Repeal authorization for Iraq?

[tbone]

Don't know if it's possible given the slim control Dem's have of the Senate, but apparently they are working on it.

Democrats move to limit Bush‘s authority
Staff and agencies
23 February, 2007

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent 2 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Four years ago, Congress passed legislation authorizing President Bush to go to war in Iraq . Now Senate Democrats want to take it back.

Key lawmakers, backed by party leaders, are drafting legislation that would effectively revoke the broad authority granted to the president in the days Saddam Hussein was in power, and leave U.S. troops with a limited mission as they prepare to withdraw.

M, , ), D-Nev., intends to present the proposal to fellow Democrats next week, and he is expected to try to add the measure to anti-terrorism legislation scheduled to be debated later this month. Officials who described the strategy spoke only on condition of anonymity, noting that rank-and-file senators had not yet been briefed on the details.

After failing on his second attempt last Saturday, Reid said he would turn his attention to passing binding legislation.

Any attempt to limit Bush‘s powers as commander in chief would likely face strong opposition from Republican allies of the administration in the Senate. Additionally, unlike earlier, nonbinding measures, the legislation now under consideration could also face a veto threat.

The emerging Senate plan differs markedly from an approach favored by critics of the war in the House, where a nonbinding measure passed last week.

House Spe, , ) has said she expects the next challenge to Bush‘s war policies to come in the form of legislation requiring the Pentagon to adhere to strict training and readiness standards in the case of troops ticketed for the war zone.

Some Senate Democrats have been privately critical of that approach, saying it would have virtually no chance of passing and could easily backfire politically in the face of Republican arguments that it would deny reinforcements to troops already in the war zone.

That measure authorized the president to use the armed forces "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate ... to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq" and to enforce relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions.

In a speech l, , ) of Delaware, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee , said, "I am working on legislation to repeal that authorization and replace it with a much narrower mission statement for our troops in Iraq."

Along with Biden, offici, , ) of Michigan, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee , and a small group of key Democrats were involved in the effort to draft legislation. Leadership aides are also playing a role.

It was not clear whether the measure would explicitly state that the 2002 authorization for the use of military force was being revoked. One proposal that had been circulated would declare that Bush was not authorized to involve U.S. armed forces in an Iraqi civil war, but it appeared that prohibition had been dropped as part of the discussions.

At the same time, several officials noted that any explicit authority for U.S. troops to confront al-Qaida would effectively bless Bush‘s decision to dispatch about 3,500 additional troops to the volatile Anbar Province in the western part of Iraq.

Under the president‘s recent announcement, the balance of the 21,500 additional troops would go to Baghdad, where the administration hopes they can help quell sectarian violence.

Democrats move to limit Bush‘s authority

[ballz2wallz]

It's like a cout d'etat.

They will be CRUSHED by the powers that be!

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

It's like a cout d'etat.

They will be CRUSHED by the powers that be!

I know i'm on your IL, but i'm going to respond anyway.


Please do some research into how the government works. This is nothing like a coup. This is what congress should be doing.

[Diamond Cross]

I have mixed feelings.

I'm glad they are since President Bush is not serious about Iraq anymore, but if congress takes the power, what would happen ina real military emergency, say like maybe New York gets Nuked and we have a few hundred thousand Chinese troops invading Florida? The problenm is the bickering that comes with partisan politics, I feel it's gotten so bad that in a situation like that people would be voting against measures to respond to a real military emergency just to stick it to those who would support it.

[motivez]

Since it's obvious that Bush is actually abusing the troops with a lack of coherent strategy and they're dying for nothing while the rest of the country falls to shambles, I think it's a courageous step.

I mean, this "buildup" has been tried I don't know how many times before, at least 5, and each and every time the violence has increased. This time is not going to be different, and it's our troops and their families that will continue to suffer.. as well as the innocent Iraqi's we've failed to protect because of Bush's lack of post war planning.

[SoFlaJDM]

Originally Posted by motivez

Since it's obvious that Bush is actually abusing the troops with a lack of coherent strategy and they're dying for nothing while the rest of the country falls to shambles, I think it's a courageous step.

I mean, this "buildup" has been tried I don't know how many times before, at least 5, and each and every time the violence has increased. This time is not going to be different, and it's our troops and their families that will continue to suffer.. as well as the innocent Iraqi's we've failed to protect because of Bush's lack of post war planning.

but you're not giving him a chance!!!! give him a chance

[7960]

why repeal it?

* people around here have already proven it was unconstitutional so why not just get up to a podium and say "what we're doing in iraq is against our constitution so we're shutting it down"

[motivez]

Really? I don't seem to remember any kind of consensus of people "around here" saying it was unconstitutional

[7960]

Originally Posted by motivez

Really? I don't seem to remember any kind of consensus of people "around here" saying it was unconstitutional

*some

Originally Posted by lew

The Authorization Bill that Congress signed was not a constitutional course of action.

The Congress has never issued a Declaration of War in Iraq - this war is illegal.

[tbone]

I agree, this definately is not good for future precedent in case of a real attack on American soil, but extreme situations call for extreme measures sometimes.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by tbone

I agree, this definately is not good for future precedent in case of a real attack on American soil, but extreme situations call for extreme measures sometimes.

I don't see how addressing the specific situation at hand (Iraq) is going to have any precedential weight in the future. If for some reason we were attacked, the President would still have his authority to send troops, and Congress would be right behind him/her president defending our country.

[tbone]

Originally Posted by Phantom

I don't see how addressing the specific situation at hand (Iraq) is going to have any precedential weight in the future. If for some reason we were attacked, the President would still have his authority to send troops, and Congress would be right behind him/her president defending our country.

Precedent would be set by Congress limiting the authority of the Commander and Chief. He would be allowed to only have troops deployed that meet certain thresholds set by Congress. Never underestimate the maliciousnes of bitter partisanship. Congress may authorize use of force under certain circumstances and may not see the need for broad authorization, thus opening us up for further attacks. This is only hypothetical and may never happen, but the possibility is there.