This Is Why the Iraq Authorization Has Become ILLEGAL

[Paulie]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=624500&postcount=61

I think everyone needs to read this, that's why I'm cross-posting. A lot of people might not see it. If there's a problem with that, please merge the post I linked to into THIS thread.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 is the supposed justification for the Iraq Resolution. I pointed out a few violations of the WPR by President Bush.

 

[Gunny]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=624500&postcount=61

I think everyone needs to read this, that's why I'm cross-posting. A lot of people might not see it. If there's a problem with that, please merge the post I linked to into THIS thread.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 is the supposed justification for the Iraq Resolution. I pointed out a few violations of the WPR by President Bush.

I would suggest you post that portion of the original post with your argument rather than a link.

I disagree with the premise of your argument based on the simple fact that there is no war to declare since the "war" being fought is against an ideal, not a tangible, defined conventional enemy.

While I can go along with defining the goals, setting an arbitrary schedule might sound good on paper, but in actual practice it is unrealistic and telegraphing a start and end time to your enemy an unsound tactic.

The War Powers Act applies to conventional war. Iraq is anything but.

 

[Paulie]

I would suggest you post that portion of the original post with your argument rather than a link.

I disagree with the premise of your argument based on the simple fact that there is no war to declare since the "war" being fought is against an ideal, not a tangible, defined conventional enemy.

While I can go along with defining the goals, setting an arbitrary schedule might sound good on paper, but in actual practice it is unrealistic and telegraphing a start and end time to your enemy an unsound tactic. that doesn't matter though. The legislation that is used as legal justification REQUIRES it.
The War Powers Act applies to conventional war. Iraq is anything but.

Horrible argument Gunny. The Iraq resolution was about invading a COUNTRY, and removing it's REGIME and installing a new one. That's a standard war, which was authorized BASED on the WPR of 1973. It says so right in the wording of the Iraq authorization.

 

[Gunny]

Horrible argument Gunny. The Iraq resolution was about invading a COUNTRY, and removing it's REGIME and installing a new one. That's a standard war, which was authorized BASED on the WPR of 1973. It says so right in the wording of the Iraq authorization.

Your argument is the horrible one. You're grasping for straws in your desperation, trying to play the technicality game. Technically, we have not been involved in a declared conventional war since WWII. So I guess every military action since has been illegal by your definition?

Then there's the fact that a state of hostility existed between the US and Iraq since 1991, and only a ceasefire that Saddam repeatedly violated the terms of halted the US military in place. By the terms of that ceasefire agreement, the US had every right to resume hostilities the very second Saddam violated it.

Then there's the fact that the President can deploy the US military without requiring consent from Congress for a LOT longer than the conventional military phase of ousting Saddam and his regime took.

From that point to this, the US has NOT been involved in a conventional war in Iraq.

 

[Paulie]

Your argument is the horrible one. You're grasping for straws in your desperation, trying to play the technicality game. Technically, we have not been involved in a declared conventional war since WWII. So I guess every military action since has been illegal by your definition?

The absence of a declaration requires an authorization, that must be justified LEGALLY by the use of the WPR of '73. The Iraq authorization was justified specifically by that legislation. The WPR of 73 has been violated. That's my argument, and there's really nothing that counters it, because the violation is CLEAR and PRESENT. I'm not arguing any other conflict that has already come and gone. I'm arguing the one that exists NOW.

Then there's the fact that a state of hostility existed between the US and Iraq since 1991, and only a ceasefire that Saddam repeatedly violated the terms of halted the US military in place. By the terms of that ceasefire agreement, the US had every right to resume hostilities the very second Saddam violated it.

This is listed as partial reason for the invasion, but the invasion itself is still authorized CONSTITUTIONALLY by the WPR of '73. The lead-up has nothing to do with the legal constitutional justification, and the fact that it has been violated.

Then there's the fact that the President can deploy the US military without requiring consent from Congress for a LOT longer than the conventional military phase of ousting Saddam and his regime took.

This is irrelevant to my argument. I'm merely arguing that the legal justification for the invasion was violated. Opinions on whether or not we should follow the LAWS, especially when it involves a war of this magnitude, are irrelevant also. The law is the law. PERIOD.

From that point to this, the US has NOT been involved in a conventional war in Iraq.

How does the lead-up to the Iraq war really differ from any other way a war might be led-up to? There were specific reasons given for why the president wanted to go to war. That's how you make your case. It's still a sovereign nation that we invaded. That is a conventional war. Just because it's labelled as part of the larger GWOT, doesn't mean that the specific invasion of Iraq was not a conventional one. Was Vietnam not conventional either? It was a sovereign nation that we invaded, just like Iraq. What's the difference? Because they weren't muslim? Too many double standards are being made just because it happens to be a different religion that we are at war with.

An invasion of a country, and the subsequent war within it, is conventional. Regardless, conventional or not in ANY case, whether now, or in the future, there are still LAWS that need to be followed.

You can't create a specific legislation that gives authority to the president to launch a war without a declaration, use THAT as the legal justification for a war, and then circumvent and violate that very piece of legislation you used as justification to begin with.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Your argument is the horrible one. You're grasping for straws in your desperation, trying to play the technicality game. Technically, we have not been involved in a declared conventional war since WWII. So I guess every military action since has been illegal by your definition?

Then there's the fact that a state of hostility existed between the US and Iraq since 1991, and only a ceasefire that Saddam repeatedly violated the terms of halted the US military in place. By the terms of that ceasefire agreement, the US had every right to resume hostilities the very second Saddam violated it.

Then there's the fact that the President can deploy the US military without requiring consent from Congress for a LOT longer than the conventional military phase of ousting Saddam and his regime took.

From that point to this, the US has NOT been involved in a conventional war in Iraq.

"Then there's the fact that a state of hostility existed between the US and Iraq since 1991, and only a ceasefire that Saddam repeatedly violated the terms of halted the US military in place. By the terms of that ceasefire agreement, the US had every right to resume hostilities the very second Saddam violated it."

False.

Bush voters always forget that the 1991 was a UN-sanctioned war. It was a UN war.

The ceasefire treaty was NOT between the U.S. and Iraq. It was between the UN and Iraq. Ergo, only the UN, through the Security Council had the legal right to resume hostilities. Its says to RIGHT IN the ceasefire resolution of 1991. There's nothing in it that gives the United States unilateral power to determine if Iraq needs to be dealt with by invading them.

 

[Gunny]

"Then there's the fact that a state of hostility existed between the US and Iraq since 1991, and only a ceasefire that Saddam repeatedly violated the terms of halted the US military in place. By the terms of that ceasefire agreement, the US had every right to resume hostilities the very second Saddam violated it."

False.

Bush voters always forget that the 1991 was a UN-sanctioned war. It was a UN war.

The ceasefire treaty was NOT between the U.S. and Iraq. It was between the UN and Iraq. Ergo, only the UN, through the Security Council had the legal right to resume hostilities. Its says to RIGHT IN the ceasefire resolution of 1991. There's nothing in it that gives the United States unilateral power to determine if Iraq needs to be dealt with by invading them.

Do your homework. You are the one who is incorrect. The US specifically reserved the right to resume hostilities, with or without UN approval.

Whether or not you agree with it is irrelevant to the fact that it was done.

 

[Gunny]

The absence of a declaration requires an authorization, that must be justified LEGALLY by the use of the WPR of '73. The Iraq authorization was justified specifically by that legislation. The WPR of 73 has been violated. That's my argument, and there's really nothing that counters it, because the violation is CLEAR and PRESENT. I'm not arguing any other conflict that has already come and gone. I'm arguing the one that exists NOW.


This is listed as partial reason for the invasion, but the invasion itself is still authorized CONSTITUTIONALLY by the WPR of '73. The lead-up has nothing to do with the legal constitutional justification, and the fact that it has been violated.



This is irrelevant to my argument. I'm merely arguing that the legal justification for the invasion was violated. Opinions on whether or not we should follow the LAWS, especially when it involves a war of this magnitude, are irrelevant also. The law is the law. PERIOD.



How does the lead-up to the Iraq war really differ from any other way a war might be led-up to? There were specific reasons given for why the president wanted to go to war. That's how you make your case. It's still a sovereign nation that we invaded. That is a conventional war. Just because it's labelled as part of the larger GWOT, doesn't mean that the specific invasion of Iraq was not a conventional one. Was Vietnam not conventional either? It was a sovereign nation that we invaded, just like Iraq. What's the difference? Because they weren't muslim? Too many double standards are being made just because it happens to be a different religion that we are at war with.

An invasion of a country, and the subsequent war within it, is conventional. Regardless, conventional or not in ANY case, whether now, or in the future, there are still LAWS that need to be followed.

You can't create a specific legislation that gives authority to the president to launch a war without a declaration, use THAT as the legal justification for a war, and then circumvent and violate that very piece of legislation you used as justification to begin with.

I have not stated that the actual invasion was not conventional.. However, the subsequent "war" within it is NOT a conventional war.

Short answer: Congress authorized Bush to use whatever means to necessary and he did. If your argument held real legal merit, it would already have been used to shut Bush down as soon as the current Congress went into session.

 

[Paulie]

I have not stated that the actual invasion was not conventional.. However, the subsequent "war" within it is NOT a conventional war.

Right. A people uprising against a foreign invader is not conventional. Who has ever heard of such a thing as the people of an invaded nation fighting back. The fact that there happens to be 2 sects of islam now warring with each other because of the instablity that was caused by our invasion doesn't change anything. It's still a WAR. The basic premise of a war is 2 or more opponents fighting each other, is it not?

Short answer: Congress authorized Bush to use whatever means to necessary and he did. If your argument held real legal merit, it would already have been used to shut Bush down as soon as the current Congress went into session.

Yeah, we all know how much Congress has been doing their job lately, huh?

I just want you to explain to me how it could be legal for Bush to continue on with this while he violates the very piece of legislation his administration listed as their legal justification for getting an authorization, in lieu of a congressional declaration. I'm interested in hearing what you think about him violating it, especially considering the War Powers Act states that a violation of it makes any authorization given on its behalf effectively null and void.

 

[shepherdboy]

Do your homework. You are the one who is incorrect. The US specifically reserved the right to resume hostilities, with or without UN approval.

Whether or not you agree with it is irrelevant to the fact that it was done.

Well said and explained Gunny. Your replies say it all.