at Yale Law SchoolSeptember 11, 2001 : Attack on America
S.J. Resolution 23 - Authorization for Use of Military Force (Enrolled Bill); September 18, 2001
Posted on 06/17/2004 3:50:11 PM PDT by xzins
at Yale Law School
Latest Major Action: 9/18/2001 Became Public Law No: 107-40.
--S.J.Res.23--
S.J.Res.23
One Hundred Seventh Congress
of the
United States of America
AT THE FIRST SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
the third day of January, two thousand and one
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: 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'.
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.
(b) 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 resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.
The links between Al Qaeda and Saddam seem MORE than enough to justify the President's actions against Iraq.
The highlighted section above constitutes an extremely broad authorization.
ping
Thank You Chaplain
This needs to be sent to all the media.
They "forgot"
I'm sending it to my media list now.
Your welcome, Tonk.
The terrorist links in Iraq were more important than any WMD links in Iraq.
The WMDs were only important because they were a means by which terrorists could attack the US. Iraq had more than enough program information, technology, and WMD materiel to pass to the terrorists for THE TERRORISTS to have attacked the US.
I don't think this law was really required by Bush to engage Iraq, although it could be used as justification. What law gave Bill Clinton the authority to attack Iraq and bomb Republican Guard units in 1998?
Indeed. Thanks for the ping!
All the dimwit talking heads are using the same lawyerly double-speak -- "no compelling evidence."
There's plenty of clear-cut evidence, just not compelling enough.
Who decides what's "compelling?"
Great post!!.....BTTT
Thanks for the ping, xzins. Following is a post of interest in the Al Queda / Iraq connection with links to indictment of Bin Laden in 1998:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1155642/posts
The authorization is for the president and uses the specific wording "as HE determines."
The president is constitutionally authorized to defend the US as a situation arises. Long-term though, the provision for declaring "war" is reserved to the Congress. However, there were actions other than full-fledged "war" that could be taken.
If we update our understanding of "letter of marque" and "letter of reprisal," then I think this authorization by Congress would fall under the category of "letter of reprisal." (Reprisal = "payback")
Excellent reminder - thanks for the ping.
bump!(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.
Hear the Donkey Bray
(RealPlayer)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
