NotfooledbyW....AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!

[John_Mace]

I think another thing people get stuck on (and this isn’t just FooledByW either) is that no US president of either party is going to agree that the US needs a permission slip from the UNSC to use military force. No matter that the UN charter, which we signed, more or less says we do (unless we are in imminent danger of attack). Maybe someone like Kucinich would think we do, but even Russ Feingold (not a hawk by any means) was clear on that matter.

Say what you will about whether that makes the US a rogue nation or any president a war criminal, it’s just the way things are. The only president in living memory for me who didn’t use military force w/o UN approval was Carter. Clinton didn’t start any actual shooting wars w/ boots on the ground, but he had no qualms about bombing the shit out of Serbia even w/o Congressional approval, let alone UN approval.

[NotfooledbyW]

@John_Mace

I think another thing people get stuck on (and this isn’t just FooledByW either) is that no US president of either party is going to agree that the US needs a permission slip from the UNSC to use military force.

I have not argued that the US needs a permission slip from the UNSC. That is not my argument. My argument is that the AUMF was not a blank check. It authorized Bush to use of military force ‘in order to’ enforce all relevant UNSC Resolutions regarding Iraq. There was no need for a permission slip. And indeed Bush did not need a permission slip although he tried and failed to get one.

Tomndebb wrote and is on the record here:

Had the resolution been legitimate, it would have authorized the U.S. to act with the U.N. to enforce the U.N. resolutions. Instead, the U.S. acted unilaterally, not to enforce U.N. directives, but for a whole host of shifting claims (from WoMD to regime change) that have little to no connection to the first Gulf War and had absolutely nothing to do with defending the U.S. against a third rate power on the far side of the Earth. -07-25-2003, 02:17 AM Tomndebb

That is my point. Bush did not enforce UNSC Resolutions or Directives. Bush didn’t need a permission slip and that is obvious and not contested. But it is a bold faced lie to claim that Bush enforced UNSC Resolutions as the AUMF required Bush to do.

Bush enforced Bush’s preemption policy and nothing more. He is not the King of the UNSC and got to decide to that the rules and the laws and the will of that body do not apply when he decides to do the complete opposite of the will of the majority of the UNSC.

Try to quit making stuff up about my points and argument.

[Drunky_Smurf]

@NotfooledbyW

Bush did not enforce UNSC Resolutions or Directives.

Yes he did.

[John_Mace]

@Drunky_Smurf

Yes he did.

Are you looking for an argument?

[NotfooledbyW]

Several here Like XT and T&D agree with one of my main points - Bush was not enforcing UNSC Resolutions when he began massive bombing and a ground invasion of Iraq in March 2003 (Bolding and underlining by Ntfldbw):

Why yes, XT can explain this seemingly impenetrable conundrum to you. **See, Bush wasn’t fucking enforcing UN resolutions. **Simple, ehe, you ridiculous fuck monkey? Let me run that by you again, since I’m fairly certain you don’t get it (and sadly never will, regardless of repetition)…Bush wasn’t enforcing UN resolutions. Bush wasn’t enforcing UN resolutions. Or, to put it another way, Bush wasn’t enforcing UN resolutions. -XT 07-23-2013 11:34 PM Arrg-204p1134

Had the resolution been legitimate, it would have authorized the U.S. to act with the U.N. to enforce the U.N. resolutions. Instead, the U.S. acted unilaterally, not to enforce U.N. directives, but for a whole host of shifting claims (from WoMD to regime change) that have little to no connection to the first Gulf War and had absolutely nothing to do with defending the U.S. against a third rate power on the far side of the Earth. -07-25-2003, 02:17 AM Tomndebb

The only one opposing me by promoting that Bush actually did ‘enforce’ UNSC Resolutions is Human Action. So on that Human Action has the minority viewpoint at least on this forum amongst those who bother to seriously discuss the matter. And it may well be a minority of one.

Human Action also makes a big whoop-too-dee-doo on the Levin Amendment. Here is one significant post from Human Action on the Levin Amendment:
*

It’s be constructive to compare two bills, the Iraq War Resolution as passed: (-Human Action 07-31-2013 01:15 PM Arrg-212p0115)

*“Cite” *SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.— The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to—

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) Presidential Determination.— In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that—
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.* “Cite”
And the Levin Amendment: : (-Human Action 07-31-2013 01:15 PM Arrg-212p0115)

*“Cite” SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES PURSUANT TO A NEW UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION.

(a) AUTHORIZATION.–Pursuant to a resolution of the United Nations Security Council described in section 2(2) that is adopted after the enactment of this joint resolution, and subject to subsection (b), the President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States to destroy, remove, or render harmless Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons-usable material, ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers, and related facilities, if Iraq fails to comply with the terms of the Security Council resolution.

(b) REQUIREMENTS.–Before the authority granted in subsection (a) is exercised, the President shall make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that the United States has used appropriate diplomatic and other peaceful means to obtain compliance by Iraq with a resolution of the United Nations Security Council described in section 2(2) and that those efforts have not been and are not likely to be successful in obtaining such compliance. “Cite”*

Now, you seem to badly want the AUMF to function as the Levin Amendment would have, for whatever reason (to excuse the Democrats who voted for it, to accuse Bush of violating domestic law, whatever it is). But if you just read both, you can see what the Levin Amendment contained that the AUMF did not. It granted authorization only to carry out new UNSC resolutions, not “all”, and it limited the authorization to rendering harmless Iraqi WMDs, as opposed to toppling the government and occupying it for years and years. -Human Action 07-31-2013 01:15 PM Arrg-212p0115

**

There is no reason to *‘excuse the Democrats who voted for it’ *- There was nothing wrong with their vote because Iraq was in violation of international law when the vote took place. That must be remembered when doing the Levin Amendment shuffle.

The Levin Amendment contains this language in the Authorization Clause:

(a) AUTHORIZATION.–Pursuant to a resolution of the United Nations Security Council described in section 2(2) that is adopted after the enactment of this joint resolution, and subject to subsection (b), the President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States to

The Levin Amendment places the decision ability to pursue a ***final opportunity ***resolution on the UNSC. And without prior authorization to use force given to the US President , there was a view by members of Congress who wanted to tie Bush to peaceful disarmament and wean him away from starting a war by using the War Powers Act or simply escalating the limited war that the US and UK were already engaged against Iraq over the NFZs.

Read that Levin Amendment language with focus on [I]“Pursuant to a resolution of the United Nations Security Council” “…**the President is authorized **to use the Armed Forces of the United States to…” *

So the point is if Bush doesn’t have authority to use force until after ‘THE UNSC accomplishes something’ then the US Congress has granted the authority to use force to the membership of the UNSC and that would be subject to any of three permanent members exercising their veto power to stop a 1441 from being passed.

Bush and the Republican controlled House were never likely to pass a bill that would have required the President of the United States of America to wait until the UNSC did something about Iraq’s open and obvious defiance of international law involving the threat of WMD not only being used by the likes of Saddam Hussein but that WMD could fall into the hands of terrorists such as the ones that attacked America on September 11, 2001.

And the Dems had a majority of one in the Senate. And there sat Joe Lieberman, hardly a dove that would do the anti-war left’s bidding.

[John_Mace]

As usual, you are missing the point. If a Senator did NOT vote for the Levin amendment, he has no standing to claim he wasn’t authorizing war when he voted for the AUMF.

So what if it wouldn’t pass? It puts you on record as wanting to reign in the president at least a bit when it comes to making war-- not giving him a blank check. Unless, of course, you don’t want to be on record as having taken that stance…

[NotfooledbyW]

@John_Mace

As usual, you are missing the point. If a Senator did NOT vote for the Levin amendment, he has no standing to claim he wasn’t authorizing war when he voted for the AUMF.

So what if it wouldn’t pass? It puts you on record as wanting to reign in the president at least a bit when it comes to making war-- not giving him a blank check. Unless, of course, you don’t want to be on record as having taken that stance…

If a Senator voted for the Levin Amendment they were voting to outsource the opportunity to get a new resolution passed by the UNSC that could disarm Iraq peacefully *‘Pursuant To’ *what the UNSC had to do…

(a) AUTHORIZATION.–***Pursuant to a resolution of the United Nations Security Council ***described in section 2(2) that is adopted after the enactment of this joint resolution, and subject to subsection (b), the President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States to…

So could you address my main point with regard to the Levin Amendment.
And as to your point. Voting for un-passable meaningless legislation does not amount to much in the big picture of things in Congress.

And the Levin Amendment would not have stopped Bush from lying as he did that Iraq was not cooperating or complying in order to bomb and invade Iraq as he did anyway.

It is sad that John Mace believes Bush on the matter of Iraq’s failure to comply -which is a great Bush lie.
The Levin Amendment granted authority to use force if Iraq failed to comply with the terms of the Security Council Resolution. It did not forbid the actual use of force unless the UNSC approved it by non-vetoed majority.

the President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States to destroy, remove, or render harmless Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons-usable material, ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers, and related facilities, if Iraq fails to comply with the terms of the Security Council resolution.

[NotfooledbyW]

@NotfooledbyW

And the Levin Amendment would not have stopped Bush from lying as he did that Iraq was not cooperating or complying in order to bomb and invade Iraq as he did anyway.

Apparently all are stumped on how the Levin Amendment could have stopped Bush from lying that Iraq was not cooperating or complying with the UNSC Resolution that the Levin Amendment required the UNSC to produce. Had the Levin Amendment produced UNSC Resolution 1441 and the inspection and Iraq’s cooperation process went exactly the same without the Levin Amendment, what keeps Bush from lying about that cooperation and compliance? and starting a war in Iraq anyway?

What then is the point of the Levin Amendment? It does not stop war anyway.