Congress' Iraq War Resolution MUST be revisited: "As he determines..."

[EVDebs]

This language in The Iraq War Resolution which allowed Bush to use his PERSONAL DISCRETION is unconstitutionally behind the whole issue we're now faced with. CONGRESS created let this 'genie' out of the bottle and it is up to Congress to put it back.

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

and/or google 'whitehouse.gov iraq war resolution'

This resolution carries inside it the legal 'justifications' that Bush & Co. use to masquerade as being at the 'zenith of Presidential power', yet if you read CAREFULLY you will find it does have limitations:

""SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to


(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.""

The phrase '...as he determines to be necessary and appropriate...' is proscribed later in the resolution by the War Powers Act,

""c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --


(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.""

The War Powers Act of 1973
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

""PURPOSE AND POLICY
SEC. 2. (a)
It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
SEC. 2. (b)
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
SEC. 2. (c)
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.""

Since the WMDs, Yellowcake, terror connections to Al Qaida/Iraq, have all proven mirages in the administration's collective group-think, the 'circumstances and situations' the War Powers Act envisioned by default would be required to be TRUTHFUL circumstances and situations. Furthermore, the 'War on Terror' isn't specifically mentioned in this resolution and therefore there is no limitation to presidential power implied. War without end isn't allowed under the War Powers Act of 1973, yet somehow someway our Department of Justification is now allowing for this interpretation, apparently hoping an informed public won't notice.

As this is now clearly not the case (#1) and the abuse of domestic intelligence surveillances (#2) also clearly are beyond the scope of the presidential overreach to the 'zenith of presidential powers', it is incumbent upon Congress to remind our new King George of the limitations of his powers. Lord Sauron needs to throw that ring into the volcanoe's molten lava NOW.

[IndianaGreen]

1. IWR must be repealed and the Democrats must take a stand on repeal

I mention this because all of the Left's efforts to get Congress to repeal the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, which gave us the Vietnam War, were beaten back by successive Democratic Congresses even after it became known the government had lied about the Tonkin Gulf "incident."

For those Dems that voted for IWR, this is your chance to redeem yourselves, vote for a resolution rescinding IWR. Pull the rug from under the Bush dictatorship's claim of Presidential "zenith of power."

[EVDebs]

7. I'll settle for 'amendment' since all stems from the words

Clear circumstances, situations in the War Powers Act of 1973 and that act is embedded within this Iraq War joint resolution. The limitations to Presidential powers stem from the WPAof1973, and not the misinterpretations as given by DOJ/Office of Legal Counsel's justifiers.

Clearly a 'war without end' wasn't declared nor was the truth of the circumstances and situations meant to be false (and allowed to be overlooked) without comment by Congress. The zenith of power :

""One lesson from history likely to play a prominent role in the Hamdi and Padilla cases is that presidents act at the zenith of their power when their actions are authorized by Congress.""

Bush's power vs. rights of detained citizens--
Hamdi and Padilla cases test presidential reach in wartime.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0428/p01s03-usju.html

What wasn't authorized by Congress was a war based upon misinterpretation of clear facts, circumstances and situations. From the comments of Prof. Turley at yesterday's inquest by Rep. Conyers is evidence that Pres. Bush is acting outside of the Constitution and the War Powers Act of 1973. Clearly. This was not mentioned during said inquest and must become COMMON KNOWLEDGE.

[EVDebs]

16. I'm beginning to see that the Joint resolution is Unconstitutional

Since it gives Bush the power to determine what the truth is: circumstances and situations that clearly stand on their own (according to the WPA of'73) are now allowed by Congress to be interpreted in ANY WAY that the president determines. The truth can now be parsed in any way-- even into lies-- by ONE MAN, King George.

Any lawsuits required to bring this to the SCOTUS's attention will surely shine the light of the truth upon the nation.

Bring it up and the R's will have to answer that "No, GW doesn't have the powers he says he does". QED.

[thefool_wa]

2. 404 on the first link

It is amazing how things like this disappear from the government web pages when we go looking for them. The rest of the white house page comes up, but there is no text on the IWR.

I had the same problem with Rule 21 when they closed the senate a few months back.

[EVDebs]

3. Please get this to 'greatest page' and also email to whocandomost

We need to get Congress' attention while the irons are hottest, Rep Conyers etc. !

[EVDebs]

4. google 'whitehouse.gov iraq war resolution'

Google up 'whitehouse.gov iraq war resolution' or try

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

the direct link ... what gives here ?

[thefool_wa]

6. Bingo. Thanks (nt)

[thefool_wa]

5. We can't rely on them to repeal it

Even in the face of its 1)obvious abuse and 2) obviously illegal implementation. We need to get back to the way things are supposed to be done and remove our troops from any engagement in Iraq, immediately with no conditions upon their return. Iraq has their own government now, lets build them boot camps in the desert, maybe leave them the last of our 20 year old weapons and get the hell out!

War requires a declaration by congress, and that declaration requires a nation enemy to fight against. The WPA of '73 requires limitations and legislation for implementation, and while those were satisfied by the IWR, the provisions of the IWR have been violated, which means the law was broken.

What do we have to do to show them that we are serious about the demands that our laws be adhered to by our government?

ps: with regards to the real reasons behind the war (i.e. euro-oil), maybe if they put the truth on the table a real dialog can start and new declarations made, but we will not wage war as a nation based on the deceit and illegal actions of our government.

[EVDebs]

8. Please pass this info along. Common Knowledge trumps Assumptions

We have their 'weakest link' and they know it now; they also know that once the word gets out they cannot put the truth to death. All flows from it like 'a mighty river' as Dr. King would say.

Fitting that Dr. King's day was mentioned during the hearing.

C'mon folks, you can get more than 1 measly 'greatest page' vote for a tidbit of info that can destroy the Republican's hopes in '06, can't you ?

[thefool_wa]

12. You got it

recommended!

[EVDebs]

10. True, but Murtha & Co. can't sit there and let this fester any longer

either. This is the silver bullet that can take out the vampire ; it's the stake you can put throught its heart.

Please. Just pick up the ball and run with it for once, Dems. The R's can't answer these charges without tripping all over themselves.

[thefool_wa]

9. Wow, this thing is full of lies

Its amazing how much of the lies of BushCo were made law by this horrible piece of legislation. I do have a couple questions:

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and...

What the heck are they talking about? I don't remember an attempted assassination in 1993. Admittedly I was 19 and not all that into politics at the time, but WTF?

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations

WTF? Saddam builds jet liners now? Or are they talking about fossil fuels. Their logic: oil made into jet fuel which burned in the towers and killed 3000 people=weapons of mass destruction development? I say again WTF?

on edit: HTML fix.

[EVDebs]

11. The supposed GHWB assassination attempt

A Case Not Closed
by Sy Hersch
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/content/?020930fr_archive02

The main assumption is that Al Quaida and Iraq worked together, spread by Dick Cheney et al and the PNACers.

Dept of Justice's new name is now Dept. of Justification, BTW.

C'mon now, we've got 2 'greatest page' votes. DU can do better.

[thefool_wa]

13. Less than 2 paragraphs in

and already the repug control over the media is clearly evident, even in 1993.

Three of the million-dollar missiles missed their target and landed on nearby homes, killing eight civilians, including Layla al-Attar, one of Iraq's most gifted artists. The death toll was considered acceptable by the White House; after all, scores of civilians had been killed in the Reagan Administration's F-111 bombing attack on Muammar Qaddafi's housing-and-office complex in Tripoli, Libya, in 1986.

We NEVER hear about how many Iraqi's ol GW is killing with bombs, missiles, bullets, white phosphorous, or anything for that matter.

All the article talks about is response, there are no details about the attempt. It even admits that there was no "smoking gun", or any real evidence at all that there was an attempt or that Saddam was behind it. I'm not saying this is a ruse, but the whole article stinks of the duplicity and hypocrisy of the media.

Thanks for posting though, much appreciated.

[FloridaPat]

14. Forget this one. The one giving * power to invade after 9-11 is the

bad one. It gives him unlimited, total descretion to go after any country anytime any where that supported those who did 9-11 or had any involvement at all. I think that is why they kept trying to tie Saddam to 9-11. They've already tied Iran to helping terrorists with 9-11. This is also approved by the UN. * can invade anytime he wants.

[EVDebs]

15. Weblink please. Where is it ? Whatever it is, it's still under WPAof73

Power to invade Afganistan was a given, and any use of war powers for a period of under three months is a given; the pretexts for Iraq War is a different story. Debated and delayed until Oct. 2002...which is why the WH has nor 'resolutions' with the war powers act mentioned until Oct 2002

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/

The President is still constrained by the truth; the truth will set us free, not an imperial president at the 'zenith of powers'.

The Quaker guy Hersch that spoke yesterday shows that WarPowers abuse is ongoing INSIDE the US.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2055845

Domestic surveillance abuse is illegal, as prior use (Operation CHAOS etc.) revealed during the '70s.

[FloridaPat]

18. Not specific to Afganistan. No time limit. He can attack anytime he wants.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/terroristattack/joint-resolution_9-14.html


" 107th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. J. RES. 23

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That 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 September 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.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Passed the Senate September 14, 2001.

Attest:

Secretary.

107th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. J. RES. 23

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States."

[EVDebs]

19. He is STILL limited by the War Powers Act of 1973. Read the resolution...

again:

"" 107th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. J. RES. 23
JOINT RESOLUTION
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL- That 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 September 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.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Passed the Senate September 14, 2001.""

Now, I guess I have to HIGHLIGHT the point I'm trying to make:

'Nothing in this resolution (S.J. Res. 23) supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution'
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

Sections 2(c), 3 and 4 especially show the WPA of 1973 does require clarity and circumstances and situations with truthful pretext for war.

2(c) especially

""SEC. 2. (c)
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.""

This is precisely why a separate Iraq War joint resolution was required...but as you are well aware, floridapat, the truthfulness of the circumstances and imminence of threat by Iraq are lies. WMD, Al Quaida ties, you name it floridapat, all lies.

Hence, Unconstitutional due to those FACTS.

[FloridaPat]

22. Yes, all lies. I do hope you're right about the rest. If congress

tries to authorize another lying war game, I guess we will all have to so a sit-in right in congress. Those that voted for the Iraq invasion are just as guilty.

[EVDebs]

23. CONGRESS has the power to represent the truth in all of this....

Which is why we need to get a Democratic majority in the '06 election. Which is why Rove is now having OBL 'pop ups' as whenever Bush's poll ratings tank. Even Walter Cronkite noticed this in Oct 2004 when OBL popped up just before the election to give a tanking Bush (note the dismal debates he had) a boost in the polls.

Walter Cronkite Suspects Karl Rove is Behind Bin Laden Tape
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/008522.html

and

The Fake 2004Bin Laden Video Tape
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape2.html

""Pretty much any piece of video that has ever been recorded is becoming clip art that producers can digitally sculpt into the story they want to tell, according to Eric Haseltine, senior vice president for R&D at Walt Disney Imagineering in Glendale, Calif. With additional video manipulation technologies, previously recorded actors can be made to say and do things they have never actually done or said. “You can have dead actors star again in entirely new movies,” says Haseltine. ""

Cronkite was on to something....

[EVDebs]

25. One of the key words of WPA of '73 is CLEARLY

The muddle of the current situation shows they are ignoring the law for their own convenience, not the citizen's.

[EVDebs]

17. Bush wanted War Powers for use inside the US

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5673062#5673088

and this thread under DU's research thread shows that wasn't intended by congress, per Tom Daschle. The WPA'73, again, proscribes presidential powers by simple common sense. If the War Powers are being abused, due to lying about the causes of the action requested, it is obvious on its face that the law of the land is being broken.

Inside the US, the Reagan-era Rex84, Operations Garden Plot and Cable Splicer dissident arrest programs can then 'kick in'.

[loudsue]

20. K & R: This is VERY important & we must get this out.

He's broken more laws than a bull in a china shop has broken glass.

IMPEACH THE BASTARD!!! AND CALL OFF THIS HORRIBLE WAR!!!

:kick:

[autorank]

21. On "War", the US Constitution says:

Excellent post. It's time to reign in this resolution in light of the facts. I've always had problems with the War Powers Resolution. Looking at the Constitution, the intent is clear.

Section. 8.

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations; (This does give the Congress the authority to "define and punish" "Offenses against the law of Nations;" It's anachronistic since there was no governing body for the law of nations but it's clear Congress can do this.)

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; (This is how they do it, by declaring war. Congress, not the executive.)

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; (Presuming the Founders lacked the double set of books approach, on and off budget funding of the current Congress, we might assume that leaving Iraq off budget is unconstitutional.)

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; (Congress is in charge. What are they doing?)

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Section. 10.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. (This refers to the states but the language "or engage in War, ..." clearly says the criteria for action by the state, without Congress, is only in situation s of "imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." Well, Iraq was not in that category, even though it wouldn't be covered since the authority here is Congress.)

The Congress gave up it's constitutional power for declare war by allowing Iraq to take place. The war defied all reason in the Constitution because it was not an exigent circumstance.

FDR WENT TO CONGRESS TO DECLARE WAR AFTER PEARL HARBOR. ENOUGH SAID.

[hangloose]

24. I agree this is the key to limiting the executive branch and

the current despot who is our illegal president.

[EVDebs]

26. AUMF states same language, violates WPA of 1973 also, see story

The Offer Congress Can't Refuse

By Onnesha Roychoudhuri, AlterNet. Posted January 24, 2006.


The Justice Department's most recent defense of Bush's illegal wiretap program makes clear that there is no room in the president's plans for Congress.


http://www.alternet.org/story/31219/

""The DoJ uses its 42-page "defense" of wiretaps to explain exactly what they think Congress intended by the 2001 AUMF. And the gist is this: When Congress passed this piece of legislation, it handed over their say-so in this country's defense.


The AUMF authorization transforms the struggle against al Qaeda from a zone in which the president and the Congress may have concurrent powers into a situation in which the president's authority is at its maximum because it "includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate."

The DoJ report has an inherently schizophrenic nature. The first half focuses on the supreme knowledge they seem to have about Congress's intent in passing the AUMF -- namely Congress's alleged pre-emptive support of whatever action the president might take. And yet, it spends the other half declaring war on the very branch it claims granted it such power.""