Oxy made me think today, which is more than he seems to do most days

[LittleClarkie]

9/14/2001.

What the hell happened on that day? What is this about Congress voting unanimously to give the president the power to go after terrorists. It sounded almost like a broad IWR, and in fact I wondered if the IWR wasn't superfluous after that vote, the way Oxy was telling it. I didn't stay for his point, but I did hear him talking about that vote.

What the hell did Congress give the president in the heat and emotion of the week of 9/11? Anyone know what vote I'm talking about?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

1. On September 14, 2001 Congress voted

On September 14, Congress voted to give Dubya sweeping powers to answer the attacks with force. One Congresscritter, Barabara Lee (Rep D-CA) voted in opposition to the bill, a move that has earned her death threats and a police bodyguard. Here's why she took such a singular stand.

This resolution does not obligate the President to report back to Congress after 60 days, as was required by Congress during the Gulf War, about the actions our military will take. Additionally, this resolution authorizes an open-ended action and significantly reduces Congress?s authority in this matter. We must bring the perpetrators of this horrific action to justice. But during this period of grief, mourning, and anger, the U.S. Congress has a responsibility to urge the use of restraint so that the violence does not spiral out of control and to consider all of the implications of our actions.

oops link - http://www.boingboing.net/2001/09/19/on_september_14_cong.html

[LittleClarkie]

2. Was that just the House?

Or did the Senate also vote for such a thing?

The way Oxy was reading it, it sounded vague as hell. I think he was trying to defend the Iraq War with it, as if to say that Congress voted him the powers.

But all he did was convince me that the President used a very emotional time for all of us to widen his power.

[Hello_Kitty]

3. I thought it was that we could invade Afghanistan. n/t

[Canuckistanian]

4. Moot point

What the pResident did was against the law, pure and simple. The resolution didn't do squat in regards to wiretaps.

It still required him to go through FISA.

[LittleClarkie]

5. I thought it was a war thing, not a wire tap thing

and it sounded broad as hell. I'm not talking FISA or wiretaps at the moment.

Did Bush think that resolution on 9/14/2001 gave him the right to head into Iraq? Or am I reading too much into a segment I only half heard?

[tritsofme]

7. Yes,

I remember many were making the argument that he didn't need to go back to Congress for the IWR because of the 2001 resolution.

[LittleClarkie]

9. Okay, that's how it struck me too. I wonder if he would have used it

as a fallback position if the Senate would have voted down the IWR. "I didn't need it anyway. Nyah."

[Canuckistanian]

10. Sorry, I misunderstood you

The resolution, as understood by most, gave him the right to force Saddam to comply with certain UN resolutions to disarm.

That said, it was in no way carte blanche to invade the whole country and take it over.

That should have required a Declaration of War, which, of course, was never given by Congress.

[tritsofme]

6. Here is the resolution, it is very sweeping and broad:

It was approved by both the House and the Senate and became Public Law No: 107-40.


Authorization for Use of Military Force (Enrolled Bill)
--S.J.Res.23--

S.J.Res.23

One Hundred Seventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and one

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.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept_11/sjres23_eb.htm

[LittleClarkie]

8. Thank you! This here is the part he read

"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."

It seems to me that this resolution is vague enough to almost be used for the war in Iraq.

But Rush read that whole part I just quoted. I sorta wonder now what his point was. I just assumed it was the Iraq War, not wiretapping.

[fasttense]

13. It doesn't say the President can ignore FISA and the IV Amendment.

But I can see how a megalomaniac would interpret Public Law No: 107-40 as an excuse to do what he damn well wanted to do.

[LunaC]

11. What troubles me most about all of this

is that they had all of this ready and waiting to just slam through Congress while emotions were numb and no one was really thinking clearly. All part of the Grand Plan to twist and distort later as they saw fit.

It is important to shape circumstances - PNAC Statement of Principles

[LittleClarkie]

12. That's how it struck me

whatever Oxy's point was, reading that bit had the opposite effect. I'm sure he didn't intend for me to be reminded that Bush Co. used the worst day in our country's recent history for political gain.

AND ON MY DAMN BIRTHDAY TOO!!!!!

Even at the beginning of the war, though several of y'all were already awake, much of the country was not yet. In fact, Bush Co. was able to use the "dissent is unpatriotic" bullshit to good effect then. What a nasty atmosphere. I'm glad a majority seems to have woken the fuck up. Hopefully they can take No Doze and STAY up.