Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 10:50, 26 August 2007 editNescio (talk \| contribs)11,956 edits →Supremacy Clause: tag← Previous edit		Revision as of 02:28, 27 August 2007 edit undoIpankonin (talk \| contribs)4,493 edits →Weapons of Mass Destruction and Al-Qaeda: WP:3O Next edit →
Line 43:		Line 43:
	* Documents show Administration claims were exaggerated, by ], ] ]		* Documents show Administration claims were exaggerated, by ], ] ]
	* By Dave Zweifel, The Capital Times		* By Dave Zweifel, The Capital Times
	* ]</ref> The Bush administration asserted that two small trailers which had been found in Iraq were "weapons factories," despite the fact that U.S. intelligence officials possessed evidence to the contrary at that time.<ref> By Joby Warrick, The Washington Post, ] ]</ref> A report by the Defense Department in 2007 conclusively stated the claimed working relationship with Al Qaeda did not exist, nor could any such link reasonably be suggested based on the then available evidence.<ref> By R. Jeffrey Smith, Washington Post, April 6, 2007</ref> Although President Bush since the invasion of Iraq explicitly stated it was not involved in 9-11, and according to subsequent reports<ref> By ], ], November 22, 2005</ref> any alleged contacts to al-Qaeda were in areas outside of Saddam Hussein's control, ], The ], Jim Rutenberg, Mark Mazzetti and Richard A. Oppel Jr. for the ], ] for the Washington Post, the ], and ] contend that members of the administration repeatedly over the years made suggestive statements in which the implied message was there was a link between Saddam Hussein and the attacks.<ref>Iraq allegedly involved in 9-11		* ]</ref> The Bush administration asserted that two small trailers which had been found in Iraq were "weapons factories," despite the fact that U.S. intelligence officials possessed evidence to the contrary at that time.<ref> By Joby Warrick, The Washington Post, ] ]</ref> A report by the Defense Department in 2007 conclusively stated the claimed working relationship with Al Qaeda did not exist, nor could any such link reasonably be suggested based on the then available evidence.<ref> By R. Jeffrey Smith, Washington Post, April 6, 2007</ref>
	* By Linda Feldmann, The ], March 14, 2003
	* ], March 22, 2006
	* BBC News, September 18, 2003
	* by the ], October 29, 2003
	* by Michael R. Gordon and Jim Rutenberg, ], July 13, 2007
	*By ], Washington Post, June 17, 2004
	* By JIM RUTENBERG AND MARK MAZZETTI; RICHARD A. OPPEL JR. CONTRIBUTED REPORTING FROM BAGHDAD, The New York Times, July 25, 2007</ref> In the words of the Christian Science Monitor:
	<blockquote>Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks.</blockquote>
	And according to the BBC:
	<blockquote>Mr Bush has never directly accused the former Iraqi leader of having a hand in the attacks on New York and Washington, but he has repeatedly associated the two in keynote addresses delivered since 11 September. Senior members of his administration have similarly conflated the two.</blockquote>

	The Bush administration initially suggested the discrepancy between the allegations and the subsequent findings was due to failure by the intelligence community. However, it became apparent that, prior to the invasion, these arguments had already been widely disputed,<ref name="Ray_McGovern"> ], ] ]</ref> which had purportedly been reported to the U.S. administration. An in-depth investigation into the nature of these discrepancies by the ] was considered to have been frustrated.<ref> editorial, ''The ]'', ] ]</ref>		The Bush administration initially suggested the discrepancy between the allegations and the subsequent findings was due to failure by the intelligence community. However, it became apparent that, prior to the invasion, these arguments had already been widely disputed,<ref name="Ray_McGovern"> ], ] ]</ref> which had purportedly been reported to the U.S. administration. An in-depth investigation into the nature of these discrepancies by the ] was considered to have been frustrated.<ref> editorial, ''The ]'', ] ]</ref>

Revision as of 02:28, 27 August 2007

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

"Iraq Resolution" and "Iraq War Resolution" are popular names for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, a law passed by the United States Congress in October 2002, authorizing what was soon to become the Iraq War.

The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:

Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people"
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War. -
Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq."
Iraq's "continu to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

The Resolution required President Bush's diplomatic efforts at the UN Security Council to "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." It authorized the United States to use military force 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."

Passage

The authorization was sought by President George W. Bush. Introduced as H.J.Res. 114 (Public Law 107–243), it passed the House on October 10, 2002 by a vote of 296-133, and the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23. It was signed into law by President Bush on October 16, 2002.

Criticism

Weapons of Mass Destruction and Al-Qaeda

Further information: Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, and Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq

The principal arguments used to justify the invasion of Iraq — such as the possession of weapons of mass destruction and active links to al Qaeda — have been found to be incorrect according to all official reports. The Bush administration asserted that two small trailers which had been found in Iraq were "weapons factories," despite the fact that U.S. intelligence officials possessed evidence to the contrary at that time. A report by the Defense Department in 2007 conclusively stated the claimed working relationship with Al Qaeda did not exist, nor could any such link reasonably be suggested based on the then available evidence. The Bush administration initially suggested the discrepancy between the allegations and the subsequent findings was due to failure by the intelligence community. However, it became apparent that, prior to the invasion, these arguments had already been widely disputed, which had purportedly been reported to the U.S. administration. An in-depth investigation into the nature of these discrepancies by the Senate Intelligence Committee was considered to have been frustrated.

The assertion such weapons posed a threat towards the U.S. was not supported by the available evidence at the time according to subsequent reports. Weapon inspectors were given access to the alleged weapon factories, despite statements to the contrary by the Bush administration. Continuing these inspections was made impossible by the U.S. led invasion of Iraq which forced the U.N. inspectors out while ignoring their requests for more time.

Skeptics argue that the administration knowingly distorted intelligence reports or ignored contrary information in constructing their case for the war. The Downing Street memo and the Bush-Blair memo are used to substantiate that allegation. Congressional Democrats sponsored both a request for documents and a resolution of inquiry.

Legallity

U.N. Charter

Further information: Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and UN Charter

The UN Charter prohibits any war unless it is out of self-defense or when it is sanctioned by the UN security council. If these requirements are not met international law describes it a war of aggression. John Conyers, Robert Parry and Marjorie Cohn– professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, executive vice president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the U.S. representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists – assert that the Iraq war was not a war in self-defense but a war of aggression contrary to the U.N. Charter (a crime against peace) and therefore a war crime. UN members commented it is not up to one member state to interpret and enforce UN resolutions for the entire council. Kofi Annan too has said the war in Iraq is an "illegal act that contravened the UN charter."

Supremacy Clause

Further information: Supremacy Clause

Some allege that if the invasion of Iraq was a violation of the U.N. Charter, it also was a violation of US law. According to the Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, Senate-ratified treaties such as the U.N. Charter are "the supreme Law of the Land." Obligations under international law that the US has agreed to, such as the prohibition of a war of aggression, Geneva Conventions, prohibition of genocide, UN Convention Against Torture, and others under ratified treaties, are legally binding under US law. However, a treaty is also affected by later laws according to the Supreme Court:

"n Act of Congress... is on a full parity with a treaty, and that when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null." Reid v. Covert 354 U.S. 1 (1957)

"By the constitution, a treaty is placed on the same footing, and made of like obligation, with an act of legislation... if the two are inconsistent, the one last in date will control the other" Whitney v. Robertson 124 U.S. 190 (1888)

The US signed the UN Charter in 1945, and the Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq was passed many years later in 2002.

Applicability of international law

These rulings would suggest the US could legally ignore its aforementioned obligations under international law. Whether this view is shared by the international community is doubtful according to two articles on FindLaw. Michael Dorf discusses Germany v. United States of America, in which the International Court of Justice ruled that, because of a violation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, two German suspects could not be executed before the ICJ ruled on the matter. Ignoring a direct order prohibiting it the US executed them. In response:

the ICJ found that the United States — including the Executive branch, the United States Supreme Court, and the government of Arizona — had acted in violation of its treaty obligation by failing to comply with the ICJ order.

A similar case Medellin v. Dretke, discussed by Noah Leavitt, resulted in an ICJ ruling

in favor of Medellin on his Vienna Convention Claim.

In reaction to this verdict the US withdrew fom the Optional Protocol from the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, according to Leavitt

to avoid compliance with future ICJ judgments.<....> The U.S. seems to want to confine Medellin to its parties, and ensure that any other foreign nationals who have not yet received ICJ judgments in their favor can be executed whether or not their Vienna Convention rights were honored.

In addition, an article in the Cornell Law Review discussing the Bush administration's rationale that the Geneva Conventions do not apply in the War on Terror concluded that the President does not have the authority to violate international treaty obligations.

Doe v. Bush

The Iraq Resolution was challenged in court by "a coalition of US soldiers, parents of US soldiers, and Members of Congress" prior to the invasion to stop it from happening. They claimed that an invasion of Iraq would be illegal. Judge Lynch wrote of their argument, "They base this argument on two theories. They argue that Congress and the President are in collision -- that the President is about to act in violation of the October Resolution. They also argue that Congress and the President are in collusion -- that Congress has handed over to the President its exclusive power to declare war." The case was first dismissed on February 24th, 2003 by US District Court Judge Joseph Tauro. It was appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. On March 13th, a three-judge panel affirmed the decision to dismiss the complaint. Judge Lynch wrote:

An extreme case might arise, for example, if Congress gave absolute discretion to the President to start a war at his or her will... Plaintiffs' objection to the October Resolution does not, of course, involve any such claim. Nor does it involve a situation where the President acts without any apparent congressional authorization, or against congressional opposition... To the contrary, Congress has been deeply involved in significant debate, activity, and authorization connected to our relations with Iraq for over a decade, under three different presidents of both major political parties, and during periods when each party has controlled Congress.

Lynch concluded that the Judiciary could not intervene, because there was not a fully developed conflict between the President and Congress at that time. On March 17th, the plaintiffs filed for a rehearing. Their petition was denied the next day.