→Supremacy Clause: Deal. |
|||
Line 81:
=== Supremacy Clause ===
According to the [[Supremacy Clause]] in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, Senate-ratified treaties such as the [[United Nations Charter|U.N. Charter]] are "the supreme Law of the Land." Therefore, obligations under [[international law]] that the US has agreed to, such as the prohibition of a [[war of aggression]], [[Geneva Conventions]], [[genocide]], [[UN Convention Against Torture|torture]], and other obligations under other ratified treaties, are legally binding under US law. However, a treaty is also affected by later laws
The Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq was passed in 2002, many years after the UN Charter.
== Doe v. Bush ==
|
Revision as of 07:30, 15 August 2007
"Iraq Resolution" and "Iraq War Resolution" are popular names for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] a law passed by the United States Congress in October 2002, authorizing what was soon to become the Iraq War.
Contents
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[ing] 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.
Criticism
Weapons of Mass Destruction and Al-Qaeda
The principal arguments used to justify the invasion of Iraq[2] — 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.[3][4][5] 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.[6] 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.[7] The alleged contacts to al-Qaeda were in areas outside of Saddam Hussein's control, and the suggestion Iraq was involved in 9/11[8] was an allegation for which no evidence existed, according to subsequent reports.[9]
The Bush administration initially suggested this was due to failure by the intelligence community. However, it became apparent that, prior to the invasion, these arguments had already been widely disputed,[10] 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.[11]
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.[12] 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.[13]
Skeptics argue that the administration knowingly distorted intelligence reports or ignored contrary information in constructing their case for the war.[14][15] The Downing Street memo and the Bush-Blair memo are used to substantiate that allegation.[16] Congressional Democrats sponsored both a request for documents and a resolution of inquiry.[17]
U.N. 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.[18] 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.[19] UN members commented it is not up to one member state to interpret and enforce UN resolutions for the entire council.[citation needed] Kofi Annan too has said the war in Iraq is an "illegal act that contravened the UN charter."[20]
Supremacy Clause
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." Therefore, obligations under international law that the US has agreed to, such as the prohibition of a war of aggression, Geneva Conventions, genocide, torture, and other obligations under other ratified treaties, are legally binding under US law. However, a treaty is also affected by later laws according to the Supreme Court:
"[A]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 Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq was passed in 2002, many years after the UN Charter.
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.[21] 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."[22] 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.[21] 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.[22] On March 17th, the plaintiffs filed for a rehearing. Their petition was denied the next day.[21]
See also
- Command responsibility
- United Nations Charter
- 2003 invasion of Iraq
- Jus ad bellum
- Legality of the Iraq War
- Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq
- Views on the 2003 invasion of Iraq
- War of aggression
- War on Terrorism
References
- ^ Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (pdf)
- ^ Bush administration has used 27 rationales for war in Iraq, study says by Andrea Lynn, the News Bureau of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
- ^ No weapons of mass destruction
- Iraq's WMD Plans Were Preliminary CBS News, January 07 2004
- Kay: No evidence Iraq stockpiled WMDs CNN, January 26 2004
- A Spy Speaks Out - Former Top CIA Official On "Faulty" Intelligence Claims CBS, Sixty minutes, April 23, 2006
- Drumheller: 'Caught up in the march to war' - Two CIA operatives raise questions about use of pre-war intelligence Hardball, May 3, 2006
- WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications By Joseph Cirincione, Jessica Tuchman Mathews, George Perkovich, with Alexis Orton, Carnegie Endowment Report, January 2004
- In Their Own Words: Iraq's 'Imminent' Threat Center for American Progress, January 29, 2004
- Reports of Bush's Contrition Have Been Greatly Exaggerated Robert Schlesinger, Huffington Post, December 14, 2005
- ^ No relation between Saddan Jussein and al-Qaeda
- Hussein's Prewar Ties To Al-Qaeda Discounted - Pentagon Report Says Contacts Were Limited By R. Jeffrey Smith, Washington Post, April 6, 2007
- Levin Releases Newly Declassified Intelligence Documents on Iraq-al Qaeda Relationship Documents show Administration claims were exaggerated, by Carl Levin, April 15 2005
- Another Iraq story gets debunked By Dave Zweifel, The Capital Times
- Report: No Proof Of Qaeda-Saddam Link - Senate Committee Finds Hussein Had No Relationship With Zarqawi CBS, September 8, 2006
- Report Warned Bush Team About Intelligence Suspicions By DOUGLAS JEHL, New York Times, November 6, 2005
- Bush Flatly Declares No Connection Between Saddam and al Qaeda The Memory Hole
- Bush Speech Reveals Administration’s Ongoing Deceptions on Iraq By Stephen Zunes,Institute for Policy Studies, June 29, 2005
- ^ Link with Al Qaeda
- Levin Releases Newly Declassified Intelligence Documents on Iraq-al Qaeda Relationship Documents show Administration claims were exaggerated, by Carl Levin, April 15 2005
- Another Iraq story gets debunked By Dave Zweifel, The Capital Times
- Bush Flatly Declares No Connection Between Saddam and al Qaeda The Memory Hole
- ^ Lacking Biolabs, Trailers Carried Case for War By Joby Warrick, The Washington Post, April 12 2006
- ^ Hussein's Prewar Ties To Al-Qaeda Discounted - Pentagon Report Says Contacts Were Limited By R. Jeffrey Smith, Washington Post, April 6, 2007
- ^ Iraq allegedly involved in 9-11
- The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq American attitudes about a connection have changed, firming up the case for war By Linda Feldmann, The Christian Science Monitor, March 14, 2003
- Bush administration on Iraq 9/11 link BBC News, September 18, 2003
- News Release - Interviews Available: Bush vs. Facts by the Institute for Public Accuracy, October 29, 2003
- Bush Distorts Qaeda Links, Critics Assert by Michael R. Gordon and Jim Rutenberg, New York Times, July 13, 2007
- A Disconnect on the Al Qaeda LinkBy Dan Froomkin, Washington Post, June 17, 2004
- President Again Seeks to Link Qaeda of Iraq to Qaeda of 9/11 By JIM RUTENBERG AND MARK MAZZETTI; RICHARD A. OPPEL JR. CONTRIBUTED REPORTING FROM BAGHDAD, The New York Times, July 25, 2007
- ^ Key Bush Intelligence Briefing Kept From Hill Panel By Murray Waas, National Journal, November 22, 2005
- ^ Blowing Cheney's Cover Ray McGovern, April 10 2006
- ^ The Intelligence Business editorial, The New York Times, May 7 2006
- ^ Decoding Mr. Bush's Denials The New York Times Editorial, November 15, 2005
- ^ Weapons inspectors
- Timeline: the road to war in Iraq by Oliver King and Paul Hamilos, Guardian Unlimited, February 2, 2006
- We all now know the war would not stand up in court - The cabinet must never again take a major decision without crucial advice by Robin Cook, The Guardian, April 29, 2005
- ^ Selectively disseminating information
- Why 'leaker in chief' charge harms the president By Linda Feldmann, The Christian Science Monitor, April 10 2006
- ^ Misrepresenting the facts surrounding Iraq
- The Impeachment of George W. Bush, by Elizabeth Holtzman, The Nation, January 11 2006
- A Firm Basis for Impeachment By Robert Scheer, AlterNet, July 18 2003
- The Case for Impeachment By John Dean, FindLaw.com, June 11 2003
- In Their Own Words: Iraq's 'Imminent' Threat Center for American Progress, January 29 2004]
- Millions Protest Possible War with Iraq February 19 2003
- ^ Downing Street memo
- ^ FOIA request
- ^ Iraq impeachable offense?
- Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense? by John W. Dean, CNN
- George W. Bush: Legal Arguments for Impeachment by Marcus Raskin and Joseph A. Vuckovich, Institute for Policy Studies
- ^ War of aggression
- War Crimes: Goose and Gander By Marjorie Cohn, Truthout, March 13 2006
- Condi, War Crimes & the Press By Robert Parry, Consortiumnews.com, April 3 2006
- Could Bush Be Prosecuted for War Crimes? By Jan Frel July 102006
- ^ Iraq war illegal, says Annan BBC News, September 16, 2004
- ^ a b c Summary of the case: John Doe I v. President Bush Retrieved 8/7/2007.
- ^ a b Doe v. Bush Opinion by Judge Lynch 3/13/2003 Pages 3,4,23,25,26. Retrieved 8/7/2007.
External links
- Text of Joint Resolution (gpo.gov)
- Bill status and summary (thomas.loc.gov)
- Roll call of votes by members of the House of Representatives (clerk.house.gov)
- Roll call of votes by members of the Senate (www.senate.gov)
- Statement by President George W. Bush on his signing the resolution into law (www.whitehouse.gov)
- Floor speeches
- Floor Speech of Sen Hillary Clinton (clinton.senate.gov)
- Floor Speech of Sen Russ Feingold (feingold.senate.gov)
- Floor Speech of Sen Jay Rockefeller (rockefeller.senate.gov)
- Floor Speech of Rep Ron Paul (www.house.gov/paul)
- Floor Speech of Rep Pete Stark