I just read SJ RES. 23 & HJ 114. Neither of them authorize this "surge."

[WritersBlock]

This "surge" is happening in order to quell sectarian violence in Iraq. Bush said, "... America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence and bring security to the people of Baghdad. This will require increasing American force levels. So I've committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. The vast majority of them -- five brigades -- will be deployed to Baghdad. These troops will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations. Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs."



I submit that George W Bush has no authority to send troops to Iraq to do so, because such action is not authorized by either SJ Res 23 `Authorization for Use of Military Force' (18 Sep 2001) or HJ Res 114 `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.

Both of these resolutions are very specific in their stated criteria authorizing the use of military force. Quelling sectarian violence doesn't qualify in either one.

Authorization for Use of Military Force
September 18, 2001

Public Law 107-40


107th CONGRESS

<snip>
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/terrorism/sjres23.es.html

This is specific authorisation in regard to those who perpetrated or aided the attacks on September 11, 2001, and only in regard to them.

It has not even been suggested that the people orchestrating the sectarian violence in Iraq right now; today - the ones Bush is specifically sending extra troops to Iraq to assist the current Iraqi government in subduing - were responsible for September 11th in any way. Once again, in his own words: "Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs."

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

--H.J.Res.114--

H.J.Res.114

One Hundred Seventh Congress of the United States of America AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two

Joint Resolution To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

<snip>

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(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.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:5:./temp/~c107pqfBtp::

Apart from the fact that the threats to America given as justifications for this authorization have subsequently been shown to have been non-existent, it only authorized military force against the Iraq government. That government no longer exists; in fact, they just hung the guy who was in charge of it.

There is no "continuing threat posed by Iraq," nor does this surge have anything at all to do with enforcing UNSC resolutions, therefore, this resolution does not give George W Bush the authority to send more troops to Iraq to quell sectarian violence, which is, again, his own stated reason for doing so.

I submit that neither of these resolutions gives George W Bush the authority to send extra troops to Iraq to put down sectarian violence.

[sandnsea]

1. Very interesting

I don't think the IWR authorized freeing Iraqis to begin with, but I certainly think you're right about the escalation. The military has done what the IWR authorized. If the President wants a new mission for the military, then he needs to come back and get authorization. I think the case could be made.

[WritersBlock]

2. Thank you. I was sure how clearly I had put it, having had only one cup of coffee so far.

I'm going to call my Representative and Senators later this morning and raise the issue with them.

After yesterday's pResidental slap on the Congressional face via 60 Minutes, even Landrieu's aides might be more inclined than normal to hear me out.

But also, what an interesting point you make. Nothing in the IWR gave authorization for "bringing freedom & democracy to Iraq," which is, according to the Bush Administration's current version of history, why we invaded Iraq in the first place.

[Hippo_Tron]

3. Shocked I tell ya, the Bush administration is going to ignore a law

:sarcasm:

[Life Long Dem]

4. I want to know what congress is going to do to represent this country from this dictator?

[WritersBlock]

5. So do I. I'm gonna ask that today on the phone. n/t

[WritersBlock]

6. Errr... make that tomorrow on the phone; forgot today's a holiday. n/t

[Toots]

7. But you are now referring to the "Unitary Executive"

He don't need no stinkin' resolutions......