Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 3063

     There has been much debate as to whether or not the war in Iraq is justified. It is time to step beyond partisan politics and preconceived notions as to the intentions of the Bush administration and analyze the law itself, and determine based on that, and the stated reasons for war, whether or not the war and its resulting occupation are not only justified, but legal.

     Oddly enough, regardless of any leftist rhetoric about a ‘quagmire,’ to properly understand the law that deals with these types of military actions, one must look back to Vietnam and the process by which Lyndon Baines Johnson escalated the conflict in Vietnam and Americanized it into the Vietnam War.

     In 1964, the North Vietnamese Army allegedly attacked the USS Maddox off the coast of Vietnam. The validity of this claim and the reality of the attack have been called into question for years. After the ‘incident’ which may, or may not have actually occurred, Congress passed a Joint Resolution known as the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. It stated, “[t]hat the Congress approves and supports the determination of the President, as Commander in Chief, to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression.” The Resolution went on to conclude, “[t]his resolution shall expire when the President shall determine that the peace and security of the area is reasonably assured by international conditions created by action of the United Nations or otherwise, except that it may be terminated earlier by concurrent resolution of the Congress.”

     The resulting war was fought in a highly secretive manner. Johnson was known to approve troop deployments in the hundreds of thousands while only reporting to the American people that a mere fraction of that number had actually been deployed.

     As the facts of the situation came to the forefront, the Congress, in part to prevent a repeat, passed The War Powers Act in 1973. The Act stated that the President must in every possible instance consult with Congress before introducing US forces into hostile situations. It went on to state, “in the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or … into the territory … of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat … The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and the use of United States Armed Forces abroad.”

     Furthermore, it states, “Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted … the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted, unless the Congress has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of the United States Armed Forces.”

     Such a specific authorization was made for the use of United States Armed Forces in Iraq. On October 10, 2002 the Congress passed the Joint Resolution Authorizing Use of Force Against Iraq. It was highly specific as to what constituted reason for force.

     The use of force in Iraq was authorized under a specific set of conditions. Force may be used to “defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.” It has since been shown that there was no threat posed by the disarmed Iraq.

     Force may be used to “enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.” The disarmed Iraq did allow, under the threat of military force, the United Nations to disarm the state. Whether or not Iraq properly permitted the UNSC to verify the disarmament is questionable.

     Force may also be used “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.” There was no link.

     And so there you have it: the only three acceptable reasons to go to war. 1) to protect the US, 2) to enforce UNSC resolutions, and 3) due to a connection between Iraq and terrorism.

     In recent inquiries, President Bush has explained that we went to war with Iraq because Saddam was a “bad man,” who “used chemical weapons on his own people,” and because he “attacked Kuwait” in the early 1990s. If these are truly the reasons that America went to war, then doing so was a direct violation of the War Powers Act because the White House was not authorized to use military force for those reasons.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35656

What avenues are there to pursue a legal case on these grounds? Or does it just come down to him doing whatever Congress doesn't stop him from doing?

Seems odd, if the procedure for declaring war isn't followed. The British system is much simpler; the Prime Minister exercises the Royal Perogative and declares war. There aren't any clear checks and balances although there are some that work in effect.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 3063

What can be done? The Congress can recognize this and make a public statement that the true motivation for war was those reasons outlined in the Joint Resolution. There is a definate case for war which is compatible with both the War Powers Act and the Joint Resolution: Iraq did not properly permit the UNSC to verify disarmament. That is not dependent upon the actual presence of weapons.

The question really comes down to whether the intelligence was presented to Congress in such a way that allowed them to properly judge the source and validity of the intelligence. If they were presented with known to be questionable evidence and not given any reason to question it, then they were mislead by the executive and the Joint Resolution was grounded in false information.

What can be done? Congress could stop the war. They wont, and I don't believe that they should.
What can be done? The people could recognize that justification for the war based solely in humanitarian concerns is a violation of the war powers act and the joint resolution. The people could chose that, while yes, it's good to be rid of saddam, it's bad to do so in an illegal manner. They could chose to not re-elect him.

Last edited by zim on 04-14-2004 at 10:36 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged