baghdad without his knowledge and therefore his acquiescence do you?
This is NOT a sufficient justification for an invasion.
Not in and of itself, but you'd asked for evidence specifically linking al queda to Iraq, and that is one item I'd heard. Still, I agree that "DeLay does present a good argument that Hussein is a brutal dictator...", and while I don't think it's America's role to rid the world of every brutal dictator via invasion, Hussein's an excellent example to make for the rest of the brutal dictators and those who might be considering overthrowing them in favor of a government more representative of the Sheeple.
How long have we been dealing with the problems in the Middle East and the potential problems this powderkeg presents to the Security of the World? You're fooling yourself if you believe Hussein isn't looking to join the nuclear club, and when you factor in what he was willing to do to his own people via gassing the Kurds, well, I simply believe we're sticking our heads in the sand if we think we can ignore Hussein and he won't proceed along the track until he's rattlin' sabres with nukes in his arsenal. So, if we can agree on that, why would we wait to take him out, especially when there is so much to be gained in other MiddleEast countries (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc.) by making an example of Sodom?
"Iraq just does not represent a threat to our security."
The Clinton Administration made it through eight years making the same argument about Terrorism...after 9/11/01, I don't believe Dubyuh's equally spineless about Iraq.
FReegards...MUD
BTW...if you're looking for public testimony and photographs of Sodom Hussein and Osama bil Clinton, er, bin Laden together as your evidence to justify an Iraqi Invasion, you'll still be waiting for that long AFTER Sodom's been captured or killed by U.S. Forces. As Travis McGee's been pointing out about WWII, providing said evidence prior to an attack will compromise sources and endanger American soldiers' lives, IMHO. However, as they do in the Police Departments after killing a perp, I do believe post-Regime Change dialogue will prove--beyond a shadow of a doubt--that taking out Sodom, sooner rather than later, will indeed be "a good shoot."
This is not interventionism, this is resisting the illegal unappologetic proselytism of enemies at home and to their neighbors.
As part of National Military Appreciation Month, the Department of Defense is gathering signatures on a brief message thanking the men and women of the U.S. military for defending our freedom. The compiled list of names will be sent out to our soldiers at the end of the month. So far, there are only about 547,000 names. It is really easy. The web page brings up a space to type your name, city and state.
I've read the arguments on both sides, and I'm inclined to believe the Czechs...but even if I didn't, I'd still support taking out Sodom, as will the Iraqi Sheeple and the World, after the shooting's done.
FReegards...MUD
Yes, except as you say, the American people weren't behind Military intervention at that time, and how could we convince them except by something dramatic like Peal Harbor.
"IT reminds me of those who say "Bush knew about 9-11 and let it happen".
I'm not saying I believe those stories about FDR, either...but it was interesting getting the perspective of the author of that book you referenced.
FReegards...MUD
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.