Did you support the Iraq war because an AUMF authorized it?

[bananas]

A lot of us opposed the Iraq war even though an AUMF authorized it.

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force

Authorization for Use of Military Force may refer to:

• Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 1991 authorizing the Persian Gulf War, also known as Operation Desert Storm: H.R.J. Res. 77
  
  
• Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, also known as "Public Law No: 107–40"
  
  
• Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, also known as "Iraq Resolution", "Iraq War Resolution" and "Public Law No: 107-243"
  

[TheWraith]

1. Unrec for ridiculous goalpost moving. nt

[Hissyspit]

2. Are you asking about the Iraq War (2003) or the Persian Gulf War (1991)?

[bananas]

5. Mainly the 2003 war, but the 1991 war too.

I'm interested in people's thinking.
Some people are claiming it's ok to extrajudicially assassinate US citizens because it's authorized by an AUMF.
But one of the reasons many of us came to DU was to oppose the 2003 war, even though it was authorized by an AUMF.
edit to add: So I'm wondering if that argument will convince anyone.

[MineralMan]

3. The Iraq War is on its way to being history.

Shouldn't we be talking about other actions at this point? The Iraq war was Bush's war. President Obama is ending it.

[bananas]

7. We are talking about other actions.

In other threads, some are claiming that the 2001 terrorism AUMF authorizes extrajudicial assassination of US citizens, and therefore we should be for it.
I don't find that a convincing argument for two reasons: 1) I don't think the 2001 AUMF authorizes that, and 2) I'd be against it even if it did.
So I'm wondering how convincing that argument would be to others,
if the argument didn't hold water in the past, why expect it to convince anyone now?

[Hissyspit]

12. The past is present.

[JackRiddler]

16. Factually untrue and could only come from someone not too worried about foreign corpses.

Obama has done nothing whatsoever to end the US presence in Iraq. US troops are withdrawing from Iraq entirely under the terms and the schedule set in the 2007 Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between the Bush and Maliki governments. Obama has merely followed that agreement, and his administration is now attempting to extend the US military presence beyond the Dec. 31, 2011 deadline for all US forces to vacate Iraq.

Iraq is still suffering from the consequences of the US war of aggression. Hundreds of thousands have died. Millions are wounded. Millions are displaced, domestically and abroad. Whole cities have been ethnically cleansed. The US has armed a government that employs death squads, while opposition militias remain in an uneasy truce at best. The destroyed infrastructure is not yet rebuilt. The land and water remain toxic from the results of war. Iran is acquiring the primary political influence in the country. All of this is the direct result of the 2003 war of aggression launched by US and UK.

The architects of the war and crimes against humanity remain free, and have in fact reaped rewards from their crimes. They stand as an example encouraging the war criminals of the future. In fact, the very same people may one day return to official power in the United States, and commit similar crimes. Why not? It pays.

As long as there is no justice for the war of aggression, the matter cannot rest.

At best what your post tells us is how comfortable it makes you that the suffering that your government caused and your taxes paid for is very far away from your house.

.

[stevenleser]

4. Other: Dishonest framing. Read my article on the subject included herein

I supported the AUMF as an effort to do what it said it was going to do to get the UN Weapons inspectors back into Iraq to verify (or disprove) the existence of weapons in contravention of UN Resolutions.

That was done. Then the Bush administration exceeded the AUMF and this was made clear by the findings of the UN Weapons inspection teams two to three weeks before the invasion.

This is my article on the subject - http://www.opednews.com/articles/Iraq-War--Six-Year-Annive-by-Steven-Leser-090304-145.html

The entire article is relevant to the OP, but the most critical portion that exposes the OP as dishonest framing is:

As of March 7, 2003 the date that will always remain in my mind for the rest of my life, it was shown to be very unlikely that Iraq continued to have any WMD or programs to produce them.


On March 7, 2003, the heads of the two UN Weapons Inspection Teams in Iraq issued reports that showed that no Weapons of Mass Destruction had been found in nearly four months of intensive on site inspections. See http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=414&sID=6 and http://www.un.org/News/dh/iraq/elbaradei-7mar03.pdf and http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=6383&Cr=iraq&Cr1=inspect . Here are some excerpts:


Since the arrival of the first inspectors in Iraq on 27 November 2002,

UNMOVIC has conducted more than 550 inspections covering approximately 350 sites. Of these 44 sites were new sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was in virtually all cases provided promptly. In no case have the inspectors seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance of their impending arrival.

Top United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix told the Security Council today that over the past month Iraq has displayed "active" or even "proactive" cooperation, which has allowed the inspection process to make significant progress, although a number of key disarmament tasks remained to be resolved.
After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq. We intend to continue our inspection activities, making use of all the additional rights granted to us by Resolution 1441 and all additional tools that might be available to us, including reconnaissance platforms and all relevant technologies. We also hope to continue to receive from States actionable information relevant to our mandate. I should note that, in the past three weeks, possibly as a result of ever-increasing pressure by the international community, Iraq has been forthcoming in its co-operation, particularly with regard to the conduct of private interviews and in making available evidence that could contribute to

the resolution of matters of IAEA concern. I do hope that Iraq will continue to expand the scope and accelerate the pace of its co-operation.


Turning to biological and chemical weapons, Mr. Blix said there was a significant Iraqi effort under way to clarify a major source of uncertainty as to the quantities of those arms, which were unilaterally destroyed in 1991. As part of that effort, a disposal site was being now re-excavated, unearthing bombs and fragments, which could allow the determination of the number of bombs destroyed at that site.


Mr. Blix emphasized that no evidence had so far been found of weapons of mass destruction being moved around by truck, of mobile production units for biological weapons or of underground facilities for chemical or biological production or storage, as claimed by intelligence authorities.

[bananas]

6. Thank you for that reply.

Many felt that the invasion of Iraq was an abuse of the 2002 AUMF.
Similarly, many felt that the 1991 AUMF wouldn't justify an invasion of Iraq back then, either.
But now some are claiming that the 2001 AUMF authorizes extrajudicial assassinations of US citizens.

[stevenleser]

9. I don't think you need an AUMF to kill people that say they are at war with us and prove it.

There are international historical references that say that non-nation state groups like the barbary pirates can be at war with nation states.

Al Qaeda and their affiliates is/are such group(s) in modern times. A state of war exists between the US and Al Qaeda and its affiliates. I dont mean a nebulous war on terror, I mean a specific war that exists with that group. People who affirm membership in that group and conduct operations for that group to include recruiting, finance, or actual missions that involve violence are legitimate targets just like they would be in any other war.

[bananas]

13. You could say the same thing about the Iraq war.

If Obama had gotten a judge to sign off on it, it would be a different matter.
Without a judge signing off on it, there is no judicial review, there is no due process.
The problem is unconstitutional extrajudicial assassination of US citizens without due process.
Without judicial review it's just the say-so of whoever happens to be in the White House,
and in the future it will be whoever he delegates that authority to.
There are good reasons those protections against abuse of authority are in the constitution.

[stevenleser]

14. No, you cannot. Iraq did not declare war on us. n/t

[bananas]

15. Iraq attacked us on 911, didn't you know that? It was an act of war.

According to the President, Iraq was complicit in the 911 attacks on the US:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2006/08/21/7016/bush-on-911/

To justify the war, Bush informed Congress on March 19, 2003 that acting against Iraq was consistent with “continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”

[stevenleser]

18. Do you want to argue facts and reality, or policy based on GOP lies? nt

[bananas]

19. Here's the context I'm discussing this in

Obama ordered the unconstitional extrajudicial assassination of American citizens,
but some people are saying it's ok because the 2001 Terrorist AUMF authorized it.
But that's like saying the Iraq war was ok because the 2002 Iraq AUMF authorized it.
So I wanted to see how many people considered that to be a valid line of reasoning.
Hence the poll.

[stevenleser]

23. As you know, I have issues with both contentions that I think are valid issues.

#1 - The Iraq war exceeded the mandate of the 2002 AUMF

#2 - The killings of bin Laden and Al Awlaki do not require an AUMF to be legal

[bananas]

29. We agree on #1

#2 has two different cases - one is a US citizen, who is supposed to get due process in order to protect the rest of us against abuse of authority.

To wiretap your phone, they're supposed to get a warrant from a judge,
but to order your assassination, no judicial review is required.
Does that make sense?

[stevenleser]

32. When you are an agent of a group or nation that is at war with us, you lose that protection

that is my argument in a nutshell. An American citizen that joined the German army in WWII, for instance, is not entitled to due process on the battlefield.

[bananas]

21. Here's an example

of what I'm talking about: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2042024&mesg_id=2042123
I've seen that argument in a number of threads.
Is it a valid argument? I don't think so.

[stevenleser]

24. I think the AUMF is irrelevant its a case where the posters are right that the act was legal but

wrong in what justifies it.

[bananas]

30. Here's a similar example - someone cut-n-pasting from a John Yoo memo

The OP in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2041038&mesg_id=2041038
is just a cut-n-paste of a John Yoo memo, as pointed out here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2041038&mesg_id=2041429

[stevenleser]

33. I know that some people are asserting the AUMF as their rationale, I think it is irrelevant. nt

[bigwillq]

8. I have always been againt the war in Iraq.

It should have ended years ago.

[xchrom]

10. The aumf is an end run around the responsiblity of the house.

It just under lines the whole unitary executive bull shit.

Another thing I wanna see go extinct.

[stevenleser]

11. I half agree and half disagree

If we need to go to war, I think we should declare it. I dont think we look like better people internationally after Iraq or Afghanistan because we used an AUMF instead of declaring war.

On the other hand, congress, through the necessary and proper clause, has the power to pass laws that explains how various powers are to be executed.

I dont think our founding fathers envisioned a congress of over 400 people that takes forever to debate and pass laws and resolutions. And I think it is this size and complexity that leads congress to delegate their powers to various other groups or just let the President handle it.

An example of this is the 1913 law that has the Fed print/coin our money. Article 1 section 8 says that congress has the power to coin money, but they have delegated this to the Fed. Some people say that the use of the necessary and proper clause in this way is unconstitutional, but in the case of coining money, I wonder if in that case those who think this way believe that the congress people themselves should be mixing the metals and stamping the designs and text on the coins? Obviously, that is ridiculous and that being the case, it is probably obvious that the framers intended the congress to delegate some of their powers.

[xchrom]

17. Well I think the folks we're talking about Wouk have less objection to 'the fed'

If the dollar was still pegged to gold.

& was less independent.

Those 2 things drive them to abstraction.
But there is no legitimacy there.

[phleshdef]

20. The problem with Iraq was not the AUMF. The problem with Iraq was the deception on WMDs.

If they had found something that proved Saddam Hussein was really about to start WW3 and/or wipe out all of Israel or was funding Al Qaeda's attacks against the WTC or anything like, then George Bush would be a much different place in history right about now.

[stevenleser]

25. Exactly. See my #4 where I say the same thing and point to an article I wrote on the subject nt

[Unvanguard]

22. Supporting something and thinking it's legal are different things.

The Iraq War was indeed authorized by Congress, but probably was contrary to international law. The assassination of al-Awlaki was both authorized by Congress and in accordance with the international law, which permits the targeting of combatants.

[stevenleser]

26. The Iraq war exceeded the mandate of the AUMF, see the article linked in my #4 nt

[MilesColtrane]

31. "The assassination of al-Awlaki was...authorized by Congress"

Then the question becomes, can Congress create a law which authorizes the President to violate the Constitutional guarantee of due process.

Until extrajudicial killing is overturned by the Supreme Court, the answer to that question is "yes".

[Unvanguard]

34. The relevant text of the Fifth Amendment:

"nor shall any person... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

Note the "any person" language: not "any citizen" but "any person." Do you think that means that all killing the US has done in wartime is unconstitutional, because it has involved intentionally depriving hundreds of thousands of people of life without due process of life?

[MilesColtrane]

35. "Do you think that means that all killing the US has done in wartime is unconstitutional..."

No.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. No. I didn't support the Tonkin Gulf resolution as an excuse for murder either.

Both endowed the president with something akin to "The Divine Right of Kings" in allowing the president the right to decide who lives and dies.

[bemildred]

28. Other: I have never supported the Iraq War. nt.