Terrorist Action 11/9/2001 - Thread 10

Following is the text of the joint resolution approved unanimously yesterday by the U.S. Senate and with one nay vote (Rep. Barbara Lee of California) in the U.S. House of Representatives.

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,

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.

Resolved by the Senate and the 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"

SECTION 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES

(a) 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.

Frank Kogan apologizes to Congress and to the nation:

(2) is a subset of (b), but I gave (2) its own separate paragraph. My apologies to Congress and to the nation for harming the aesthetic integrity of the Resolution.

(Don't suppose we cd mount a constitutional challenge on the grounds that they mispelled "supersede", could we?)

Less flippant point: by specifying an act of terrorism AGAINST the US, it actually opens up — rather than shuts down — the exploration of (and thus prosecution of wars against?) acts of terror sponsored BY the US. Previously the defn has been more slippy and nebulous (in a New Republic editorial, for example, terrorism is BY DEFN against the US and/or Israel). Making Law always has unexpected consequences: such as — will Kissinger be tried before he dies as a war criminal, in the Hague, say, as a consequence of the above...?

I had to laugh at the accuracy of that statement, Frank, but I don't know if I want to read an American philosopher with any rebop right now.

I read on the LIRR, sometimes crying, both Contingency, Irony and Solidarity (which I bought a WTC bookstore, oddly enough) along with Drabble's The Ice Age in the days after the Oklahoma City bombing.

Forget Kissinger...what about Reagan? Or even Bush Sr.?

I copied from the ABC Website, so the misspelling of supersede might be ABC's.

Not sure if this deserves it's own thread, but Salon's article on possible loss of civil liberties here:

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/09/14/privacy/index.html

Hello Big Brother Bush...

what about Reagan?

Assume at this point that he's being diapered, smells stanky and is an embarassment to all around him. Who needs prosecution? ;-)

But Jason, you seem to miss the end point of the article, which I think has been the core of a lot of the debate here, there and everywhere over the last few days -- namely, that people are reacting to everything with their own previously established biases and conclusions.

"Or harbored such organizations or persons," and also the vagueness of "prevent any future acts of international terrorism," are what make this resolution bad, because it in effect will allow Bush to engage in an open-ended war with the Taliban at least until the Taliban is driven out of power, and possibly until the Taliban is driven out of existence, without going for further approval from Congress. So in effect this is another Tonkin Gulf Resolution.

(But I don't know the War Powers Resolution, so perhaps there are more restraints. And if Congress changes its mind about the policy, it can always vote not to appropriate funds for it - and of course it could repeal this resolution.)

The resolution could have been far worse, and it goes way short of what the Administration was saying yesterday that it intended to do, which was to take out any nation that the administration determined had supported terrorism or harbored terrorists. This resolution only authorizes Bush to respond to the September 11 attack, and therefore (unless he declares a link) doesn't give him Congressional approval to invade Iraq, Iran, Sudan, or Pakistan.

About time for a new thread.

HOW DO THE 200 SOME UNDECLARED WARS THE UNITED STATES HAS TAKEN PART IN SINCE 1780 DIFFER FROM SEPT 11TH?