See other War, War, War Articles
Title: Violating the Constitution With an Illegal War
Source:
http://www.lewrockwell.com
URL Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul57.html
Published: Oct 3, 2002
Author: Rep. Ron Paul, MD
Post Date: 2007-04-03 20:34:01 by robin
Keywords: None
Views: 5051
Comments: 267
Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, October 3, 2002 The last time Congress declared war was on December 11, 1941, against Germany in response to its formal declaration of war against the United States. This was accomplished with wording that took less than one-third of a page, without any nitpicking arguments over precise language, yet it was a clear declaration of who the enemy was and what had to be done. And in three-and-a-half years, this was accomplished. A similar resolve came from the declaration of war against Japan three days earlier. Likewise, a clear-cut victory was achieved against Japan. Many Americans have been forced into war since that time on numerous occasions, with no congressional declaration of war and with essentially no victories. Today’s world political condition is as chaotic as ever. We’re still in Korea and we’re still fighting the Persian Gulf War that started in 1990. The process by which we’ve entered wars over the past 57 years, and the inconclusive results of each war since that time, are obviously related to Congress’ abdication of its responsibility regarding war, given to it by Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. Congress has either ignored its responsibility entirely over these years, or transferred the war power to the executive branch by a near majority vote of its Members, without consideration of it by the states as an amendment required by the Constitution. Congress is about to circumvent the Constitution and avoid the tough decision of whether war should be declared by transferring this monumental decision-making power regarding war to the President. Once again, the process is being abused. Odds are, since a clear-cut decision and commitment by the people through their representatives are not being made, the results will be as murky as before. We will be required to follow the confusing dictates of the UN, since that is where the ultimate authority to invade Iraq is coming from – rather than from the American people and the U.S. Constitution. Controversial language is being hotly debated in an effort to satisfy political constituencies and for Congress to avoid responsibility of whether to go to war. So far the proposed resolution never mentions war, only empowering the President to use force at his will to bring about peace. Rather strange language indeed! A declaration of war limits the presidential powers, narrows the focus, and implies a precise end point to the conflict. A declaration of war makes Congress assume the responsibilities directed by the Constitution for this very important decision, rather than assume that if the major decision is left to the President and a poor result occurs, it will be his fault, not that of Congress. Hiding behind the transfer of the war power to the executive through the War Powers Resolution of 1973 will hardly suffice. However, the modern way we go to war is even more complex and deceptive. We must also write language that satisfies the UN and all our allies. Congress gladly transfers the legislative prerogatives to declare war to the President, and the legislative and the executive branch both acquiesce in transferring our sovereign rights to the UN, an un-elected international government. No wonder the language of the resolution grows in length and incorporates justification for starting this war by citing UN Resolutions. In order to get more of what we want from the United Nations, we rejoined UNESCO, which Ronald Reagan had bravely gotten us out of, and promised millions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer support to run this international agency started by Sir Julian Huxley. In addition, we read of promises by our administration that once we control Iraqi oil, it will be available for allies like France and Russia, who have been reluctant to join our efforts. What a difference from the days when a declaration of war was clean and precise and accomplished by a responsible Congress and an informed people! A great irony of all this is that the United Nations Charter doesn’t permit declaring war, especially against a nation that has been in a state of peace for 12 years. The UN can only declare peace. Remember, it wasn’t a war in Korea; it was only a police action to bring about peace. But at least in Korea and Vietnam there was fighting going on, so it was a bit easier to stretch the language than it is today regarding Iraq. Since Iraq doesn’t even have an Air Force or a Navy, is incapable of waging a war, and remains defenseless against the overwhelming powers of the United States and the British, it’s difficult to claim that we’re going into Iraq to restore peace. History will eventually show that if we launch this attack the real victims will be the innocent Iraqi civilians who despise Saddam Hussein and are terrified of the coming bombs that will destroy their cities. The greatest beneficiaries of the attack may well be Osama bin Ladin and the al Qaeda. Some in the media have already suggested that the al Qaeda may be encouraging the whole event. Unintended consequences will occur – what will come from this attack is still entirely unknown. It’s a well-known fact that the al Qaeda are not allies of Saddam Hussein and despise the secularization and partial westernization of Iraqi culture. They would welcome the chaos that’s about to come. This will give them a chance to influence post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. The attack, many believe, will confirm to the Arab world that indeed the Christian West has once again attacked the Muslim East, providing radical fundamentalists a tremendous boost for recruitment. An up or down vote on declaring war against Iraq would not pass the Congress, and the President has no intention of asking for it. This is unfortunate, because if the process were carried out in a constitutional fashion, the American people and the U.S. Congress would vote "No" on assuming responsibility for this war. Not only is it sad that we have gone so far astray from our Constitution, but it’s also dangerous for world peace and threatens our liberties here at home. Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas. 
Transferring authority to wage war, calling it permission to use force to fight for peace in order to satisfy the UN Charter, which replaces the Article I, Section 8 war power provision, is about as close to 1984 "newspeak" that we will ever get in the real world.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 84.
#1. To: robin, ALL (#0)
Can anyone point out to me the form that the Constitution says a declaration of war must have?
The Constitution gives the power to declare war to the Congress. They formally declare something like, "the state of war between the United States and ... is hereby formally declared." It is not a difficult concept once you get the hang of it. For Japan, the precise language was, "the state of war between the United states and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared...." For Germany, the precise language was, "the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany, which has thus been thrust upon the United states, is hereby formally declared...." For Italy, the precise language was, "the state of war between the United States and the Government of Italy which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared...." Below is how the declaration of war against Germany went through each house of congress. http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/77-1-148/77-1-148.html [IN THE SENATE] DECLARATION OF STATE OF WAR WITH GERMANY Mr. Connally, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, reported an original joint resolution (S. J. Res. 119) declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Germany and the Government and the people of the United States, and making provision to prosecute the same, which was read the first time by its title, and the second time at length, as follows: "Resolved, etc., That the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany, which has thus been thrust upon the United states, is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States." I am authorized by the Committee on Foreign Relations to say to the Senate that after consideration of the text of the joint resolution which I have reported and after mature consideration of all aspects of this matter, the membership of the Committee on Foreign Relations unanimously approve and agree to the course suggested. One member of the committee was absent, but I have authority to express his views. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the present consideration of the joint resolution. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there objection? There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the joint resolution (S. J. Res. 119) declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Germany and the Government and the people of the United States, and making provision to prosecute the same. The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint resolution. The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and was read the third time. The VICE PRESIDENT. The joint resolution having been read the third time, the question is, Shall it pass? Mr. CONNALLY. On that question I ask for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered, and the Chief Clerk proceeded to call the roll. The result was announced yeas 88, nays 0. * * * * * * So the joint resolution (S. J. Res. 119) was passed. =========================== [IN THE HOUSE] DECLARATION OF WAR AGAINST GERMANY Mr. MCCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass House Joint Resolution 256, which I send to the desk and ask to have read. The Clerk read as follows. "Resolved, etc., That the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States." Mr. MCCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. * * * * * * The question was taken; and there were yeas 393, answered "present" 1, not voting 36. So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were suspended, and the resolution was agreed to. ==========================
It doesn't require that language ANYWHERE in the Constitution or US law.
I'm not a big Constitutionalist. I mostly take the Spooner view of it.But I am going to correct your historical ignorance. By its very nature of being a declaration of war it must have certain properties just as a table requires legs or it is called a board or a basin in your bathroom has to spray water to be called a shower. One required property is to make a declaration (hence the name) that a state of war exists between the parties or that one party is declaring war on the other(s). Another property is that it is to be communicated to the other party. It is not just a directive between Congress and the President, but a diplomatic correspondence between Congress (or whomever) and the party that is subject to the declaration. And last, a declaration of war almost always (exception: Mexico's declaration against Italy - leave it to Mexicans to fuck it up)lists grievances leading to or causing the conflict. The US Constitution didn't invent the concept of a declaration of war. It has existed in a particular form in Western diplomatic custom and protocol for centuries. Here is Autria-Hungary's Declaration of War to Serbia: The Royal Serbian Government not having answered in a satisfactory manner the note of July 23, 1914, presented by the Austro-Hungarian Minister at Belgrade, the Imperial and Royal Government are themselves compelled to see to the safeguarding of their rights and interests, and, with this object, to have recourse to force of arms. Austria-Hungary consequently considers herself henceforward in a state of war with Serbia. (signed) Count Berchtold Here is Germany's Declaration of War on France in 1914: M. Le President, The German administrative and military authorities have established a certain number of flagrantly hostile acts committed on German territory by French military aviators. Several of these have openly violated the neutrality of Belgium by flying over the territory of that country; one has attempted to destroy buildings near Wesel; others have been seen in the district of the Eifel; one has thrown bombs on the railway near Carlsruhe and Nuremberg. I am instructed, and I have the honour to inform your Excellency, that in the presence of these acts of aggression the German Empire considers itself in a state of war with France in consequence of the acts of this latter Power. At the same time, I have the honour to bring to the knowledge of your Excellency that the German authorities will retain French mercantile vessels in German ports, but they will release them if, within forty-eight hours, they are assured of complete reciprocity. My diplomatic mission having thus come to an end, it only remains for me to request your Excellency to be good enough to furnish me with my passports, and to take the steps you consider suitable to assure my return to Germany, with the staff of the Embassy, as well as, with the Staff of the Bavarian Legation and of the German Consulate General in Paris. Be good enough, M. le President, to receive the assurances of my deepest respect. (Signed) [Baron Von] SCHOEN. Friday 19th October 1739. His Majesty's Declaration of War against the King of Spain. WHEREAS many unjust Seizures have been made, and Depredations carried on for several Years in the W. Indies by Spanish Guarda Costas, and other Ships acting under the Commission of the King of Spain, or his Governors, contrary to the Treaties subsisting between Us and the Crown of Spain, and to the Law of Nations, to the great Prejudice of the lawful Trade and Commerce of Our Subjects; and great Crueltues and Barbarities have been exercised on the Persons of divers of our Subjects, whose vessels have been seized, and the British Colours have been insulted in the most ignominious Manner; And whereas We have caused frequent Complaints to be made to the King of Spain, of these violent and unjust Proceedings, but no Satisfaction or Redress has been given for the same, notwithstanding the many Promises made and Cedulas issued, signed by the said King, or by his Order, for that Purpose; And whereas the evils abovementioned have been principally occasioned by an unwarrantable Claim and Pretension, set up on the Part of Spain, that the Guarda Costas, and other Ships, authorised by the King of Spain, may stop, detain and search the Ships and Vessels of our Subjects navigating in the American Seas, contrary to the Liberty of Navigation, to which Our Subjects have not only equal Right with those of the King of Spain, by the Law of Nations, but which is moreover expressly acknowledg'd and declared to belong to them by the most solemn Treaties, and particularly in the Year 1670; And wereas the said groundless Claim and Pretention, and that the unjust Practice of stopping, detaining and searching Ships and Vessels navigating in the Seas of America, is not only of the most dangerous and Destructive Consequence to the lawful Commerce of Our Subjects, but also tends to interupt and obstruct the free Intercourse and Correpondence between Our Dominions in Europe, and Our Colonies and Plantations in America, and by means thereof to deprive Us and Our Subjects of the benefit of those Colonies and Plantations; a consideration of the highest Importance to Us and Our Kingdoms; and a Practice which must affect, in its Consequence, all the other Princes and States of Europe, possessed of Settlements in the West Indies, or whose subjects carry on any Trade thither. And whereas besides the notorious Grounds of Complaint abovementioned, many other infractions have been made on the Part of Spain, of the several Treaties and Conventions subsisting between Us and that Crowm, and particularly of that concluded in the year 1657, as well by the exorbitant Duties and Impositions laid upon the Trade and Commerce of Our Subjects, as by the Breach of ancient and established Privileges, stipulated for them by the said Treaties; for the Redress of which Grievences the strongest Instances have been, from time to time, made by Our several Ministers residing within Spain, without any Effect. And whereas a Convention for making Reparation to Our Subjects for the Losses sustained by them, on Account of the unjust Seizures and Depredations committed by the Spaniards in America, and in order to prevent for the future all the Grievences and Causes of Complaint therin taken Notice of, and to remove absolutely and for ever every thing which might give occasion thereto, was concluded between Us, and the King of Spain, on the Fourteenth Day of January last, N.S. by which Convention it was stipulated, that a certain Sum of Money should be paid at London, within a Term therin specified, as a Balance admitted to be due on the Part of Spain, to the Crown and Subjects of Great Britain; which term expired on the Twenty fifth Day of May last, and the Payment of the said Sum was not made according to the Stipulation for that Purpose; by which Means the Convention above mentioned was manifestly violated and broken by the King of Spain, and our Subjects remained without any Saisfaction, or Reparation for the many grievous Losses sustained by them; and thw Methods agreed upon by the said Convention in order to obtaining future Security for the Trade and Navigation of Our Subjects, are, contrary to good Faith, frustrated and defeated, in Consequence of which We found ourselves obliged, for vindicating the Honour of Our Crown, and for procuring Reparation, and Satisfaction for Our injured Subjects, to order, that general Reprisals should be granted against the said King of Spain, his Vassels and Subjects, and their Ships, Goods and Effects. And whereas the Court of Spain has been induced to colour the open Violation of the Convention aforesaid, by Reasons and Pretence which are void of all Foundation; and, at the same Time, has not only published an Order, signed by the said King, for seizing the Ships, Goods and Effects belonging to Us, and Our Subjects, wherever they shall be met with, but has caused Seizures to be actually made of the Goods and Effects of Our Subjects, residing in his Dominions, and has also ordered Our said subjects to depart out of the Spanish Dominions, within a short limited Time, contrary to the express Stipulations of the Treaties between the Two Crowns, even in the case of a War actually declared. We have taken into our Royal and most seriour Consideration these Injuries, which have been offered to Us, and Our Subjects, and the manifest Violation of the in many Particulars eluded, or ecaded by the Unwarrantable Behaviour of the Court of Spain, and their Officers, notwithstanding the repeated Instances We have given of Our Desire to cultivate a good Understanding with the King of Spain, and the essential Proofs of Our Friendship and Regard for him and his Family, which We have demonstrated to all the World; and being fully satisfied that the Honour of our Crown, the Interest of Our Subjects, and the Regard which ought to be had to the most solemn Treaties, call upon Us to make use of this Power which God has given Us, for vindicating Our Undoubted Rights, and securing to Our loving Subjects the Privileges of Navigation and Commerce to which they are justly intitled. We therefore, relying on the Help of Almighty God, who knows the Uprightness of our Intensions, have thought fit to declare, and do hereby declare War against the said King of Spain; and We will, in pursuance of such Declaration, vigorously prosecute the said War, being afforded the ready Concurrence and Assistance of all Our loving Subjects in so just a Cause. Given at Our Court at Kensington the Nineteenth Day of October 1739, in the Thirteenth Year of Our Reign. GOD SAVE THE KING Thursday 29th March 1744. His Majesty's Declaration of War against the French King. THE Troubles which broke out in Germany, on account of the Succession of the late Emperor Charles the Sixth, having been begun and carried on by the Instigation, Assistance, and Support of the French King, with a view to overturn the Balance of Power in Europe, and to extend the dangerous Influence of that Crown, in direct Violation of the solemn Guaranty of the Pragmatic Sanction, given by him in the Year 1738, In Consideration of the Cession of Lorraine; and we having on our part executed our Engagements for maintaining the Pragmatic Sanction, with that good Faith which is inserarable from us; and having opposed the Attempts made against the Dominions of the Queen of Hungary, we are not surprised that our Conduct in this Respect, should have drawn upon us the Resentment of the French King, who has found his ambitious Views, in a great Measure, disappointed by the Assistance we have furnished to our Ally, unjustly attacked by him; or that he should alledge it as a principal Reason for declaring War against us. From the Time that we found ourselves obliged, for the maintenance of the just Rights of our Subjects, to enter into a War with Spain, instead of observing a strict Neutrality, which we might have promised ourselves on the Part of the French King, from whom we were even founded by Treaty to have demanded Assistance; he has given Encouragement and Support to our Enemies, by conniving at his Subjects, Acting as Privateers under Spanish Commissions, both in Europe and America; and by sending in the Year 1740, a strong Squadron into the the American Seas, in order to prevent us from prosecuting the just War which we were carrying on against Spain in those Parts; and we have most authentick Proof that an order was given to the Commander of the French Squadron, not only to act in a hostile manner against our Ships, either jointly with the Spaniards, or separately; but even to concert Measures with our Enemies, for attacking one of our principal Dominions in America; a duplicate of that order dated the 7th October, 1740, having fallen into the Hands of the Commander in Chief of our Squadron in the West Indies. This injurious Proceeding was greatly aggravated by the French Minister at our Court, having declared on Occasion of sending the said Squadron. that the French King was very far from having any Design or Intention of breaking with us. The Same effective conduct was continued on the Part of the French King, towards us, by his Squadron in the Mediterranea, in the Year 1741, joining with and protecting the Ships of our Enemies, in Sight of our Fleet, which was peparing to attack them. These unwarrantable Proceedings; the notorious Breach of Treaties by repairing the Fortifications, and erecting New Works at Dunkirk, the open Hostilities lately against our Fleet in the Mediterranean; the Affront and Indignity offered to us, by the reception of the Son of the Pretender to our Crown, in the French Dominions; the Embarkation actually made at Dunkirk, of a considerable Body of Troops, notoriously designed for an Invasion of this Kingdom, in Favour of the Pretender to our Crown; and the sending of a Squadron of French Ships of War into the Channel, to support the said Embarkation and Invasion, will be lasting Monuments of the little Regard had by the French Court for the most solemn Engagements, when the Observance of them is inconsistent with Interest, Ambition, or Resentment. We cannot omit taking Notice of the unjust Insinuations contained in the French King's Declaration of War against us, with respect to the Convention made at Hanover, in October 1741; that Convention, regarding our Electorate only, had no Relation to our Conduct as King of Great Britain. The Allegations concerning it, are groundless and injurious; our Proceedings in that Respect, having been perfectly consistent with that Good Faith, which we have always made the Rule of our Actions. The Charge of Piracy, Cruelty and Barbarity against our Ships of War is equally unjust and unbecoming; and we have all such proceedings so much in Abborrence, that, if any Practices of that Nature had been made appear to us, we would have taken effectual Care to put a Stop to them, and to have punished the Offenders in the severest Manner. We being therefore indispensably obliged to take up Arms, and entirely relying on the Help of Almighty God, who knows the Uprightness of our Intensions, have thought fit to declare, and do hereby declare War against the French King; and we will, in Pursuance of such Declaration, vigorously prosecute the same by Sea and Land; being assured of the ready Concurrence and Assistance of all our loving Subjects, in so just a Cause. And we do hereby will and require our Generals and Commanders of our Forces, our Commissioners for executing the Office of High Admiral of Great Britain, our Lieutenants of our several Counties, Governors of our Forts and Garrisons, and all other Officers under them, by Sea and Land, to do and execute all Acts of Hostility in the Prosecution of this War against the said French King, his Vassals, and Subjects and to oppose their Attempts, willing and requiring all our subjects to take Notice of the same, whom we henceforth strictly forbid not to hold any Correspondence or Communication with the Subjects of the French; and advertise all other Persons of what Nation soever, not to transport or carry any Soldiers, Arms, Powder, Ammunition, or other contraband Goods, to any of the Territories, Lands, Plantations, or Countries of the said French King; declaring that whatsoever Sip or Vessel shall be met withal, transporting or carrying any Soldiers, Ams, Powder, Ammunition, or other contraband Goods, to any of the Territories, Lands, Plantations, or Countries of the said French King, the same being taken, shall be condemned as good and lawful Prize. And where there are in remaining in our Kingdom divers of the Subjects of the French King, we do hereby declare our Royal Intention to be, that all the French Subjects, who shall demean themselves dutifully towards us, shall be safe in their Persons and Estates. Given at our Court at St. James's, the Twenty ninth Day of March 1744. In the Seventeenth Year of our Reign. GOD SAVE THE KING. Got the picture yet? Good.
Did you know http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War "in May of 1801, the Pasha declared war on the United States, not through any formal written documents, but by cutting down the flagstaff in front of the U.S. Consulate. Morocco, Algiers, and Tunis soon followed their ally in Tripoli. In response, Jefferson sent a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress. Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify." Guess the Framers of the Constitution never read your definition.
It would appear that the Framers adopted the view of Hamilton which was opposed to the view of Jefferson. Cornell Law School * * * An early controversy revolved about the issue of the President’s powers and the necessity of congressional action when hostilities are initiated against us rather than the Nation instituting armed conflict. The Bey of Tripoli, in the course of attempting to extort payment for not molesting United States shipping, declared war upon the United States, and a debate began whether Congress had to enact a formal declaration of war to create a legal status of war. President Jefferson sent a squadron of frigates to the Mediterranean to protect our ships but limited its mission to defense in the narrowest sense of the term. Attacked by a Tripolitan cruiser, one of the frigates subdued it, disarmed it, and, pursuant to instructions, released it. Jefferson in a message to Congress announced his actions as in compliance with constitutional limitations on his authority in the absence of a declaration of war. [1422] Hamilton espoused a different interpretation, contending that the Constitution vested in Congress the power to initiate war but that when another nation made war upon the United States we were already in a state of war and no declaration by Congress was needed. [1423] Congress thereafter enacted a statute authorizing the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Bey of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify..." [1424] But no formal declaration of war was passed, Congress apparently accepting Hamilton’s view. [1425] 1422 Messages and Papers of the Presidents, J. Richardson ed. (Washington: 1896), 326, 327.
I have no problem with Hamilton's view. In Iraq, a state of war existed with the US in 1991 and the fact that Iraq violated the cease-fire agreement stopping the 91 conflict means a state of war still existed between the US and Iraq in 2003. Furthermore, tapes captured during the invasion show that Saddam's regime still considered themselves to be at war with the US.
The 1991 conflict was between Iraq and coalition forces. The United Nations authorized the use of force in order to free Kuwait. It was for the UN to decide whether or how to act on an alleged breach of a UN resolution. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1654697,00.html Text of the Iraq: Legal Background-March 8, 2002 memo from UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (office of Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary) to Tony Blair advising him on the legality of the use of force against Iraq. CONFIDENTIAL IRAQ: LEGAL BACKGROUND * * * 2. In the UK’s view a violation of Iraq’s obligations which undermines the basis of the cease-fire in resolution 687 (1991) can revive the authorisation to use force in resolutions 678 (1990). As the cease-fire was proclaimed by the Council in resolution 687 (1991), it is for the Council to assess whether any such breach of those obligations has occurred. The US have a rather different view: they maintain that the assessment if breach is for individual member States. We are not aware of any other State which supports this view. * * * 9. The US have on occasion claimed that the purpose of the NFZs is to enforce Iraqi compliance with resolutions 687 or 688. This view is not consisent [sic] with resolution 687, which does not deal with the repression of the Iraqi population, or with resolution 688, which was not adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter and does not contain any provision for enforcement. Nor (as it is sometimes claimed) were the current NFZs provided for in the Safwan agreement, a provisional agreement between coalition and Iraqi commanders of 3 March 1991, laying down military conditions for the cease fire which did not contain any reference to the NFZs.
************** Excerpts from UN resolution 1441: "Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area," "Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area," "Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material," "Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998, ... snip ... "Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq," Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein, ... snip ... "Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein," "Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance," ... snip ... "1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);" "2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;" ... snip ... "Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below; " ... snip ... "Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;" ***********
You forgot to include the excerpt that authorized GWB to take military action at his discretion.
********* "resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area," "Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions ********** I suppose you think that the UN thought "serious consequences" meant more diplomacy ... with a quarter million US soldiers mobilizing on Iraq's borders and with the US Congress having already passed a bill authorizing the use of military force. ROTFLOL!
Which of these UN Security Council resolutions authorize the use of military force against Israel? 100 SERIES: 1955 - 1962 EXCERPTS FROM UN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS ALL LINKS GO TO THE JEWISH VIRTUAL LIBRARY. Resolution 106 (March 29, 1955) 2. Calls again upon Israel to take all necessary measures to prevent such actions; 3. Condemns the attack of 11 December 1955 as a flagrant violation of the cease-fire provisions of its resolution 54 (1948), of the terms of the General Armistice Agreement between Israel and Syria, and of Israel's obligations under the Charter of the United Nations; 4. Expresses its grave concern at the failure of the Government of Israel to comply with its obligations; 5. Calls upon the Government of Israel to do so in the future, in default of which the Council will have to consider what further measures under the Charter are required to maintain or restore the peace; 2. Urges Israel to comply with this decision; 3. Determines that the Israel attack of 16-17 March 1962 constitutes a flagrant violation of that resolution, and calls upon Israel scrupulously to refrain from such action in the future;
Israel???
#86. To: BeAChooser (#84)
Yes, ALL those UN Security Council resolutions pertain to Israel. Using your standards, it would seem that anyone in the world who chooses to do so can assert the right to drop bombs on Israel and effect regime change. Do UN resolutions only apply to Iraq and only authorize GWB to drop bombs on people?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#34. To: BeAChooser, robin (#1)
Can anyone point out to me the form that the Constitution says a declaration of war must have?
"Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it
Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, I shall presently ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the joint resolution just read to the Senate. Before the request is submitted, however, I desire to say that, being advised of the declaration of war upon the United States by the Governments of Germany and Italy, and anticipating a message by the President of the United States in relation thereto, and after a conference with the Secretary of State, as chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, I called a meeting of the committee this morning and submitted to the committee the course I expected to pursue as chairman and the request which I expected to make. "Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it
The SPEAKER. The question is, Will the House suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution?
#48. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#34)
They formally declare something like, "the state of war between the United States and ... is hereby formally declared."
#51. To: BeAChooser (#48)
(Edited)
It doesn't require that language ANYWHERE in the Constitution or US law.
#53. To: SmokinOPs, ALL (#51)
By its very nature of being a declaration of war it must have certain properties just as a table requires legs or it is called a board or a basin in your bathroom has to spray water to be called a shower. One required property is to make a declaration (hence the name) that a state of war exists between the parties or that one party is declaring war on the other(s).
#57. To: BeAChooser, SmokinOPs, ALL (#53)
Guess the Framers of the Constitution never read your definition.
Legal Information Institute
Congressional Research Service Annotated Constitution Declaration of War
1423 7 Works of Alexander Hamilton, J. Hamilton ed. (New York: 1851), 746–747.
1424 2 Stat. 129, 130 (1802) (emphasis supplied).
1425 Of course, Congress need not declare war in the all–out sense; it may provide for a limited war which, it may be, the 1802 statute recognized. Cf. Bas v. Tingy, 4 Dall. (4 U.S.) 37 (1800).
#64. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#57)
[1422] Hamilton espoused a different interpretation, contending that the Constitution vested in Congress the power to initiate war but that when another nation made war upon the United States we were already in a state of war and no declaration by Congress was needed.
#65. To: BeAChooser (#64)
In Iraq, a state of war existed with the US in 1991 and the fact that Iraq violated the cease-fire agreement stopping the 91 conflict means a state of war still existed between the US and Iraq in 2003.
#69. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#65)
The 1991 conflict was between Iraq and coalition forces. The United Nations authorized the use of force in order to free Kuwait. It was for the UN to decide whether or how to act on an alleged breach of a UN resolution.
#73. To: BeAChooser (#69)
Excerpts from UN resolution 1441:
#75. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#73)
You forgot to include the excerpt that authorized GWB to take military action at his discretion.
#77. To: BeAChooser (#75)
I suppose you think that the UN thought "serious consequences" meant more diplomacy ... with a quarter million US soldiers mobilizing on Iraq's borders and with the US Congress having already passed a bill authorizing the use of military force. ROTFLOL!
1. Condemns this attack as a violation of the cease-fire provisions of Security Council resolution 54 (1948) and as inconsistent with the obligations of the parties under the General Armistice Agreement between Egypt and Israel 2/ and under the United Nations Charter;
Resolution 111 (January 19, 1956)2. Reminds the Government of Israel that the Council has already condemned military action in breach of the General Armistice Agreements, whether or not undertaken by way of retaliation, and has called upon Israel to take effective measures to prevent such actions;
Resolution 127 (January 22, 1958)In order to create an atmosphere which would be more conducive to fruitful discussion, activities in the zone, such as those initiated by Israelis on 21 July 1957, should be suspended until such time as the survey has been completed and provisions made for the regulation of activities in the zone;
Resolution 162 (April 11, 1961)1. Endorses the decision of the Mixed Armistice Commission of 20 March 1961;
Resolution 171 (April 9, 1962)2. Reaffirms its resolution 111 (1956) of 19 January 1956 which condemned Israel military action in breach of the General Armistice Agreement, whether or not undertaken by way of retaliation;
#84. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#77)
Which of these UN Security Council resolutions authorize the use of military force against Israel?
Replies to Comment # 84. Israel???
End Trace Mode for Comment # 84.