The Iraqi War Becomes ILLEGAL(Even For Bushco) On January 1, 2009 (Wapo)

[kpete]

The War's Expiration Date

By Bruce Ackerman and Oona Hathaway
Saturday, April 5, 2008; 12:00 AM

A crucial yet overlooked deadline looms over the Iraq debate: Unless further action is taken, the war will become illegal on Jan. 1, 2009.

Despite protestations to the contrary, Congress clearly understood that it was authorizing the president to intervene militarily when it passed its joint resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq in October 2002. But it did not give him a blank check. It allowed for the use of force only under two conditions.

The first has long since lapsed. It permitted the president to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq." This threat came to an end with the destruction of Saddam Hussein's government. It makes no sense to say that it continues today, or that our "national security" is "threatened by" the Iraqi government headed by Nouri al-Maliki.

Instead, U.S. military intervention is authorized under the second prong of the 2002 resolution. This authorizes the president to "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." This has allowed the Bush administration to satisfy American law by obtaining a series of resolutions authorizing the United States to serve as the head of the multinational force in Iraq.

But here's the rub. The most recent U.N. resolution expires on Dec. 31, and the administration has announced that it will not seek one for 2009. Instead, it is now negotiating a bilateral agreement with the Iraqi government to replace the U.N. mandate.

more at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/04/AR2008040402581.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

[Bonobo]

1. Wow.

[tanyev]

2. Perfect. George can move out of the White House and into a cell in The Hague.

[DesertRat]

3. k&r

[ThomWV]

4. The last paragraph in the article seemed odd to me, could someone explain ...

The last paragraph in the article seems to be out of place. It suggests that somehow the US Congress can pass legislation that substitutes for new UN Resolutions or the extension of existing ones. That seems particularly odd considering that earlier in the article the author mocks a similar situation when he says "He cannot substitute the consent of the Iraqi government for the consent of the U.S. Congress.

It looks to me like it is the UN's Security Council that has the voice to determine if this war continues under its existing authority, they can extend it, I don't see how we could do it unilateral and I don't see how a new authority for the war could get out of the Congress either.

[ThomWV]

6. Not to highjack your thread but something occurred to me

This is the sort of article that the White House would like to see go away. If it doesn't get any press it will go away too, we've certainly seen plenty of that. However if this article was cut and then pasted into an E-Mail to your Congress person then they could not say they were not aware of it. In fact if everyone on DU sent a copy of it to both their Congress person and their Senators then no one in authority could say they weren't aware of the issue - which is say this could not be dumped down the memory hole.

So might I suggest this, copy the article into an E-Mail to your congressperson and ask the simple question, "Is this true and what is your position on it?" Give your name and address, point out that you are a constituent. Who knows, it might spur one or two of them to some action.

[Pastiche423]

12. Thanks for the idea

Don't know if it will help, but I'm doing it anyway.

[Bandit]

5. Laws are meaningless unless someone will enforce them

Who will do that, Democrats in Congress? Yeh Right just as they have for seven years now...Remember Republicans feel the US is at "War" and that means Bush* can do anything he wishes as "Unitary Executive" Stuff like this is meaningless to them..

[Hugabear]

7. The only problem with that argument...

Bush/McCain will claim that since the Iraqi government has "requested" our presence, that UN permission is not needed. I'm not saying that it's a legitimate argument, but it's the one they're going to use.

Doesn't matter to them that the Iraqi government itself is illegitimate.

[ThomWV]

9. It is not UN permission, it is conditional Congressional permission

And conditons have changed.

[eppur_se_muova]

11. "They invited us to invade" was the stock excuse of the Warsaw Pact countries ...

Maybe Bu**sh** is wanting to admit these countries to NATO so he can have access to all the old East Bloc authoritarians' know-how and experience at suppressing democracy.

"Let's recruit us some old hard-line Commies! YEEEE-hawww!!"

[goforit]

8. Run cheney Run!!!

[warrior1]

10. Sorry to burst your bubble

but he's probably all ready got a signing statement that covers his sorry ass.

[spanone]

13. legalities mean nothing to bu$h*/cheney