posted
Not trying to start a flamewar, so please remain calm, ok? What I'd like to know is this: What kind of formal authority did Bush have to send troops into Iraq? I feel reasonably convinced it was not a formal declaration of war by Congress, but presumably he cannot simply order vast invasions purely on his own authority. So what was the procedure?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The President doesn't need a formal declaration of war to move troops or even order large scale hostile actions, such as invading another country. We haven't issued a formal declaration since World War II.
Congress passed a resolution authorizing President Bush to use the military as he saw fit to defend the U.S. from the threat posed by Iraq and to enforce the U.N. mandates put on them.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you. It does seem to me that the difference between this:
quote:The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
and a formal declaration of war is just a form of words.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The big issue is whether Congress delegated too much of its discretion to the President. From a constitutional perspective, Congress cannot just say "The President can go to war whenever he feels like it for the next four years." The standard is whether Congress articulates an "intelligible principle" by which the President (or executive agency) is to exercise its discretion. There's a significant line of case law not directly related to war-making power.
If Congress had issued an actual declaration of war, it would have evaluated the preconditions itself. Instead, it had the President do it. This is more than just words, but it well within the strictures established since the regulatory state came into being.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't claim to be an expert in any regard on the subject, but these are some of my interpretations and guesses. If someone refutes one of my points and warrants why, please prefer their analysis. NOTE: I'm trying my hardest to keep this apolitical, cut me some slack if my opinion comes in too much.
Yes, there was the Authorization for the Use of Military Force in 2002 against Iraq, this is technically what allowed the President to go into Iraq. Now, according to the law, it shouldn't be war according the the War Powers Act of 1973. Which basically states that the President can send forces to a country that Congress deems necessary. This is just an authorization for the use of force, not a war. But as you can see, much of the difference between the two is merely semantic. I'm sure there are some differences in how the two are preformed, though, including regulations. I think that what an approval for the use of military force essentially boils down to is a 'go fight win, but we still have control of the leash.' Or at least, it's supposed to.
There was another AUMF passed in 2002 that I think could have given President Bush enough justification at the time to wage war in Iraq as well. That being the AUMF in regards to 9/11 which stated that the President could use any means that are appropriate to find those who supported, conducted, funded or aided the attack in 9/11. So regardless of your position on the war in Iraq, the President probably could have made the case that Saddam's Sunni Regime provided material support to Al Qaeda, a Sunni organization to bring harm against the US. So I think that the President didn't even need the AUMF against Iraq to send troops, he could have made the argument that he was and is already authorized.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My understanding is that the premise the invasion of Iraq was necessary to defend the security of the United States was what allowed National Guardsmen to be sent to Iraq.
And that there have, in fact, been various lawsuits and state-level legislations filed on the premise that the national security of the United States was not in fact in jeapordy and that the deployment of the National Guard to Iraq should therefore cease...
I don't know that anything has come of such actions.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it does seem to me that you lot elect a President precisely so he can make judgement calls like that, and that it's not the job of the courts to second-guess him. (And if he makes a mistake, the proper recourse is to bounce the bum in the next election.) Congress, maybe, that's why they have the war-declaring power, but not the courts. So, IANAL, but it seems to me that an honest court should just say "no jurisdiction" and refuse the suit. Maybe Dag would like to analyse better.
About Iraq aiding the attack on the Twin Towers: My impression is that Bush did make that case to defend the war after it became clear that no WMD were going to be found. But it also seems to me that at the time of the initial debate, Bush and his Cabinet genuinely believed in the existence of WMD, and perhaps did not believe in aid to Al-Quaeda (I'm less sure about that), and so they got their authorisation on the casus belli they actually believed in. Which is fair enough; the evidence for WMD was pretty thin, consisting basically of Saddam running a bluff to gain respect in the 'hood; but the evidence for aid to Al-Quaeda is and always was non-existent.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
