Iraq Resolution: Map

Categories: 2002 in international relations > 107th United States Congress > United States foreign relations legislation > Causes and prelude of the Iraq War > 2002 in law

Wikipedia article:

Map showing all locations mentioned on Wikipedia article:

The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 , , ) is a joint resolution (i.e., a law) passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing 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 alleged 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, 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.
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 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 "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "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."

The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order 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."

Passage

An authorization by Congress was sought by President George W. Bush soon after his September 12, 2002 statement before the U.N. General Assembly asking for quick action by the Security Council in enforcing the resolutions against Iraq.

Of the legislation introduced by Congress in response to the President Bush's requests, sponsored by Sen. Daschle & Sen. Lott was based on the original White House proposal authorizing the use of force in Iraq, sponsored by Rep. Hastert & Rep. Gephardt and the substantially similar sponsored by Sen. Lieberman were modified proposals. sponsored by Rep. Hastings was a separate proposal never considered on the floor. Eventually, the Hastert-Gephardt proposal became the primary legislation that Congress began to focus working on.

Introduced in Congress on October 2, 2002 in conjunction with the Administration's proposals, passed the House of Representatives on Thursday afternoon at 3:05 p.m. EDT on October 10, 2002 by a vote of 296-133, and passed the Senate after midnight early Friday morning at 12:50 a.m. EDT on October 11, 2002 by a vote of 77-23. It was signed into law as by President Bush on October 16, 2002.

United States House of Representatives

{|  class="wikitable"

126 (61%) of 208 Democratic Representatives voted against the resolution.
6 of 223 Republican Representatives voted against the resolution: Reps. Duncan (R-TN ), Hostettler (R-IN ), Houghton (R-NY ), Leach (R-IA ), Morella (R-MD ), Paul (R-TX ).
The only Independent Representative voted against the resolution: Rep. Sanders (I-VT )

Reps. Ortiz (D-TX ), Roukema (R-NJ ), and Stump (R-AZ ) did not vote on the resolution.

Party

Ayes
Nays
PRES
No Vote

Republican
215
6
0
2

Democratic
82
126
0
1

Independent
0
1
0
0

TOTALS
297
133
0
3

United States Senate

21 (42%) of 50 Democratic Senators voted against the resolution: Sens. Akaka (D-HI ), Bingaman (D-NM ), Boxer (D-CA ), Byrd (D-WV ), Conrad (D-ND ), Corzine (D-NJ ), Dayton (D-MN ), Durbin (D-IL ), Feingold (D-WI ), Graham (D-FL ), Inouye (D-HI ), Kennedy (D-MA ), Leahy (D-VT ), Levin (D-MI ), Mikulski (D-MD ), Murray (D-WA ), Reed (D-RI ), Sarbanes (D-MD ), Stabenow (D-MI ), Wellstone (D-MN ), Wyden (D-OR ).
1 of 49 Republican Senators voted against the resolution: Sen. Chafee (R-RI ).
The only Independent Senator voted against the resoution: Sen. Jeffords (I-VT )

400 px

Amendments offered to the House Resolution

The Lee Amendment

Amendment in the nature of a substitute sought to have the United States work through the United Nations to seek to resolve the matter of ensuring that Iraq is not developing weapons of mass destruction, through mechanisms such as the resumption of weapons inspections, negotiation, enquiry, mediation, regional arrangements, and other peaceful means.

: Sponsored by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA).

:: Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 72 - 355

The Spratt Amendment

Amendment in the nature of a substitute sought to authorize the use of U.S. armed forces to support any new U.N. Security Council resolution that mandated the elimination, by force if necessary, of all Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, long-range ballistic missiles, and the means of producing such weapons and missiles. Requested that the President should seek authorization from Congress to use the armed forces of the U.S. in the absence of a U.N. Security Council resolution sufficient to eliminate, by force if necessary, all Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, long-range ballistic missiles, and the means of producing such weapons and missiles. Provided expedited consideration for authorization in the latter case.

: Sponsored by Rep. John Spratt (D-SC-5).

:: Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 155 - 270

The House Rules Amendment

An amendment considered as adopted pursuant to the provisions of

: Sponsored by House Rules.

:: Resolution (H.RES.574) agreed to by voice vote

Amendments offered to the Senate Resolution

The Byrd Amendments

To provide statutory construction that constitutional authorities remain unaffected and that no additional grant of authority is made to the President not directly related to the existing threat posed by Iraq.

: Sponsored by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV).

:: Amendment SA 4868 not agreed to by Yea-Nay Vote: 14 - 86

To provide a termination date for the authorization of the use of the Armed Forces of the United States, together with procedures for the extension of such date unless Congress disapproves the extension.

: Sponsored by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV).

:: Amendment SA 4869 not agreed to by Yea-Nay Vote: 31 - 66

The Levin Amendment

To authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces, pursuant to a new resolution of the United Nations Security Council, to destroy, remove, or render harmless Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons-usable material, long-range ballistic missiles, and related facilities, and for other purposes.

: Sponsored by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI).

:: Amendment SA 4862 not agreed to by Yea-Nay Vote: 24 - 75

The Durbin Amendment

To amend the authorization for the use of the Armed Forces to cover an imminent threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction rather than the continuing threat posed by Iraq.

: Sponsored by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL).

:: Amendment SA 4865 not agreed to by Yea-Nay Vote: 30 - 70

Criticism

Weapons of mass destruction and Al-Qaeda

Two of the arguments used to justify the invasion of Iraq— the capability to produce and/or the possession of weapons of mass destruction and active links to al Qaeda — have been found to be incorrect according to all subsequent official reports. The post-invasion Duelfer Reportstated that Hussein had still not given up on trying to produce WMD in 2003. His strategy was to first bring UN sanctions to an end by demonstrating that he was cooperating with weapons inspectors and, once sanctions were lifted, to then revive Iraq's WMD program, including nuclear weapons. The report also stated that Hussein did not want to appear weak. To deter his enemies, he intentionally deceived the world into thinking he still had WMD. There was a "balancing act" between cooperating with the UN and keeping a "strategic deterrent".

A 2007 report by the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, declassified and released at the request of Senator Carl M. Levin (D-Mich), asserted that the claims of an operational working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, as put forth by a key Pentagon office in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, were based on dubious or unconfirmed reports. President Bush has, since the invasion of Iraq, explicitly stated that that country was not involved in 9-11, which has also been concluded by subsequent reports, and any alleged contacts with al-Qaeda were in areas outside of Saddam Hussein's control. Also, the day before she voted on the resolution, Senator Hillary Rodham Clintonsaid during a speech on the Senate floor that there was no dispute that Hussein was not involved in the September 11th attacks. Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton10/10/2002. Retrieved 9/1/2007. "Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. <...> He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. <...> Now this much is undisputed."</...><...>Nevertheless, BBC News, The Christian Science Monitor, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Institute for Public Accuracy, and Media Matters for Americacontend that members of the administration repeatedly over the years made suggestive statements with the implied message there was a link between Saddam Hussein and the attacks.</...>

The Bush administration initially suggested the discrepancy between the allegations and the subsequent findings was due to failure by the intelligence community. However, it became apparent that, prior to the invasion, these allegations 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 Committeewas frustrated, according to the New York Times. The Robb-Silberman Commissionstated that the President's Daily Briefsfrom the intelligence community tended to repeat information in a misleading way. The National Intelligence Estimate(NIE) provided to Congress was more "nuanced" and less "alarmist" than information given to the President. However, the vast majority of Senators did not read the NIE and relied on briefings by the administration. Among those who have stated they did not read the NIE and voted positively for the Iraq Resolution are the former Senatorand current United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain, and former Senator John Edwards.

The assertion such weapons posed a threat towards the U.S. was not supported by the available evidence at the time, according to subsequent reports. The Bush administration asserted that two small trailers that had been found in Iraq were "weapons factories," despite the fact that U.S. intelligence officials possessed evidence to the contrary at that time. Weapon inspectors were given access to the alleged weapon factories, despite statements to the contrary by the Bush administration. Continuing these inspections was made impossible by the U.S.-led invasion of Iraqwhich forced the U.N. inspectors out, ignoring their requests for more time.

Skeptics argue that the administration knowingly distorted intelligence reports or ignored contrary information in constructing their case for the war. The Downing Street memoand the Bush-Blair memoare used to substantiate that allegation. Congressional Democrats sponsored both a request for documents and a resolution of inquiry.

Legality

International law

Debate about the legality of the 2003 invasion of Iraq under international law centers around ambiguous language in parts of UN Resolution 1441(2002). World Press: "The United Nations, International Law, and the War in Iraq"Retrieved 9/5/2007. "Resolution 1441 ultimately passed—by a vote of 15-0—because its ambiguous wording was able to placate all parties. <...> Resolution 1441 is ambiguous in two important ways. The first deals with who can determine the existence of a material breach. The second concerns whether another resolution, explicitly authorizing force, is needed before military action against Iraq may be taken."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 describes it a war of aggression.

The position of the US and UK is that the invasion was authorized by a series of UN resolutions dating back to 1990. Resolution 1441 declared that Iraq was in "material breach" of the cease-fire under UN Resolution 687(1991), which required cooperation with weapons inspectors. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treatiesstates that under certain conditions, a party may invoke a "material breach" to suspend a multilateral treaty. Thus, the US and UK claim that they used their right to suspend the cease-fire in Resolution 687 and to continue hostilities against Iraq under the authority of UN Resolution 678 (1990), which originally authorized the use of force after Iraq invaded Kuwait. ASIL: Security Council Resolution 1441 on Iraq's Final Opportunity to Comply with Disarmament ObligationsNovember, 2002. Retrieved 9/5/2007. "The language of 'material breach' in Resolution 1441 is keyed to Article 60 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which is the authoritative statement of international law regarding material breaches of treaties. Under Article 60 of the Vienna Convention, a material breach is an unjustified repudiation of a treaty or the violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or purpose of a treaty. Article 60 provides that a party specially affected by a material breach of a multilateral treaty may invoke it as a ground for suspending the operation of the treaty in whole or in part in the relations between itself and the defaulting state. <...> Security Council Resolution 687, adopted at the end of the Gulf War, includes a provision declaring a formal cease-fire between Iraq, Kuwait and the member states (such as the United States) cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with Resolution 678 (1990). Resolution 678 authorized member states to use all necessary means to restore international peace and security in the area, and thus provided the basis under international law for the allies' military action in the Gulf War. The determination in Resolution 1441 that Iraq is already in material breach of its obligations under Resolution 687 provides a basis for the decision in paragraph 4 (above) of Resolution 1441 that any further lack of cooperation by Iraq will be a further material breach. If Iraq, having confirmed its intention to comply with Resolution 1441, then fails to cooperate fully with the inspectors, it would open the way to an argument by any specially affected state that it could suspend the operation of the cease-fire provision in Resolution 687 and rely again on Resolution 678."This is the same argument that was used for Operation Desert Foxin 1998.They also contend that, while Resolution 1441 required the UNSCto assemble and assess reports from the weapons inspectors, it was not necessary for the UNSC to reach an agreement on the course of action.If, at that time, it was determined that Iraq breached Resolution 1441, the resolution did not "constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq".

It remains unclear whether any party other than the Security Council can make the determination that Iraq breached Resolution 1441, as UN members commented that it is not up to one member state to interpret and enforce UN resolutions for the entire council. In addition, other nations have stated that a second resolution was required to initiate hostilities. ASIL: Security Council Resolution 1441 on Iraq's Final Opportunity to Comply with Disarmament ObligationsNovember, 2002. Retrieved 9/5/2007. "[T]he representative of Mexico (a current member of the Security Council) said after the vote on Resolution 1441 that the use of force is only valid as a last resort and with prior, explicit authorization from the Council. Mexico does not stand alone in taking that position. <...> It would be argued that, in light of the emphasis in the Charter on peaceful dispute settlement, Resolution 678 could not be used as an authorization for the use of force after twelve years of cease fire, unless the Security Council says so."John Conyers, Robert Parryand Marjorie Cohnassert that the Iraq war was a violation of the U.N.Charterand as such a war of aggression (a crime against peace) and therefore a war crime.Kofi Annantoo has said the war in Iraq is an "illegal act that contravened the UN charter."Some scholars, including Columbia law professor Michael Dorf, have argued that treaties are binding on the U.S. under international law.

U.S. law

In early 2003, the Iraq Resolution was challenged in court to stop the invasion from happening. The plaintiffs argued that the President does not have the authority to declare war. The final decision came from a three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit which dismissed the case. Judge Lynchwrote in the opinion that the Judiciary cannot intervene unless there is a fully-developed conflict between the President and Congress or if Congress gave the President "absolute discretion" to declare war.