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 20:15, 29 June 2007 editNescio (talk \| contribs)11,956 editsm Undid revision 141214252 by GATXER (talk)← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:57, 29 June 2007 edit undoGATXER (talk \| contribs)106 edits More POV removed once again.Next edit →
Line 8:		Line 8:
	==Contents==		==Contents==
	The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:		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. ''(Despite this statement and subsequent comments by the Bush administration, weapon inspectors were given access to the alleged weapon factories at the time. Continuing the inspections was made impossible by the U.S. led ] which forced the U.N. inspectors out.)''		* 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~~." ''(A statement that was not supported by the available evidence at the time.)''~~		* 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~~." ''(Legal scholars doubt this is a valid ] with the ] and prohibition of a ] in mind.)''~~		* 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" ~~''(The available evidence at the time showed there probably were no WMD's in Iraq.)''~~		* 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 ], and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War. ~~''(Legal~~ ~~scholars contend this is not a valid ] with the ]~~ ~~and~~ ~~prohibition~~ ~~of a ]~~ in ~~mind.)''~~		* Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President ], 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.
	* Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq." ''(This was outside of Saddam Hussein's control and as such this is not a valid ] under the ] and with the definition of ] in mind.)''
		⚫	* The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
⚫	* Iraq's "continu to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations. ~~''(A loose interpretation of the available evidence to validate the continuing suggestion Iraq was involved in 9/11.)''~~
⚫	* The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them. ~~''(The available evidence showed no "working relationship" between Iraq and the people behind ])''~~
	* The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism		* 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. ~~''(Under ], this point is not a valid ], and as such attacking Iraq would constitute a ].)''~~		* 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." UN members commented it is not up to one member state to interpret and enforce UN resolutions. Subsequently Kofi Anan remarked that these arguments do not constitute the legal requirements set forth in the laws of war prohibiting wars of aggression.		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." UN members commented it is not up to one member state to interpret and enforce UN resolutions. Subsequently Kofi Anan remarked that these arguments do not constitute the legal requirements set forth in the laws of war prohibiting wars of aggression.
Line 59:		Line 59:
	* by John W. Dean, CNN		* by John W. Dean, CNN
	* by Marcus Raskin and Joseph A. Vuckovich, ]</ref>		* by Marcus Raskin and Joseph A. Vuckovich, ]</ref>


			It is interesting to note however, that despite the alleged "illegality" of the decision to declare war on Iraq, the United States has not been subjected to any UN sanctions nor has the UN passed any resolutions declaring the United States and United Kingdom to be "rogue states" for their part in the war.

	==History==		==History==

Revision as of 21:57, 29 June 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)

This article's factual accuracy is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help to ensure that disputed statements are reliably sourced. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Main article: Iraq War See also: Rationale for the Iraq War, Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Authorization for Use of Military Force, and Category:Stances and opinions regarding the 2003 Iraq conflict

"Iraq Resolution" and "Iraq War Resolution" are popular names for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002PDF, 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." UN members commented it is not up to one member state to interpret and enforce UN resolutions. Subsequently Kofi Anan remarked that these arguments do not constitute the legal requirements set forth in the laws of war prohibiting wars of aggression.

Criticism

Weapons of Mass Destruction and Al-Qaeda

Further information: Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, Downing Street memo, Bush-Blair memo, and Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq

The arguments put forward for the invasion of Iraq — such as the continued possession and development of weapons of previously used mass destruction and active links to al Qaeda — have been found to be false, according to all official reports. A report by the Defense Department in 2007 conclusively stated the claimed working relationship with Al Qaeda did not exist. Or, as the Washington Post described it:

"the intelligence community's prewar consensus that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, and ... that reports of deeper links were based on dubious or unconfirmed information."

The Bush administration advocated that this was due to failure by the intelligence community. However, it has become clear 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 has been frustrated. Or, as a New York Times editorial states:

Mr. Roberts (chairman of the Senate panel) tried to kill the investigation entirely, and after the Democrats forced him to proceed, he set rules that seem a lot like the recipe for a whitewash.

Sceptics 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. A report by the Washington Post on April 12 2006, corroborates that view. It states that the Bush administration advocated that two small trailers which had been found in Iraq were "biological laboratories," despite the fact that U.S. intelligence officials possessed evidence to the contrary at that time.

"The three-page field report and a 122-page final report published three weeks later were stamped "secret" and shelved. Meanwhile, for nearly a year, administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories."

U.N. Charter

Further information: UN Charter, War of aggression, Jus ad bellum, Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and Command responsibility

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 calls it a war of aggression. Because of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, Senate-ratified treaties such as the U.N. Charter are "the supreme Law of the Land." 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. Also, Kofi Annan called the war in Iraq a violation of the UN Charter and therefore "illegal." A war of aggression refers to any war not initiated out of self-defence or sanctioned by the UN.

It is interesting to note however, that despite the alleged "illegality" of the decision to declare war on Iraq, the United States has not been subjected to any UN sanctions nor has the UN passed any resolutions declaring the United States and United Kingdom to be "rogue states" for their part in the war.

History

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.