From: dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas)
Subject: Re: raid started
Organization: VTT
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 08:31:05 GMT

In article <1jf8eeINNdj6@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>In <1993Jan16.110625.4392@ousrvr.oulu.fi> dfo@tko.vtt.fi writes:
>
>> In article <1j212fINN980@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>> >It has demanded that the UN use Iraqi aircraft to fly in and out.  
>> >Iraqis have gone into territory ceded to Kuwait 
>> >and removed military
>> >weapons, which 1) is against the cease-fire agreement and 2) the Security
>> >Council has demanded the return of said missiles, which has not been done.

>> The demand came after the removal.  Iraq is not banned from having
>> Silkworm missiles under UN resolutions, just nuclear, chemical, and
>> biological weapons.

>  To my knwoledge, the resolutions and the ceae-fire agreement did not allow
>Iraq to return to the area to recover their weapons, merely non-military/non-
>weapon equipment.  And the weapons have not been returned as demanded by the 
>UN.

The territory was Iraqi until Nov. or Dec. at which time the UN decided
to give it to Kuwait.  Iraq was given until a certain time to remove its
goods from the land that was being taken from it.  Iraq has not agreed
to the loss of this land but attempted to remove its property before the
deadline.  They had problems getting "permission" to go in (to what they
considered their own land) to obtain their goods, and with the deadline
approaching and the threat of loss of the goods they went in anyway.

The cease-fire agreement has nothing to do with this as the territory
was taken from Iraq long after that agreement.  I do not have the text
of the resolution taking this territory from Iraq and giving it to
Kuwait, so i cannot address whether that resolution (assuming it was a 
resolution) specifically banned Iraq from removing its military supplies
from the region.  Iraq acquiesced in the UN's holding of its military
supplies pending resolution of other matters, but the situation changed
when they were threatened with permanent loss of the property.

What sort of demand came from the UN to return the weapons?  Was it yet
another SC resolution?  Even if it was, only resolutions passed before
the Nov 1990 resolution permitting use of force can be enforced by the
US (or other nations) militarily.

>> >I am unaware of any UN resolutions regarding no fly zxones, either for or 
>> >against WRT Iraq.  BUT if Iraq has submitted to the no-fly zone (however
>> >unwillingly and imperfectly, moving SAMs into it is a threatening gesture
>> >at the very least. 
 
>> It may be considered threatening, but it isn't banned.  Missiles on the
>> ground certainly do not violate a ban on airplanes in the air.

Also, Iraq has never submitted to the no-fly zone;  it specifically
claims that they are illegal.

>  Yes, but given the fact that the Coalition (US) patrols the zone to insure
>it is complied with, the movement of SAM's into it is a threatening gesture.

Threatening gestures are not banned.

>SAM's are used to shoot down aircraft.  The Marsh Arabs have no air force of
>their own, so who do you think the missiles were intended for?  Certainly
>it is not in keeping with the slew of resolutions passed WRT Iraq since
>August 1990.

Specify a resolution that it violates.

>> >> Secondly, how can Bush go ahead and wage war on another country without  
>> >> consulting the people of the U.S. ?  That's against the constitution if 
>> >> you ask me.

>> >  The president may have US forces in a combat situation for up to 30(?) days
>> >before Congress must be consulted.  This is part of the War Powers act, the

>> FALSE!!!  The War Powers act specifically grants NO power to the
>> President, it only puts limitations upon him/her.  It leaves up in the
>> air the constitutionality of whether the President could act before that
>> time.

>  I did not state the act GAVE the president this power.  

That the president may have US forces in combat for a specified period
before Congress must be consulted is NOT part of the War Powers act, as
you falsely claimed.  The War Powers act requires the President to
notify Congress of certain actions and at certain times, and
specifically bans the use of military forces in certain conditions (such
as without specific Congressional authorization after a given period of
time).  The only part of your statement that is part of the War Powers
act is that "Congress must be consulted."

>The president has the
>power to order the military to do anything he damn well pleases.  

Not at all.  There are many laws regulating the armed forces.  Whether
the president has the power to send the troops to war (unless the US is
attacked) is a constitutional question that is undecided despite the
Constitution's specific granting of the War power to Congress.  If you 
wish to discuss this the discussion belongs in alt.politics.constitution.usa .

>The congress
>may intervene via its power of the purse, impeach the president, any number of
>things to halt his orders.  

True

>It is allowed to interfere in this manner because
>of the ablity to declare war.

These have nothing to do with the war power.  Congress has these rights
because they are granted them specifically (the third point has to do
with Congress's responsibility for making laws for the regulation of the
armed forces.

>> >constitutionality of which is somewhat questionable.  Anyway, the original
>> >resolution passed by Congree authorizing force may still hold.  AND on top
>> >of that, support for being tough on Saddam is quite strong, with most of
>> >Congress and Clinton himself agreeing with Bush's handling of the affair.

>> Again, that does not absolve the President of Constitutional requirements.

>  These are more than a little fuzzy, especially in light of Congressional
>approval of force vs. Iraq to support the UN resloutions, back in December
>1990.  

January 1991 was the date of the Congressional authorization.  Nov. 1991
was the date of the UN resolution permitting all necessary means.

>Constitutionally, this is not a problem, especially given the 
>attitude of the congress WRT Iraq.

The attitude of Congress or the public (of support for being "tough")
has NOTHING to do with the Constitutionality of the actions taken.
Unconstitutional actions can be, and often have been, widely supported.

>> >  This is a punitive strike/raid, not an invasion.  Plebiscites are not re-
>> >quired whenever a gun is cocked.

>> No, but the gun was fired, and Congress represents the US people;
>> plebliscites are never required in the US.

>  Then it is the mission of the congress to register any protests or force the
>president to desist.  It has not and is not likely to do so due to the fact
>that these actions are widely regarded as the right thing and even long
>overdue.  The president is well aware of these facts.

I would also hope that our president would follow the Constitution as he
swore to do, not just follow the prevailing winds of opinion.  Let him
ask Congress for a declaration of war.  If Congress grants it, then
there is no question of his right to fight.

>Jammer Jim Miller 
>Texas A&M University '89 and '91

-- 
doug foxvog     
dfo@tko.vtt.fi   
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm