Should Congress Have Issued An Official Declaration of War?

[jillian]

RGS,

That isn't the question. The question is should Congress have made an official Declaration of War? Not should Congress have authorized the President to use whatever means necessary.

That "authroization" had allowed a few Congresscritters to backpeddle and claim they didn't mean that Bush necessarily "had to" use force."

And correct me if I am wrong ... I really don't recall ... was not that authorization given in regard to pursuing the Taliban in Afhganistan? Or was it a separate authorization for Iraq?

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq





Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

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 by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

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;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President 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 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate 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, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) 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.

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 there after 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 resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries 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 terrorists 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 resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) 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 2 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 Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) 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 Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of 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 Public Law 102-1.

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

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Nevermind. I found it.

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

Still, Congress should not give up it's power to the Executive Branch. It clearly did so. If we are going to conduct a war -- the President should go to Congress and ask for a Declaration of War, not a blanket, open-ended statement, and Congress should either declare war or say no.

Circumventing the Constitution has become SOP in DC, and it needs to stop.

It was not circumvented. Congress acted and ALLOWED the war. That is all that is required.

But lets talk about all the real circumventions that Larkinn does not care one whit about?

 

[Gunny]

It was not circumvented. Congress acted and ALLOWED the war. That is all that is required.

But lets talk about all the real circumventions that Larkinn does not care one whit about?

Let's don't derail this thread. If you want to discuss the division of powers in general and who is and is not circumventing what, I suggest a new thread. It isn't like Larkinn is bashful and has to have his arm twisted to play.

As it pertains to this specific instance, I don't like "playing at war," nor do I like elected officials wording documents passing off respnsibility and leaving themselves an out.

If Congress declares war, there is no debate here. No questions. No accusations the war is illegal and/or unjustified. Congress lawfully authorizes war and lists its justification in the declaration. Both Congress and the President left themselves open for the potshots that have been taken at them for doing it this way.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Let's don't derail this thread. If you want to discuss the division of powers in general and who is and is not circumventing what, I suggest a new thread. It isn't like Larkinn is bashful and has to have his arm twisted to play.

As it pertains to this specific instance, I don't like "playing at war," nor do I like elected officials wording documents passing off respnsibility and leaving themselves an out.

If Congress declares war, there is no debate here. No questions. No accusations the war is illegal and/or unjustified. Congress lawfully authorizes war and lists its justification in the declaration. Both Congress and the President left themselves open for the potshots that have been taken at them for doing it this way.

And I disagree, we HAVE a document that clearly spells out Congress agreed AND why they agreed. Same is if they had changed the title to " a Declaration of War". Further we have every year the Congress agreeing to fund said war. Thus the claim it is unconstitutional or illegal fails completely.

Using your logic, once Congress changed the new Congress could claim " we did not vote for war" and we would have the same problem. Even if the article allowing war was titled " A Declaration of War". We would still have Maineman and buddies telling us how some people voted against it.

 

[Gunny]

And I disagree, we HAVE a document that clearly spells out Congress agreed AND why they agreed. Same is if they had changed the title to " a Declaration of War". Further we have every year the Congress agreeing to fund said war. Thus the claim it is unconstitutional or illegal fails completely.

Using your logic, once Congress changed the new Congress could claim " we did not vote for war" and we would have the same problem. Even if the article allowing war was titled " A Declaration of War". We would still have Maineman and buddies telling us how some people voted against it.

Incorrect. A declaration of war is a declaration war. Anything else is something else.

I don't even know WHERE you get the second paragraph from. Using my logic, we are calling a war what it is, and abiding by the Law of the Land -- the US Constitution -- in Congress declaring war.

There is NOTHING in anything I stated that says once a new Congress is seated that all actions taken by previous Congress's are null and void.

In fact, I am saying just the opposite. A declaration of war by Congress leaves NO doubt in anyone's mind, and while there may be those who disagree with the war itself, they have NO grounds to question it's legality insofar as the US Constituion is concerned.

Using YOUR logic, Congress can send the President a blank piece of paper titled "Budget for FY09" and authorize him to fill in the blanks as he pleases.

That is abdicating responsibility, period.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Incorrect. A declaration of war is a declaration war. Anything else is something else.

I don't even know WHERE you get the second paragraph from. Using my logic, we are calling a war what it is, and abiding by the Law of the Land -- the US Constitution -- in Congress declaring war.

There is NOTHING in anything I stated that says once a new Congress is seated that all actions taken by previous Congress's are null and void.

In fact, I am saying just the opposite. A declaration of war by Congress leaves NO doubt in anyone's mind, and while there may be those who disagree with the war itself, they have NO grounds to question it's legality insofar as the US Constituion is concerned.

Using YOUR logic, Congress can send the President a blank piece of paper titled "Budget for FY09" and authorize him to fill in the blanks as he pleases.

That is abdicating responsibility, period.

Wrong again, However if the President filled out a budget request and had a proper member of each house get it into bill form AND the Congress agreed with it, then that WOULD IN FACT be how our Government works.

Congress authorized the use of force, they authorized in clear and verifiable documents that they approved of the war in Iraq and they have continued to approve each year since by PAYING for it. That is exactly how our Government works.

Remind me? Did Thomas Jefferson declare war on the Barbary Pirates? Did any President ever get a declaration of war against any Indian tribe or nation? When we fought the Chinese in the early 1900's did we have a declaration of war? After the Spanish American war did we have a declaration of War in the Philippines? During the 20's and 30's did we declare war on any of the Central American and Caribean nations we fought?

History is FULL of examples of Congress NOT declaring war, all through our history. Yet they authorized each endeavor and paid for them.

 

[Paulie]

Congress authorized the use of force, they authorized in clear and verifiable documents that they approved of the war in Iraq and they have continued to approve each year since by PAYING for it. That is exactly how our Government works.

Congress doesn't "approve" wars. They DECLARE them. Why are you having trouble understanding the difference?

When you successfully lobby congress, and the states, and get an amendment to the constitution that changes the wording to "shall have the power to approve war", you let me know.

Until then, Congress declares war. Anything else should be considered bullshit.

 

[Gunny]

Wrong again, However if the President filled out a budget request and had a proper member of each house get it into bill form AND the Congress agreed with it, then that WOULD IN FACT be how our Government works.

Congress authorized the use of force, they authorized in clear and verifiable documents that they approved of the war in Iraq and they have continued to approve each year since by PAYING for it. That is exactly how our Government works.

Remind me? Did Thomas Jefferson declare war on the Barbary Pirates? Did any President ever get a declaration of war against any Indian tribe or nation? When we fought the Chinese in the early 1900's did we have a declaration of war? After the Spanish American war did we have a declaration of War in the Philippines? During the 20's and 30's did we declare war on any of the Central American and Caribean nations we fought?

History is FULL of examples of Congress NOT declaring war, all through our history. Yet they authorized each endeavor and paid for them.

You're calling me incorrect, but it is YOU who is talking around the actual topic. The question is: Should Congress have issued a declaration of War?"

Did we deploy the US military to invade a sovereign nation and completely remove its ruling infrastructure? And then occupy that nation?

Yes, we did.

Is that war?

Yes, it is.

I have not stated that Congress did not authoize use of force nor pay for it. I stated what I thought about Congress doing so.

By definition, we are at war, and if we are at war then war needs to be declared.

Your examples are weak. The only action in which most of the US military was deployed that you name -- therefore was not a limited action handled by limited military involvement -- is the Spanish American War, and since the Phillippines were in fact a colony of Spain, no separate declaration of war was required.

But DO try to differentiate that it is my opinion there should be a declaration of war, and I have given my reasons why above. I have not stated there HAS TO BE a declaration of war. Hell, EVERY jarhead knows the President can deploy the Marine Corps for 180 days as he sees fit and doesn't evne need to ask Congress.

That isn't the point here.