Warner-Lugar: President Should Seek New War Authorization

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 05:06:01 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

This is interesting:

One of the main elements of [Warner-Lugar] amendment, which was filed shortly after noon today, would require the president to seek a new rationale for the war authorization by the time Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top military commander in Iraq, delivers a report in September on the progress of the troop buildup. The measure also would require the president to review and update the National Intelligence Estimate for Iraq no later than Sept. 4. “Many of the conditions and motivations that existed when we authorized force almost five years ago no longer exist or are irrelevant to our current situation,” Mr. Lugar said. He went on, saying the 2002 war authorization is “obsolete and requires revision.”

Think Republicans will embrace this? Having to vote a NEW war authorization? One Democrats will vote against almost uniformly?

At first blush, I think I am going to embrace this idea requiring from Bush a new war authorization. I wonder what Warner and Lugar imagine would be the upshot if continuing the war was NOT authorized?

< Gov't. Rests in Jose Padilla Trial | Reid on Warner-Lugar >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Warner-Lugar: President Should Seek New War Authorization | 15 comments (15 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

hmm (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by andgarden on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 05:36:14 PM EST

This might even get cloture. I'd have to think about it though. Imagine how Barbara Boxer voting for cloture on this would look.

: Better yet, start it in the House (none / 0) (#3)
by andgarden on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 05:37:12 PM EST

under a closed rule. Give it an "upperdown vote"--let it fail there.

Amendment Text (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by cboldt on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 11:31:44 PM EST

The stuff in [] is handwritten into the printed proposed amendment (S.Amdt.2208). This is the only part that deals with the Authorization to Use Military Force.

SEC. 1543. AUTHORIZATION OF THE USE OF FORCE (1) Findings ... (2) "cruft" (3) [The findings that supported H.J.Res. 114, Public Law 107-243 which was enacted in 2002 and which authorized the President to use the armed forces of the United States against Iraq require review and revision] Therefore, as part of his September 15 2007, report, Congress expects that the President will submit to Congress a proposal to revise Public Law 107-243.

The 580 kb pdf of the entire amendment can be obtained from http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/warnerlugariraqamdt.pdf

My read of the language in part (3) is that it states a Congressional expectation without imposing any requirement on the president.

Having just reviewed that original (5.00 / 3) (#11)
by bronte17 on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 12:09:55 AM EST

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, it is clear that many of the "resolutions" and findings in that long list of Whereas statements were demonstrably false:

Whereas...in order to defend the national security of the United States...

Whereas...United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated...

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq...

Whereas ...the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States...and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack

These "Whereas" statements are ludicrous in their extremity.

Particularly, the referrals to the United Nations' Resolutions as a justification for the use of force are a farce. Notice the Security Council's use of the terminology "remains seized of the matter."

If you examine Resolution 678, you will see that the final statement says: "The Security Council,... 5. Decides to remain seized of the matter."

Vaughan Lowe, Chichele Professor of Public International Law at Oxford University said:

It needs a Security Council resolution to authorize force, that is to say, it has to be plain from the next resolution that the Security Council itself is giving that authorization to use force...
...Lowe pointed out that Resolution 1441 left the Security Council "seized of the matter" - diplomatic-speak for "asserting that it holds the reins over this activity." Unless the Security Council explicitly authorized a policy of "regime change," the Security Council would still remain nominally in charge of setting the limits of what the use of force was directed toward.

bush utilized the politicization of DoJ via the memos from John Yoo (deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel) and Douglas Feith to usurp power for the preemptive attack against Iraq.

Yoo wrote:

In the exercise of his plenary power to use military force, the President's decisions are for him alone and are unreviewable.

If Congress rewrites this authorization, it may very well remove standing to challenge the bush administration's unconstitutional usurpation of power.

: Just as with FISA (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by kovie on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 01:09:12 AM EST

If Congress rewrites this authorization, it may very well remove standing to challenge the bush administration's unconstitutional usurpation of power.
This was precisely what Specter was trying to do last year in attempting to rewrite FISA so as to retroactively validate the warrantless wiretap program.
Even now, any attempt to rewrite FISA in even a good faith manner intended to update it to keep up with evolving technology (as has been done over the years) while the program itself continues to be legally questionable (in the sense that it's not being properly reviewed by congress to confirm that it's now in conformance with FISA, as the administration claims without understandably questionable veracity) would in effect validate this program.
Absent full congressional and judicial review of this program, any attempts to update FISA are pointless and inherently dangerous. And similarly, any attempts to re-authorize (or "de-authorize") the Iraq war without first reviewing the evidentiary and legal basis for launching that war would only further validate it. The road to hell is, of course, paved with "good" intentions.

Republicans will embrace this? (none / 0) (#1)
by Edger on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 05:31:58 PM EST

About as fast as they'll defect to form that elusive veto proof majority.

Any second now. I can hear the thunder of the stampede off in the distance.

Wha...? Oh, sorry. I must have dozed off there for a minute.

Bizarre (none / 0) (#4)
by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 05:57:28 PM EST

Too bizarre for me to process, must have more info.

hmmm (none / 0) (#5)
by taylormattd on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 06:05:02 PM EST

I don't really understand what this means:

would require the president to seek a new rationale for the war authorization

Well First Off (none / 0) (#6)
by talex on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 06:17:43 PM EST

would have to come a Sunset of the original Iraq Authorization like Clinton and Byrd are suggesting. Then comes a new authorization? As the article says:

That proposal, though, is not favored by the Democratic leadership because several senators who voted against the 2002 authorization are reluctant to endorse a new one.

What Warner and Lugar are suggesting it that Bush crafts a new authorization. I don't think so. Yeah they are calling for a reduction in troops. But at the same time, it seems to me, they are trying to buy perhaps an infinite among of FU's. That won't fly.

If there were to be a new authorization bill - IF - the first thing is that congress should spell out the terms of the military action just as the Constitution subscribes - not Bush.

The second thing is that the bill should have a built-in Sunset date so it does not authorize another endless war. Now it would be nice if it only ran 90 to 180 days max and then come up for renewal after that time. We need to keep any new authorization on a short string. It would also be nice to have an emergency escape clause should we want to exit all or part of the troops in between sunsets for stated reasons.

Thirdly a prescribed amount of troops for the remaining mission should be spelled out along with prescribed deployment times and rest periods. National Guard and Reserve participation should be kept at a minimum.

Fourth we should consider benchmarks as a guide for renewal, if necessary, or using any escape clause.

Fifth it should be considered if we would be better served if this went "On Budget" as opposed to supplementals. I have some reservations on that but I thought I would mention it.

There is probably more items to consider and include but those are my initial thoughts.

As the amendment stands with Bush presenting a new plan I don't think like Armando that I can even come close to "embracing" it in it's present form.

Certainly a new authorization is another approach leading to the same place - the draw down and ultimate withdrawal of all combat forces. If a new name would make that goal palatable to a veto proof majority then fine with me. Call it ice cream if you want as long as it accomplishes our goal.

: You miusnderstand (5.00 / 3) (#14)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 08:27:04 AM EST

My embrace is not of its substance, which is irrelevant really. It will never pass.
But an "embrace" rhetorically and politically of the idea that the original war authorization is obsolete.
As a politcal tool, not as a plan to end the war.
This has no chance at all.

: Restrictive clauses in new authorization (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by wlgriffi on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 09:12:08 AM EST

Will only bring a Bush veto. Can you see a Republican defection in it's lockstep support of the "Commander-In-Chief"? When donkeys fly.

On a different matter (none / 0) (#7)
by kovie on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:45:25 PM EST

Apologies if this is against site rules, but the USA scandal hasn't been discussed that much in the last couple of days, and I just finished watching a repeat of Wednesday's senate judiciary hearing with Sarah Taylor and heard something that I found rather intriguing.

In his closing remarks Specter speculated that:

I don't think any US Attorney anywhere, is the appointee of the president, is going to bring a criminal contempt citation. But if this committee asks for one, there'll be a big cloud over you, a big smear, last the rest of your life."

Interesting that he'd not only say this, but qualify it with the words "is the appointee of the president". Which, of course, would exclude any USA's who might be appointed by each district's court upon the termination of the 120 day term of any current interm USA's who had been appointed by Gonzo, which would be no later than mid-October, as per S.214.

Was this an oversight on Specter's part, or, more likely, was he trying to say that one, no USA who has been appointed by Bush (or, by extension, Gonzo) will ever enforce such a contempt citation (which would, I assume, open the door to accusations of obstruction of justice, although I suppose that since congress does not administer justice, that might be technically incorrect), and two, that USA's appointed by district courts upon the end of any interim USA's 120 day term might nevertheless enforce them--especially the DC USA, currently Bushie Jeff Taylor, but most likely not for long? If so, what to read into this?

In case anyone's interested, I wrote a diary on S.214 and its possible implications and importance last month on DKos.

Didn't Clinton propose a similar bill (none / 0) (#8)
by ksh on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 09:05:40 PM EST

or was her legislation one to end the current authorization? I can't remember.

Would the new authorization contain a component that formally rescinds the old authorization? Is this where Clinton's bill comes in?

Here's the kicker, suppose it doesn' t pass....and Clinton's bill or amendment deauthorizing does (I know I'm living in fantasyland), would Bush "defy" the deauthorization?

These crazy Bush mofos make me think there will be big drama ahead before he's out of office. ksh01

: More discussion around deauthorization, please (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by robrecht on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 02:38:15 AM EST

Link: 5/3/2007: In remarks on the Senate floor, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton announced that she and Senator Robert Byrd will introduce legislation to end authority for the war in Iraq. The legislation will propose October 11, 2007 -- the five year anniversary of the original resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq -- as the expiration date for that resolution.
There was IMHO all too little talk of the deauthorization option prior to the Democrats taking "control" of Congress in Januay and I never understood why more people did not embrace this as the most logical course, though I readily admit to not being nearly as politically savvy as most of you here.
I remember hearing one commentator say that this option was considered unappealing because there was fear the American people would consider this an irrelevant and pointless gesture pretending to un-do what was already a fait accompli.
To me it always seemed to be the most logical and direct course. We are in this mess in part because Congress once again did not seem to exercise it's proper constitutional authority to declare war or NOT declare war. Rather, they simply seemed to yield this authority to the executive as they ran for political cover.
Simply revoke the initial authorization. If Congress has the authority to declare war, do they not also have the authority to withdraw this authorization?
Most probably my reading of the constitution is too simplistic.
Here's some more complicated considerations of the '73 War Powers Act that seem to be addressing wars initiated by the executive without congressional authorization.
Of course the nuts and bolts of deauthorization is simply defunding, but it seems to me there is need for a higher profile assertion of Congressional authority in this matter.

Amendment ashmendment (none / 0) (#9)
by chemoelectric on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 10:09:59 PM EST

This is without effect, will come to nothing, and thus is uninteresting as such. What Wargar are 'thinking' is, on the other hand, an interesting question, and what conversations they are having, especially now that 'Republicans' are, presumably, allowed to speak with Democrats.