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
There is good reason for this. Hussein is an evil man but the Bin Laden philosophy is foreign to his world view. Hussein is an avid secularist and his regime gives relative equality to women. He is not a radical Islamist type and never has been. In this respect, his regime represents an affront to the Taliban and Al Quada types. War is a serious business and shadowy and tenuous links (which may also exist to even a greater degree for such diverse countries as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Syria, etc.) do not provide sufficient justification.
The agenda for "taking out" Hussein has little to do with Al Qaeda and much more to do with balance of power politics, "finishing the job" started by Bush I, forcing weapons inspections, pursuing the phantom and utopian goal of creating a "democratic Iraq" as a counterweight to Saudi Arabia, and finally oil. None of these are sufficient to provide an adequate justification for the American people or the rest of the world. Links to Al Quada are merely a pretext to achieve other priorities. In fact, what we have here is a war in search of a pretext.
Exactly.
Let me be more precise. An armed response that falls short of an actual invasion, deals with the problem, and does not cost any American lives.
Where the heck did you read that, Mr. Wright? I've respected your opinions on many an issue, and often we've argued on the same side, but this is the first time I remember you slickly and blatantly misquoting me or others in your passion to make a point. Not one of your finer moments...
Just look at my comment at #62...wherein I addressed PA2, "Yer not really looking for evidence that supports our liberating the Iraqi Sheeple, are you, PA2?" We're certainly NOT attacking the long-beleaguered Iraqi CommonMan any more than we were out to punish the Soviet subjects during the Cold War!! For you to argue otherwise--especially by misquoting me...well, I hope you wake up tomorrow with a better disposition.
Get well...MUD
Yep...those damned Arabs don't deserve representative government. Let 'em keep killing themselves while we sit here and ignore 'em and hope they don't come after us again, right Mr. Chamberlin?!
SHEEEESH...MUD
Is that you, Bill Clinton?! My sincere apologies if yer not, but wasn't Der SchleekMeister's typical "response" to lob a few missiles at empty terrorist camps while boldly spoutin' "Y'all better never do that again or I'll get really mad!!"
If Clinton had followed through on Iraqi inspections and pressure, Sodom would be a footnote in history today, but he didn't and it's time the grown-ups went in and cleaned up his mess!!
MUD
Our standard and reasonable response to any attempt by an Iraqi ground or air launched missile attempting to target an American aircraft is a air-to-ground missile.
If Clinton had followed through on Iraqi inspections and pressure, Sodom would be a footnote in history today, but he didn't and it's time the grown-ups went in and cleaned up his mess!!
You would have supported a ground invasion prior to 9/11 because kicked out UN arms inspectors. Right...
MUD
We had Sodom teetering after the Gulf War and the Clinton Administration dropped the ball...not only did they attempt to assassinate Bush, Sr. and Dubyuh, but they made a mockery of the Inspections Process and Slick Willie couldn't be bothered. Thanks DIRECTLY to this inattention to Foreign Policy and National Security by the Clinton Administration, 3000 innocent folks were massacred on 9/11/01 and your only response as a Newbie ProudAmerican is to beg for more of the same!! Go ahead...vote fer the DemonRATS in November, but its still gonna be a ROUT of the RATS!!
MUD
BTW...go ahead and try to convince me you ain't a Wellstone Lackey!! TROLL ALERT!!
Time will tell all, and the facts will come out. For now, I know that Bush, Cheney, Powell, and Rumsfeld are not trigger-happy hawks. If they believe it's imperative that Hussein must go, then I figure they must have good reason for that belief. I also know that Hussein's obviously hiding something that he doesn't want the world to know about.
As for your reasoning as to why you think Hussein couldn't possibly be harboring al Qaeda terrorists, have you ever heard the line "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"? If Hussein could help anyone disable America, I believe he'd do it.
I see you did not answer my question. Would you have supported an invasion of Iraq because Saddam refused to comply with a series of UN resolutions?
Thanks DIRECTLY to this inattention to Foreign Policy and National Security by the Clinton Administration, 3000 innocent folks were massacred on 9/11/01 and your only response as a Newbie ProudAmerican is to beg for more of the same!! Go ahead...vote fer the DemonRATS in November, but its still gonna be a ROUT of the RATS!!
I have a number of criticisms of the Clinton administration, but they were not directly responsible for 9/11.
Go ahead...vote fer the DemonRATS in November, but its still gonna be a ROUT of the RATS!!
Are Dick Armey or Jack Kemp or Brent Scowkoft Democrats? Anyone that opposes an invasion of Iaq is not automatically a liberal.
BTW...go ahead and try to convince me you ain't a Wellstone Lackey!! TROLL ALERT!!
I voted for Pawlenty in my precinct caucus.
Ah, the personal attacks begin. Anyone that opposes your position on this issue must be evil incarnate.
The larger question, to me, is why Saddam? What excursion has he made outside his own borders since the last "war"? Does his "evil equivalency" even approach Robert Mugabe? Will his presence or absence have any effect on the behavior of those lovely neighbors of his, the Saudis?
GWB is a charmer but I'm damned If I can make any sense of his policies, foreign or domestic.
I guess I fell asleep. What are you talking about?
Please give me the date and time that we declared war on Serbia (and, better yet, why?).
Yep. Typical of the bluff and BS on these threads.
Yep. Typical of the bluff and BS on these threads.
Just curious.
The Saudis are far and away the preeminent backers and perpetrators of terror and establishers of the Wahabbi (sp?) schools of diabolic theology. Is there some reason other than blind allegiance to GWB that you're all fired up to bomb Iraq while ignoring these facts?
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.