First the language of the Afghan and Iraq use of force authorizations:
The Afghanistan resolution was a declaration, Congress agreed:
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) 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.
The Iraq resolution was a conditional authorization, Congress laid out criteria to be met and required more information:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
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.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(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 joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.
Article by John Dean on presidential powers:
(FindLaw) -- Republicans are debating among themselves whether President Bush should go to war against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Is a unilateral pre-emptive strike called for to prevent Hussein from getting nuclear weapons? Would such an attack destabilize the region and send oil prices soaring? Do we need -- or want -- allies involved?
Members of Congress, however, have raised the more fundamental question of whether the President can launch a war against Iraq without Congressional approval. According to reports out of Crawford, Texas, President Bush thinks he can. He believes the authorization Congress provided his father in 1991 for Operation Desert Storm is still good.
Snip...
The last great debate over presidential war powers
Truman's decision became the precedent for the unpopular Vietnam War (1961-1975). By 1973, the war-weary Congress challenged the President's war powers, concerned it had lost all power over the unending war in Vietnam, by introducing a sweeping War Powers Resolution
This resolution, designed to "insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President" are involved in decisions to use American military forces, acknowledges that a President can start a war without Congress -- so long as he advises Congress he is doing so. Then, if Congress does not either declare war or otherwise authorize the use of the military within 60 days from the start of the hostilities, the President must terminate such use of the military.
Over the veto of a Watergate-weakened Richard Nixon, the War Powers Resolution was adopted. But presidents have largely ignored it.
The War Powers Resolution, moreover, seemed to have pleased no one. Liberals, for example, criticized the resolution for permitting the president to unilaterally initiate hostilities for 60 days, before Congress can exercise its constitutional powers.
Snip...
It is also clear that under the War Powers Resolution, Bush II can engage in hostilities with Saddam without violating either the letter or sprit of the law for at least 60 days. Or like Clinton, he can simply ignore the law, and proceed. But in the end, the power resides with Congress, not the President, for one power the President cannot take away is the power to approve and withhold funds; it is Congress's alone.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/08/columns/fl.dean.warpowersThis was always about stopping Bush from rushing to war. In addition to the WMD lies, he violated the terms of the Iraq authorization. The resolution didn't give him a green light to go to war! If Bush had a green light to go to war, he would have had no reason to fabricate links to al Qaeda and other evidence after the resolution was signed! He also would have had no need to attach a signing statement to the resolution.
Bush lied in his letter:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html He attached the following signing statement to the IWR:
Statement on Signing the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
October 16th, 2002
Snip...
The debate over this resolution in the Congress was in the finest traditions of American democracy. There is no social or political force greater than a free people united in a common and compelling objective. It is for that reason that I sought an additional resolution of support from the Congress to use force against Iraq, should force become necessary.
While I appreciate receiving that support, my request for it did not, and my signing this resolution does not, constitute any change in the long-standing positions of the executive branch on either the President's constitutional authority to use force to deter, prevent, or respond to aggression or other threats to U.S. interests or on the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution.http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=64386 Senator Kerry spoke out against invading Iraq before the vote and the war:
Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.
The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of making their case to the American people and to the world.
I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/issues/kerr012303spfp.html Kerry Angers GOP in Calling For 'Regime Change' in U.S.
By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 4, 2003; Page A10
Republicans jumped on Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) yesterday in the wake of reports that the Democratic presidential candidate had told a New Hampshire audience that "we need a regime change in the United States."
Snip...
"What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States," Kerry said.
House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) led the chorus of GOP critics who attacked Kerry for challenging Bush during wartime. "Senator Kerry's remark, equating regime change in Iraq with regime change in the United States, is not what we need at this time," Hastert said. "What we need is for this nation to pull together, to support our troops and to support our commander in chief."
Snip...
Kerry spokesman Robert Gibbs responded to GOP criticism by saying: "Clearly, Senator Kerry intended no disrespect or lack of support for our commander in chief during wartime, but the point of this campaign is, obviously, to change the administration of this government. And unlike many of his Republican critics, Senator Kerry has worn the uniform, served his country, seen combat, so he'd just as soon skip their lectures about supporting our troops."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A23490-2003Apr3 KERRY, A SENATOR from Massachusetts, first said Thursday that Rumsfeld should step down, saying he proceeded in Iraq “in an arrogant, inappropriate way that has frankly put America at jeopardy.”
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3087318 Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this.
I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgiAnd the truth is that George Bush has made America weaker by overextending the armed forces of the United States, overstraining, overstraining our reserves, driving away our allies and running
the most arrogant, reckless, inept and ideological foreign policy in the modern history of our country. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0402/03/se.13.htmlIf the president would move in this direction, if he would bring in more help from other countries to provide resources and to train the Iraqis to provide their own security and to develop a reconstruction plan that brings real benefits to the Iraqi people, and take the steps necessary to hold elections next year,
if all of that happened, we could begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer and realistically aim to bring our troops home within the next four years. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A35515-2004Sep20?language=printerKERRY: This president has made, I regret to say, a colossal error of judgment. And judgment is what we look for in the president of the United States of America.
He also promised America that he would go to war as a last resort.
Those words mean something to me, as somebody who has been in combat. Last resort. You've got to be able to look in the eyes of families and say to those parents, I tried to do everything in my power to prevent the loss of your son and daughter. http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040930/NEWS09/40930003I will make a flat statement: The United States of America has no long-term designs on staying in Iraq. KERRY: And our goal in my administration
would be to get all of the troops out of there with a minimal amount you need for training and logistics as we do in some other countries in the world after a war to be able to sustain the peace.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/30/politics/main646640.shtml And
Iraq is not even the center of the focus of the war on terror. The center is Afghanistan, where, incidentally, there were more Americans killed last year than the year before; where the opium production is 75 percent of the world's opium production; where 40 to 60 percent of the economy of Afghanistan is based on opium; where the elections have been postponed three times.
KERRY: The president moved the troops, so he's got 10 times the number of troops in Iraq than he has in Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden is. Does that mean that Saddam Hussein was 10 times more important than Osama bin Laden -- than, excuse me, Saddam Hussein more important than Osama bin Laden? I don't think so.
http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040930/NEWS09/40930003“Getting it right also means drawing up a detailed plan with the clear milestone of transfer of military and police responsibilities to Iraqis after the December elections. The Administration’s plan should take into account both political and security objectives, including Iraqi force structure, and be specifically tied to a defined series of tasks and accomplishments.
This plan must be more than dates and numbers - it must make clear to the Iraqi government that American patience is limited. http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=239696& The president must also announce immediately that the United States will not have a permanent military presence in Iraq. Erasing suspicions that the occupation is indefinite is critical to eroding support for the insurgency.
He should also say that the United States will insist that the Iraqis establish a truly inclusive political process and meet the deadlines for finishing the Constitution and holding elections in December. We're doing our part: our huge military presence stands between the Iraqi people and chaos, and our special forces protect Iraqi leaders.
The Iraqis must now do theirs.http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/headlines/pdf/kerry_6_28_05_New_York_times.pdf Congress Approves Kerry Legislation Urging Summit of Iraq and Its Neighbors to End Civil War and Build Political Solution We began an important fight because together we know the time has come for a Congress that shares responsibility for getting us into Iraq to take responsibility for helping to get us out. We know it is not enough to argue with details or logistics, with the manner of the conflict’s execution or the failures of competence, as great as they are. It is essential to fight to set a date to withdraw American forces.
That’s why this June with Russ Feingold, we fought for an up or down vote on the Kerry-Feingold amendment to withdraw US combat forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007. We made it clear that our soldiers have done their job. It is time for Iraqis to do their job – it’s time for Iraqis to stand up for Iraq. It’s time for Iraqis to want democracy for themselves as much as we want it for them.
Click here to read our plan.
Hundreds of thousands of you in the johnkerry.com community have shown your support for our plan for Iraq. You signed our petition and urged your Senators to stand with us. With your help, we stood up to the Bush Administration’s aimless and failed course in Iraq.
On June 22, 2006 the Senate voted on the Kerry-Feingold amendment. Thirteen courageous Senators stood with us, and we want to thank them for their leadership:
Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), co-sponsor
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL)
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Sen. James Jeffords (I-VT)
Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), co-sponsor
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR)
The fight is not over until we have changed course in Iraq. November 7th will be a day of reckoning for the administration’s broken course in Iraq.
As Sen. Feingold said: “what we did in Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with self-defense."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/28/ap/politics/mainD8KE3UM00.shtml This illegal war is Bush's doing, and he and his administration should be held accountable.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
