Re: Blank check for Bush

["Andrew Hagen" <xah@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The bill only allows the President to take military action against
those responsible for the attack of September 11. The clause that
begins with "to prevent any future acts" is only a statement of
purpose.

Here is a longer quotation from the legislation, taken from a news
story.

"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,'' the one-page
resoluti
declares.

http://us.news2.yimg.com/f/42/31/7m/dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010914/ts
/attack_congress_force_dc_2.html

The Senate version is S.23, and is on Thomas <http://thomas.loc.gov>.
The House version is H.J. 64, and is not yet available on Thomas.

The S.23 language includes a disclaimer that the War Powers Resolution
of 1973 still applies to military action undertaken under authority of
this bill. The War Powers Resolution is the proper name of the "War
Powers Act." The members of Congress who passed the War Powers
Resolution wanted to call it a "resolution" because they thought that
sounded grander.

Andrew Hagen
xah@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 17:55:05 -0700, Stephen Diamond wrote:

>The Congressional resolution is not vague.  It is highly specific.  It describes exactly what Bush is allowed to do.  That is the point.  Thus, Bush is now free to carry out whatever actions he deems fit WITHOUT having to worry about returning to Congress for further approvals.  Note, for example, that he is allowed "to use all necessary and appropriate force....in order to prevent any FUTURE acts of international terrorism...."  He may take such action against any "nations, organizations, or persons HE determines....." are connected with the September 11 events.  This is as open-ended a grant of power as has ever been made by Congress.  I would argue that it gives the President more power than a Declaration of War, because in that instance, at least, the Congress would clearly have shared in defining the terms of the conflict by at least choosing the target.   Thus, Congress has taken itself out of its constitutionally granted role of sharing in foreign policy decision mak!
i!
>ng.  It is true that Congress can in the future cut off spending or attempt to invoke the War Powers Act, but the burden will now be on those who want to stop the President - a daunting task, history has shown, once U.S. forces are under fire.
>
>Further, there was no debate in the Senate about this resolution and almost no debate in the House.  Thus, there is no legislative record to explain what Congress meant by the resolution, leaving Bush free to interpret his new powers as he wishes.
>
>The resolution represents an abdication of Congressional responsiblity.  Congress is a legislative body that is supposed to debate in transparent and deliberate fashion before it legislates.  That is of the essence in our concept of the rule of law.  Instead, this Congress has been railroaded by its own politial fears into being a rubber stamp.  Compare this wit the debate that occurred in advance of the Gulf War in 1991, a campaign that was far more limited in scope.
>
>