WH: Congress has no say in long-term Iraq security agreement -- 2002 AUMF covers it

[BrainGlutton]

Seriously. I’m not making this up.

Can anyone seriously defend this reasoning?

And why are they even bothering? If such a security agreement were entered by administration fiat alone, such an agreement would not be binding on the next administration – would it? I don’t see any legal or constitutional way W can lock the U.S. into an open-ended commitment to maintain a presence in Iraq without express Congressional approval.

[elucidator]

Of course it does! And should military intervention be required in South America, it will be found to authorize that, as well, though it may require extraordinary methods of parsing and what might be considered tortured syntax.

[CalMeacham]

Of course it does! And should military intervention be required in South America, it will be found to authorize that, as well, though it may require extraordinary methods of parsing and what might be considered tortured syntax.

They wouldn’t need to torture the syntax. I’m sure they could waterboard it into submission.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

@elucidator

Of course it does! And should military intervention be required in South America, it will be found to authorize that, as well, though it may require extraordinary methods of parsing and what might be considered tortured syntax.

I hear waterboarding syntax wrings the information out the fastest.

ETA: shakes fist at CalMeacham

[Bricker]

If Congress believes that “The conditions of 2002 no longer exist,” then Congress is free to rescind or modify the 2002 AUMF. They are free to pass another law forbidding such an agreement.

But enough of Congress doesn’t feel that way.

So, yes, I’ll defend that reasoning. If COngress wants to change their previous open-ended authorization to the administration, let them do so. Chnaging it by whining, as the OP appears to wish, is not a viable method.

[elucidator]

Odd. Seemed to me to be an entirely rational and reasonable OP. Does the “whining” take place in a frequency only you can hear?

[BrainGlutton]

@Bricker

If Congress believes that “The conditions of 2002 no longer exist,” then Congress is free to rescind or modify the 2002 AUMF. They are free to pass another law forbidding such an agreement.

But enough of Congress doesn’t feel that way.

So, yes, I’ll defend that reasoning.

But, what you said has nothing to do with “that reasoning” – i.e., with interpretation of the AUMF’s meaning and intent and legal effect as here applied.

[Bricker]

@BrainGlutton

But, what you said has nothing to do with “that reasoning” – i.e., with interpretation of the AUMF’s meaning and intent and legal effect as here applied.

Sorry. You’re asking: does the AUMF give the executive branch the authority to strike a long-term security agreement with Iraq?

Answer: yes. It authorizes the President to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. It seems clear that, absent any limiting language, it would permit him to reach an agreement with internal Iraqi forces about how such force is used and by whom.

[RickJay]

@BrainGlutton

And why are they even bothering? If such a security agreement were entered by administration fiat alone, such an agreement would not be binding on the next administration – would it? I don’t see any legal or constitutional way W can lock the U.S. into an open-ended commitment to maintain a presence in Iraq without express Congressional approval.

I hate to say it, but Bricker’s right. The AUMF IS open ended, and it’s Congress’s fault. They should have had the foresight to place some sort of renewal clause in it, but in the rush to blow up Arabs, chose not to.

If you give someone a signed blank check, don’t be surprised if they cash a big one. Congress gave a bunch of warmongers the legal right to wage an endless war in Iraq, and that’s precisely what they will continue to do until either (a) the White House is no longer a roost for chickenhawks, or (b) Congress can muster up the will and the balls to do something about it. Fortunately, condition (a) may end in January 2009. We’ll see.