On its twentieth anniversary: ​​an American debate on a law authorizing war on Iraq

POSTED ON[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] BY [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[size=52]On its twentieth anniversary: ​​an American debate on a law authorizing war on Iraq[/size]

[size=45][You must be registered and logged in to see this image.][/size]
[size=45]The American “Queensey Institute” called, with the 20th anniversary of the “authorization for the use of military force against Iraq” (AUMF), to end it with no justification, criticizing that the American authority used it to justify engaging in unwarranted tendencies.[/size]
[size=45]The American Institute indicated in a report that the days of the legal authorization for the year 2002 to invade Iraq are numbered, recalling that Sunday, October 16, marks the twentieth anniversary of the law that authorized the executive authority in Washington, the invasion of Iraq.[/size]
[size=45]The report considered that with the growing consensus between the Republican and Democratic parties in the United States, Congress may be on the verge of revoking the authority granted under this authorization to wage war.[/size]
[size=45]The report mentioned that Congress approved the authorization to use military force around Iraq, in response to a request from President George W. Bush in October 2002, which came 13 months after the Authorization for the Use of Military Force of 2002, which was used against those responsible for the September 11 attacks against Iraq. New York and Washington.[/size]
[size=45]However, the report considered that the mandate relating to Iraq was used for a different purpose, explaining that the law allowed the president to use the armed forces when “necessary and appropriate” to “defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq” and “implement all decisions of the Council of Ministers.” security related to Iraq.[/size]
[size=45]The report stated that these decisions related to accusing the former regime of possessing weapons of mass destruction, while the US intelligence services later concluded that this turned out to be incorrect, criticizing the idea of ​​this false claim turned into a “secondary issue in the historical record of the war that followed.”[/size]
[size=45]The report noted that "the fighting continued" despite the swift ouster of Saddam Hussein, Bush's declaration that "mission accomplished" and the end of major combat operations on May 1, 2003, and the execution of Saddam Hussein in 2006.[/size]
[size=45]By the time President Barack Obama officially announced the end of the Iraq war and the withdrawal of all American soldiers in December 2011, about 126,000 Iraqi civilians had been killed, in addition to 4,500 American soldiers, while another 32,000 were wounded. In this war, American taxpayers cost nearly $800 billion.[/size]
[size=45]The report said that in light of the official end of the Iraq war nearly 11 years ago, it raises the question about the debate on the law that allowed this war to take place.[/size]
[size=45]The report pointed to a paradox that in the era before the September 11 attacks, the laws authorizing and declaring wars were rarely discussed, or even accompanied by calls for their abolition, explaining that the abolition of such laws was not previously necessary in order to end The executive authority used it, noting that previous US administrations had accepted the idea that the end of the conflict meant, in practice, the end of the situation that allowed it.[/size]
[size=45]For example, the report said that US President Franklin D. Roosevelt never resorted to relying on the declaration of war issued in 1917 against Germany, in order to justify the war against Hitler's Nazi regime 24 years later, and that President Roosevelt then sought to obtain A new delegation of constitutionally vested authority to "declare war".[/size]
[size=45]He added that this was not the case with regard to the mandate related to the Iraq war, as although the intention of the Congress behind the resolution was clear, successive administrations have interpreted the law beyond its original goal.[/size]
[size=45]In this context, he pointed out that these loose interpretations began in 2014, when President Barack Obama authorized the deployment of US forces in Iraq in order to fight ISIS, as the Obama administration considered that the Iraq Authorization Act of 2001 included congressional permission to carry out this task. The new one, which also constitutes a legal alternative that the president can rely on in order to carry out military action in Iraq.[/size]
[size=45]The report continued; The 2011 mandate, the Obama administration later interpreted, specifically in December 2016, as allowing it to carry out military operations against ISIS in Syria, as it considered that the Iraq war mandate for the year 2011, enhances the authority to carry out military operations against ISIS in Iraq and in other places others to the extent necessary to achieve this goal.[/size]
[size=45]In 2018, the administration of President Donald Trump went even further, considering that the 2011 authorization allows the use of force to address each of the “threats directed at or emanating from Iraq,” which caused the law to be expanded significantly and allowed the justification of the use of force. Military force against any number of regional threats to Iraq, whether by an organization or by a state, and in this context it allowed itself to assassinate the commander of the Iranian Quds Force, General Qassem Soleimani, in January 2020, 18 years after the law was passed.[/size]
[size=45]While the report indicated that the legal jurists rejected this justification on the part of the Trump administration, Congress responded by issuing a resolution to freeze hostilities against Iran, with a bipartisan majority in both houses of Congress, but in the end the resolution was rejected by Trump using the presidential “veto” .[/size]
[size=45]In this context, the report said that over the past years, frustration has grown among the majority of representatives of both parties in Congress over the executive branch's appropriation of the constitutional powers of Congress in deciding whether, when and against whom Washington will go to war.[/size]
[size=45]The report added that representatives such as Democratic Representative Barbara Lee submitted a request for an amendment adopted by the House of Representatives in order to repeal the Iraq war authorization law. Democratic Senator Tim Kaine and Republican Senator Todd Young are also introducing a similar amendment to the Senate.[/size]
[size=45]The report concluded by noting that the most important since you is that the repeal of the Iraq War Authorization Act of 2002, has the support of the Biden administration. In June 2021, the White House released a statement definitively stating that "the administration supports repealing the Authorization Act of the Year 2002."[/size]
[size=45]Besides, these moves are supported by many groups and organizations that reflect the bipartisan support of Congress, including veterans groups, as well as families of the victims of 9/11, which also reflects the feelings of the American people as more than 80% of the public support Restricting the president's war powers and strengthening congressional oversight over decisions on the use of force.[/size]
[size=45]The report concluded by saying that on the 20th anniversary of the Iraq War Authorization Act of 2002, it is important to consider the cost and consequences of this law, since after years of bloodshed, billions of dollars, and submission to constitutional authority, Congress appears to be finally ready to repeal Delegating war terms is outdated.[/size]
[size=45]He added that the time had become perfectly opportune to “turn this page” for the war-weary public, eager for its elected representatives to re-impose constitutional checks and balances.[/size]
[size=45][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]