107th CONGRESS 2d Session H. J. RES. 114 October 10, 2002
JOINT RESOLUTION To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq. Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, 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 Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations; Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
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 Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);
Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'; Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'. SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to-- (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and (2) 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 regarding Iraq. 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. (b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that-- (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. (c) War Powers Resolution Requirements- (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution. SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS. (a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338). (b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress. (c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.
IP: Logged |
we are involved in a "Nation Building" experience with people that don't want it... who knew?
funny part right here: Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
seems this part is in error
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 4Art: To hell with me, answer Glass!
quote:Originally posted by glassman: That it is a violation of its spirit is a matter of interpretation which has no effect on the actual LAW.
War is very unpleasant and unpleasant things occur.
since you are so into technicalities? maybe you should show US how this is technically a WAR...
the US has not declared war since???? when??? been awhile ehh?
There is no war on Iraq... there is a war on terror... Iraq is just one of many battle fronts... Glass you and I have been through this many times in the last two years... did you really forget that part?
-------------------- Spend Word For Word With Me And I Shall Make Your Wit Bankrupt.
IP: Logged |
posted
Aragorn... I have posted that very resolution atleast fifteen times on this site... just watch as they now spin it into something they think serves them.
-------------------- Spend Word For Word With Me And I Shall Make Your Wit Bankrupt.
IP: Logged |
posted
We have not had a declaration of war since WWII. Yet we have been involved in many wars. Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Kuwait, Iraq. They are still wars whether you want to define them as such or not.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aragorn243: We have not had a declaration of war since WWII. Yet we have been involved in many wars. Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Kuwait, Iraq. They are still wars whether you want to define them as such or not.
you are the one that is so "into" technicalities....
grenada a WAR? LOL now that is funny....
you forgot the kidnapping of Noriega.... that was a war too ehh?
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 4Art: Get enough of 'em together in a room and the noise will be its own form of rehabilitation.
quote:Originally posted by Dustoff101:
quote:Originally posted by 4Art: Play an accordion - go to jail!
------------------------------------------------- Would you be willing to pay for they're rehabilitation?
------------------------------------------------ So, you would torture accordian players, but not insurgents that want to kill you and your family?
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aragorn243: A war is a war declared or not. Nothing technical about it.
A bit different than stating the Geneva Conventions were violated when they were not. Or Chemical weapons were used when they were not.
like i said? i'm not convinced WE used them....
and to 4art i say pressing a fallacious case does more harm to your cause than good...
i'm sure we'll learn the truth of it eventually, probably sooner rather than later in this political climate, and even then some of you (whichever side you are on) will refuse to accept it....
i won't buy into a technicality of changing the chemical formula a few percentage points to call napalm soemthing else and then saying we weren't in violation of a treaty we signed (if we did sign one)..
Napalm is a mixture of benzene (21%), gasoline (33%), and polystyrene (46%). Benzene is a normal component of gasoline (about 2%). The gasoline used in napalm is the same leaded or unleaded gas that is used in automobiles.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
I feel that the documentary: 'Fallujah - the hidden massacre' shows that the US did not use the substance for its legitimate purpose - as an aid to highlight the position of the enemy - but dropped it indiscriminately in large amounts.
IP: Logged |
Reuters reported that the US military in Iraq denied US forces used phosphorus against civilians in the offensive. But, the military confirmed that US forces had dropped Mark 77 firebombs against military targets in Iraq in March and April 2003.
posted
What dropped artillery rounds or grendades indiscriminately? That's usually the way the stuff comes packaged. Art, have you even seen a real white phosphorous grenade? You do understand how illum works when fired as an artillery fire mission right? So, you are saying we indiscriminately dropped illumination rounds on the enemy? Do you know how illum rounds are best employed? And even if we did just "drop" them on people, there are no explosive properties involved with an illumination round. Man you have got to be kidding me. I know, maybe I'll let one of my buddies who is an artillery officer explain how the munitions you are claiming were improperly used really work.
-------------------- If it wasn't for bad luck I'd have no luck at all.
IP: Logged |
LAHORE: The United States dropped massive quantities of white phosphorus on the Iraqi city of Fallujah during the attack on the city in November 2004, killing insurgents and civilians with appalling burns that indicate this weapon was used, reported The Independent on Tuesday.
The newspaper’s website said that photographs and videos and interviews with American soldiers who took part in the Fallujah attack provide graphic proof that phosphorus shells were widely deployed in the city as a weapon.
In a documentary to be broadcast by RAI, the Italian state broadcaster, on Tuesday morning, a former American soldier who fought at Fallujah says, “I heard the order to pay attention because they were going to use white phosphorus on Fallujah,” reported The Independent.
“Phosphorus burns bodies, in fact it melts the flesh all the way down to the bone, I saw the burned bodies of women and children. Phosphorus explodes and forms a cloud. Anyone within a radius of 150 metres is done for.”
The website said that photographs on RAI’s official website (www.rainews24.it) show exactly what the former soldier means. Provided by the Studies Centre of Human Rights in Fallujah, dozens of high-quality, colour close-ups show bodies of Fallujah residents, some still in their beds, whose clothes remain largely intact but whose skin has been dissolved or caramelised or turned the consistency of leather by the shells.
According to The Independent, Mohamad Tariq, a biologist in Fallujah interviewed by RAI for the film, said, “A rain of fire fell on the city, the people struck by this multi-coloured substance started to burn, we found people dead with strange wounds, the bodies burned but the clothes intact.”
The documentary, entitled ‘Fallujah: the Hidden Massacre’, also claims that incendiary bombs known as Mark 77, a new, improved form of napalm, were used in the attack, in breach of the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons of 1980.
However, Reuters reported that the US military in Iraq denied US forces used phosphorus against civilians in the offensive. But, the military confirmed that US forces had dropped Mark 77 firebombs against military targets in Iraq in March and April 2003.
posted
Well, IF they did use phosphorous, they weren't using illums. They were using the real deal, which in Fallujah or any other combat zone, isn't against any rule of war that I am aware of. It's just a nasty conventional munition.
-------------------- If it wasn't for bad luck I'd have no luck at all.
IP: Logged |
posted
I believe the Geneva Conventions already addressed both what is and is not a chemical weapon, neither napalm or white phosphorus is, and what is prohibited, neither is.
IP: Logged |
posted
Though they are not listed as chemical weapons, the use of both is outlawed by the convention, just as is the use of certain bullet constructions.
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
