Iraq and The authorization to use force

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Yankee_Blue, Aug 14, 2007.

  1. Yankee_Blue

    Yankee_Blue New Member

    Aug 28, 2001
    New Orleans area
    http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107

    Now I know that legal arguments are quaint these days, but I was thinking specifically about the legal authorization to use force in Iraq that Congress passed on to bush in 2002. The specific authorization looks like this:

    (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.


    So now given what (a)(1) has been taken care of (the government of Iraq no longer poses a threat to us (did they ever???))

    And section (a)(2) has been taken care of, ie, all of the relevant UN resolutions are no longer applicable.

    Wouldn't it be fine now for us to declare victory and come home?
    Would this make sense legally? How about politically?


    Let's also keep in mind that the War Powers Act says this:

    SEC. 5. (b)
    Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.



    If Congress had the balls, they could easily put a stop to this, I think... Thoughts?
     

Share This Page