August 12, 2005

WHO DIDN'T KNOW SHE WAS CIA AND WHEN DIDN'T THEY KNOW IT?:

Exposing the Plame case mistake: The pundits say the law that protects covert agents' identities won't put anybody away in this investigation. Here's why they're wrong. (Elizabeth de la Vega, August 12, 2005, LA Times)

This is what the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 says:

"Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the U.S. is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the U.S." shall be guilty of a crime.

So what, exactly, does the prosecutor have to prove about the defendant's state of mind under this law? Simply break down the run-on sentence. The defendant must "intentionally disclose" the information. To determine what "intentionally disclose" means, you must follow some basic rules of statutory construction. First, you look to see if the word is specifically defined within the statute itself. For example, the term "disclosed" is defined in the act to mean "communicate, provide, impart, transmit, transfer, convey, publish or otherwise make available." [...]

Nowhere does this statute require proof that the defendant "wished to harm" an undercover agent or jeopardize national security. The reason why someone disclosed the information — whether for revenge, to prevent the publication of a story or to harm the U.S. — is an issue of motive, not intent.

Merely semantics, you say? In criminal law, it's nonetheless a key distinction. Motive is why someone acts; intent is the person's purposefulness while doing so. If you accidentally take home your neighbor's Gucci bag from the block party, there's no crime because you didn't act intentionally. (You do have to give it back, though.) If you grab your neighbor's bag on purpose, you've acted intentionally and you could be guilty of theft. It matters not a whit whether your motive was to get revenge on your neighbor for making too much noise or to get extra cash to hand out to the poor.

There are two other elements in the statute that relate to state of mind: The prosecutor has to prove that the defendant knew the information he or she was disclosing "identifies" the covert agent and that the U.S. was taking affirmative measures to conceal that agent's intelligence relationship to the U.S.


The prosecutor's problem is to prove both the underlying fact--that she was indeed a covert agent (a seeming impossibility given her husband's CIA-sponsored trip and NY Times Op-Ed)--and the scienter of the officials involved--that they knew her to be a covert agent and knew her identity only via classified materials.

Posted by Orrin Judd at August 12, 2005 12:00 AM
Comments

The CIA presumably claimed she was a covert agent (over some period of time) when they referred a complaint to the Justice Department. And the latter point is easy to prove if she herself was the source of the leak, as is most likely.

If she knew she was a covert agent and disclosed her own CIA identity to a journalist (presumably for the purpose of setting up a channel for leak dissemination), then she was in violation of the law.

Posted by: pj at August 12, 2005 9:34 AM

Sending Joe on a CIA mission was in itself incompatible with the notion of : "the U.S. is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the U.S."

Posted by: oj at August 12, 2005 10:47 AM

This is bizarre analysis from a lawyer. "Intentionally" is a high level of mens rea. The ordinary rules of interpreting criminal statutes do not parse a mens rea requirement and apply it only to the verb; it follows through to the entire predicate. The statute requires that the individual intentionally expose a covert agent and that he do so knowing that his disclosure will undo efforts by the agency to maintain the agent's covert status.

De la Vega is trying to turn the statute into some kind of strict liability statute, like a trespass. It's not. Look at Staples v. United States (1994), 511 U.S. 600, 618-619, 114 S.Ct. 1793, 1806, 128 L.Ed.2d 608.

The reason that the statute can't possibly be enforced in this case is that anyone could reasonably assume that the CIA wasn't taking any affirmative measures to keep Plame's CIA job a secret when her husband anounced very publically that he was working for the CIA.

Add that to the fact that she was not a covert agent under the statutory definition and you have the virtually indestructible teapot that confines this tempest.

Posted by: Kevin Bowman at August 12, 2005 12:31 PM

"Affirmative measures" just means that the CIA was taking some action to keep her identity confidential. It does not require that she be deep cover, nor does it preclude errors maintaining her cover.

Posted by: tgibbs at August 12, 2005 1:36 PM

Does anybody else notice that the Bush administration is keeping totally silent on this? While the Dems & moonbats work themselves into a frenzy, attemping to find some parsing of the words of the statute that would put Rove in jail.

This is all so amusing. They are so dead-set on attacking Bush that they don't even bother to try to find a weak spot to attack. No, they go charging right into...um, whereever they happen to be pointed when they see a glimpse of red.

Posted by: fred at August 12, 2005 1:47 PM

Does anybody else notice that the Bush administration is keeping totally silent on this?

The first thing any competent lawyer tells you is, when caught in a crime, say nothing. The administration is already in pretty hot water over the little bit that they've said already. Until it is clear what indictments, if any, are going to emerge, they are wise to keep their mouths shut.

Posted by: at August 12, 2005 3:58 PM

It's interesting that so many liberals are suddenly so supportive of the CIA. It's even more interesting that so many 'conservatives' are so blase about this. If anything remotely approaching this happened under a demo administration, the gop and the rightwingers would be howling for impeachment, perhaps even firing squads. That they are not shows that their true loyalty is to the gop and the neocon agenda, not the country.

Posted by: John at August 12, 2005 4:21 PM

Depends on the timeline, John. There's no there there.

She could have been outed in the mid-90s by Ames or Hanssen and they could have pulled her in then.

Posted by: Sandy P at August 12, 2005 4:55 PM

John:

It's a Republican country. The GOP's agenda is America's.

Posted by: oj at August 12, 2005 5:19 PM

oj,

A republican country? Barely more than half the elegible voters voted. Barely more than half of them voted for Bush. You seem to be looking at the map through rose colored glasses.

The gop's agenda is america's? Tax cuts for the wealthy, war for the poor. I am as much an american as you and the gop's agenda certainly isn't mine.

Posted by: John at August 12, 2005 5:28 PM

And what about the double standard i noted in my original post?

Posted by: John at August 12, 2005 5:30 PM

Tax cuts for everybody, war for those who volunteer to go.

I certainly quibble about the distribution of the tax cuts, but the bottom line is, if you didn't get an income tax cut, you weren't paying any Federal taxes to begin with.

The poor certainly join the military far more than do the rich, but the middle class is well represented, and since there's NO DRAFT, everyone who's currently in the military at some point WANTED to be in.

Heading into the THIRD YEAR of a war in which one out of thirty deployed soldiers winds up dead or missing a limb, the active Army is meeting its re-enlistment quota by over 100%.

Actual soldiers don't feel as betrayed by the course of the Iraqi pacification as do those who, for whatever reason, have never served.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at August 12, 2005 7:20 PM

John:

No, you're one of the 40%

Posted by: oj at August 12, 2005 7:51 PM

John:

What double standard?

Posted by: oj at August 12, 2005 7:57 PM

Quibble about the distribution? Most people got a few hundred dollars; the rich and the corporations got billions. At a time of record profits, oil companies are getting billions in tax breaks.

Have you heard of the economic draft? Many if not most joined the active forces or reserves for college tuition and bonuses. And now, after months of missing their recruitment goals, they only meet them because they lowered the goals. What evidence do you have that soldiers don't feel betrayed? Morale is low among many, many soldiers.

And, again, what about my original point about the double standard so many rightwingers have about traitorgate?

Posted by: John at August 12, 2005 8:00 PM

OJ,

The double standard that clinton got impeached for a blow job while bushco lied to get us into an unnecessary war then blew the cover of a cia agent in order to get revenge on a whistleblower and yet no on the right seems to think there's anything wrong with that.

Posted by: John at August 12, 2005 8:06 PM

OJ,

What 40%?

Posted by: John at August 12, 2005 8:12 PM

C'mon, John, this isn't rocket science. Clinton didn't get impeached for a blowjob, he got impeached for losing Congress. If Bush had done so would he have been. It's one standard, just not the one you think it ought to be.

Posted by: joe shropshire at August 12, 2005 8:13 PM

Joe,

So you concede it's just a matter of party loyalty, not loyalty to the country.

Posted by: John at August 12, 2005 8:15 PM

Who says there's necessarily a difference? (I'll answer that one for you: both parties, but only about loyalty to the other!) Actually it's more a matter of checks and balances. Impeachment is one check the legislative branch has on the executive. We've had in our history two impeachments and one plea bargain, and if memory serves all three were at the hands of one major party controlling the House against the other party controlling the White House. Sorry, John, this appears to be a somewhat stable emergent property of the system, just as is the absence of third parties.

Posted by: joe shropshire at August 12, 2005 8:31 PM

Joe,

So, because of party loyalty, you have no problem with bushco lying about the reasons for war and then deliberately outing a cia agent, however, if the same actions were done my the other party, you would be outraged?

Posted by: John at August 12, 2005 8:37 PM

It's interesting that so many liberals are suddenly so supportive of the CIA.

This only seems paradoxical to the sort of person who imagines that "supporting our troops" and "supporting the war" are one and the same thing. It is possible to be critical of the CIA without being in favor of betraying our CIA agents to seek political advantage or settle a score.

Posted by: tgibbs at August 12, 2005 8:47 PM

TGibbs,

I support the people in the military but I certainly don't support what the military is doing in the war. CIA agents have been responsible for thousands of murders, bombings and assasinations (allende in chile being just one well known example) -- why support that?

Posted by: John at August 12, 2005 9:01 PM

John :

The CIA is the enemy, but they were on the side of the angels in Chile.

Posted by: oj at August 12, 2005 9:03 PM

John:

the 40% or less of congressional; districts, counties, states, etc. that are still Democrat.

Posted by: oj at August 12, 2005 9:05 PM

John:

If W cheats on Laura he should be impeached. Had Clinton gutted the CIA he'd have been an ever better president.

Posted by: oj at August 12, 2005 9:08 PM

John:

We all own those corporations. We made out like bandits.

Yes, some guys joined for the benefits--they come with responsibilities. Get over it.

Posted by: oj at August 12, 2005 9:10 PM

OJ,

One of those responsibilities shouldn't be fighting and perhaps dying in a bogus war. And no, i won't get over bushco leading us into an unjust and unnecessary war on lies and deception. And neither will the growing majority of americans who see through the lies.

Posted by: John at August 12, 2005 9:27 PM

from howard zinn's editorial in today's guardian:

"According to a poll published by the New York Times and CBS News on June 17, 51% now think the US should not have invaded Iraq or become involved in the war. Some 59% disapprove of Bush's handling of the situation."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1547587,00.html

Posted by: at August 12, 2005 9:31 PM

Isn't there a corollary to Godwin's Law that says that when someone starts quoting anything anything said by Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky and the like, as authoritative sources, the thread is officially dead?

And besides, polls, especially this far from any election, are meaningless. If the New York Times-Democrat can't cook up with a poll that supports whatever position they want it to support, it's because they don't care enough to try.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at August 12, 2005 9:56 PM

John:

They hired the money.

Posted by: oj at August 12, 2005 10:49 PM

Once again, for the record, the administration did not lie about Iraq, and didn't fool us into war. The war is arguably unnecessary, like all American wars. Conservatives have always had it in for the CIA since it was the OSS. So far, the evidence is that no one betrayed a CIA agent for either payback or political advantage. If that changes, then that person will be punished.

Posted by: David Cohen at August 13, 2005 12:45 AM

I support the people in the military but I certainly don't support what the military is doing in the war.

Sigh. Look, John. What the military is doing in this war, in fact at this very moment, is spending the lives of some number of young men (and a few women) in an effort to buy safety for city dwellers. I'm not happy about that either. I think better of the people whose lives are being spent than the people whose safety is being bought. All of this is being done on George W. Bush's order. I wouldn't do the same, but he does, because that's his job. Those he orders carry their orders out because that's their job. In all of this I think the least of such as you, particularly because you've made such a point of loyalty to your country. But that is what your country is: it's the ones who do their jobs by issuing orders, and the ones who do their jobs by following them. This your country has certain very stable characteristics. A trivial one is that a Democratic House doesn't impeach a Democratic president, and vice versa. An important one is that we are reluctant to go to war; but once we are at war we try to stay on the offense until the war's done. To be so estranged from your own history that you don't realize that isn't loyalty to your country, it's loyalty to a fantasy. This country is not John writ large. You cannot simply scale up your own preferred behavior to determine what it should or shouldn't do. A pox on all, like you, whose country is themselves.

Posted by: joe shropshire at August 13, 2005 1:11 AM
Once again, for the record, the administration did not lie about Iraq, and didn't fool us into war.

I agree. If the administration were going to lie about WMD, they would surely have arranged to "find" them in Iraq. Instead, they actually seemed surprised when nothing turned up. Oddly enough, this troubles me more than if they had lied--I find when it comes to Presidents I'm more comfortable with dishonesty than with incompetence.

I think this is why they were so desperate to destroy Wilson that they were willing to out a CIA agent, and why the character assassination campaign against Wilson continues to this day. What Wilson's story reveals is that the truth was out there, just as the information was out there about the al Qaeda highjacking threat prior to 9/11. The administration just wasn't listening, obsessed with their plans for war with Iraq.

Posted by: tgibbs at August 13, 2005 3:05 PM

sigh

President William Jefferson Clinton thought that Saddam had WMD.

Vice President Al Gore, Jr. thought that Saddam had WMD.

Senator Ted Kennedy thought that Saddam had WMD.

Senator John F. Kerry thought that Saddam had WMD.

The UN thought that Saddam had WMD.

France thought that Saddam had WMD.

Russia thought that Saddam had WMD.

Saddam believed that he had WMD.

Where's the "lie" ?

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at August 15, 2005 4:56 AM

Michael:

Saddam lied.

Posted by: oj at August 15, 2005 7:25 AM
since there's NO DRAFT, everyone who's currently in the military at some point WANTED to be in.
My brother joined the Army in 1987 and I'm pretty sure that like other volunteers he expected that should he have to sacrifice his life in the line of duty, there would be a purpose for it. People enlist to defend America, not to do "whatever." The President has broad authority to task them with "whatever," but that doesn't make it right, nor does it excuse any true patriot from his or her obligation to demand that our defense forces be used in legitimate defense activities.
the active Army is meeting its re-enlistment quota by over 100%.
Yes, after they lowered the quotas.
Actual soldiers don't feel as betrayed by the course of the Iraqi pacification as do those who, for whatever reason, have never served.
This is just plain false. Check out Operation Truth.
Where's the "lie" ?
I would say that any block of text immediately above your name would be a "target rich environment" to search for one.

-- Winston

Posted by: Winston Smith at August 25, 2005 1:18 PM

Winston:

Patriots shut up and fight duly authorized just wars.

Posted by: oj at August 25, 2005 1:44 PM
Patriots shut up and fight duly authorized wars.
Oh, silly me. When I said "patriot," I meant American patriot. In my country — America — we have a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people," and therefore it is incumbent upon "the people" to participate in it.

I'm sorry that citizens of your country don't enjoy the traditions of freedom and democracy that we have here in America, OJ, but it's worth fighting to get it. Otherwise, you run the risk that you'll be invaded by American forces who will leave your country in the hands of an Islamic theocracy loyal to Iran. The choice is yours!

Posted by: Winston Smith at August 25, 2005 3:10 PM

Winston:

Exactly. The people voted in favor of this war.

Posted by: oj at August 25, 2005 3:18 PM
The people voted in favor of this war.
That's a pretty distorted assessment of recent history.

If Americans can be said to have voted for any war, it was a war to protect America from the "clear and present danger" presented by Saddam Hussein's WMD stockpiles.

Michael's misleading list of people who "thought Saddam Hussein has WMDs" glosses over the out-of-context quotes that back up its claims. The fact is that no one outside of the Bush Administration and the trusting American public was claiming that Saddam Hussein presented any kind of threat. In fact, it took a lot of Stalinist-wanabees like y'all to drown out the chorus of people screaming, "It's a scam! There are no WMDs!"

We were right, you were wrong. What's more, is that the Bush Administration mislead the American people. Perhaps you are stupid enough to believe that they acted in good faith (and judging by the clever responses I'm getting from you, you may be that stupid), but if the intelligence was so convincing, then why didn't it convince people like me, or for that matter, Hans Blix? Two and a half years ago, we were supposedly idiots for doubting the danger posed by Iraq. Now it's irrefutably documented that we were right.

How can you be so smug when your misapprehensions have cost so much -- and in some cases everything -- to so many?

-- Winston

Posted by: Winston Smith at August 25, 2005 7:01 PM

Winston:

Distorted?

Congress approved. The GOP held Congress after that approval.

The President and most of Congress won re-election after fighting it.

What other ways of assessing the democratic legitimacy of the war are there?

Posted by: oj at August 25, 2005 7:28 PM
Congress approved. ...

What other ways of assessing the democratic legitimacy of the war are there?

That's a fair question, and the answer lies in what Congress aproved:
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
So "the people" authorized President Bush to work with the U.N. Security Council. Did he? No.
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
Was the claim that Iraq was a threat to the United States strong enough to risk anyone's life over? No, it wasn't.
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
The Security Council felt that the weapons inspectors should be allowed to do their jobs. Bush said that the inspections weren't working because they weren't finding anything. There was nothing to find.
(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;...
(A) So Bush said that diplomacy had failed because Iraq wouldn't disclose its secret WMD programs. Administration officials said that they knew for certain Iraq had these programs. They said there was no doubt about this. Iraq had no such programs to disclose, so displomacy wasn't failing, our government's honesty was. (B) The invasion of Iraq was in spite of the wishes of the U.N. Security Council, not in enforcement of them.

The people's representatives duly authorized military force in Iraq, but they did so conditionally. Bush did not meet those conditions. The current fiasco in Iraq was not what "the people" authorized.

-- Winston

Posted by: Winston Smith at August 25, 2005 9:14 PM

The UN Resolutions required Saddam to get rid of his regime. He didn't so we did, as per Congressional mandate. You don't have to like that, but you do have to accept that the war was legitimate democratically.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/print/20020912-1.html


Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the regime's forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world. Yet this aggression was stopped -- by the might of coalition forces and the will of the United Nations.

To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear, to him and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations.

He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge -- by his deceptions, and by his cruelties -- Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.

In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities -- which the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored.

Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents -- and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary General's high-level coordinator for this issue reported that Kuwait, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for -- more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke this promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September the 11th. And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq.

Posted by: oj at August 25, 2005 9:41 PM
The UN Resolutions required Saddam to get rid of his regime. He didn't so we did, as per Congressional mandate. You don't have to like that, but you do have to accept that the war was legitimate democratically.
There was never any UN Resolution requiring Saddam Hussein to abdicate power.

If you want to establish what Congress authorized the President to do, you need to quote the authorization bill. If you want to establish what the UN Security Council Resolutions demanded of Iraq, you need to quote the Resolutions. Quoting Whitehouse Press Releases is merely a rehash of Administration propaganda.

This statement says a lot about 1991. The war was started in 2003, and apparently, no one in the Bush Administration could be bothered to get some more up-to-date information on which to base a decision to send people to die in a foreign land. The Bush Administration was a cornucopia of false and misleading statements about Iraq, and this press release is merely part of that pathetic legacy of ineptitude and hubris.

I hate to break it to you, but repeating thoroughly discredited talking points isn't going to make the Iraq war any less of a disaster than it is.

-- Winston

Posted by: Winston Smith at August 26, 2005 12:24 AM

RESOLUTION 688 (1991)

Adopted by the Security Council at its 2982nd meeting on 5 April 1991

The Security Council,

Mindful of its duties and its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security,

Recalling of Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter of the United Nations,

Gravely concerned by the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq, including most recently in Kurdish populated areas, which led to a massive flow of refugees towards and across international frontiers and to cross-border incursions, which threaten international peace and security in the region,

Deeply disturbed by the magnitude of the human suffering involved, Taking note of the letters sent by the representatives of Turkey and France to the United Nations dated 2 April 1991 and 4 April 1991, respectively (S/22435 and S/22442),

Taking note also of the letters sent by the Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations dated 3 and 4 April 1991, respectively (S/22436 and S/22447),

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Iraq and of all States in the area,

Bearing in mind the Secretary-General's report of 20 March 1991 (S/22366),

1. Condemns the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq, including most recently in Kurdish populated areas, the consequences of which threaten international peace and security in the region;

2. Demands that Iraq, as a contribution to remove the threat to international peace and security in the region, immediately end this repression and express the hope in the same context that an open dialogue will take place to ensure that the human and political rights of all Iraqi citizens are respected;

3. Insists that Iraq allow immediate access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in all parts of Iraq and to make available all necessary facilities for their operations;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to pursue his humanitarian efforts in Iraq and to report forthwith, if appropriate on the basis of a further mission to the region, on the plight of the Iraqi civilian population, and in particular the Kurdish population, suffering from the repression in all its forms inflicted by the Iraqi authorities;

5. Requests further the Secretary-General to use all the resources at his disposal, including those of the relevant United Nations agencies, to address urgently the critical needs of the refugees and displaced Iraqi population;

6. Appeals to all Member States and to all humanitarian organizations to contribute to these humanitarian relief efforts;

7. Demands that Iraq cooperate with the Secretary-General to these ends;

8. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

Posted by: oj at August 26, 2005 12:32 AM


IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION

107th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. J. RES. 114
October 10, 2002

JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations; Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'; Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President 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, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate 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, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
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 terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS. (a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

Posted by: oj at August 26, 2005 12:34 AM

I see you included the full text of the Congressional resolution I already quoted to show that you were wrong about your claims regarding what Congress did and did not authorize. I see, too, that nothing you've posted from the U.N. supports your assertion that the U.N. demanded Saddam relinquish authority.

Wow. You sure can cut'n'paste with the best of them. Is this what qualifies as a "supporting argument" in the realm of the Bush supporter? No wonder everything we've done in Iraq is such a complete disaster.

-- Winston

Posted by: Winston Smith at August 26, 2005 2:14 AM

I see you included the full text of the Congressional resolution I already quoted to show that you were wrong about your claims regarding what Congress did and did not authorize. I see, too, that nothing you've posted from the U.N. supports your assertion that the U.N. demanded Saddam relinquish authority.

Wow. You sure can cut'n'paste with the best of them. Is this what qualifies as a "supporting argument" in the realm of the Bush supporter? No wonder everything we've done in Iraq is such a complete disaster.

-- Winston

Posted by: Winston Smith at August 26, 2005 2:15 AM

2. Demands that Iraq, as a contribution to remove the threat to international peace and security in the region, immediately end this repression

We ended it, as per:

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991)

We just enforced the UN Resolutions that suspended the Gulf War temporarily.

Posted by: oj at August 26, 2005 8:46 AM
We just enforced the UN Resolutions that suspended the Gulf War temporarily.
That's an interesting gambit, but there's no legitimacy to it. The idea that the 1991 cease-fire was somehow "temporary" is a conceit of the Bush Administration.

If you're going to claim legitimacy under UN Security Council resolutions, you have to grant legitimacy to the UN Security Council, which means allowing it to vote on the use of force. We knew the vote wouldn't succeed, and so we blew it off and went to war anyway. Bush said, "Screw the UN," which is not what he was authorized to do by Congress, and so claiming that he was enforcing a UNSCR is just plain absurd.

In any case, the application resolution mandated cooperation with the weapons inspections, and Iraq was in compliance. So we had to dismiss the authority of the UN Security Council, because under their decision, there was no reason to invade Iraq.

Basically, these arguments seemed compelling three years ago because the invasion was a foregone conclusion. War supporters could have argued that the war was necessary because Saddam Hussein had a silly mustache, and they would have been "vindicated" when the US invaded. Has Iraq not turned into a quagmire, then the pro-war faction would never have to revisit the absurdity and failure of their arguements, but unfortunately the actual execution of their plan was placed in the hands of the most inept administration in US history, and now play-time is over, and it's time to face the truth.

-- Winson

Posted by: Winston Smith at August 27, 2005 2:30 PM

Winston:

Though it was a terrible error, we suspended the war subject to the UN Resolutions. When Saddam failed to honor them we enforced them. There was no need to get further approval from Congress, though the President did, nor the UN, which never even bothered to vote on them anew.

The war went rather easily, and the post-war has gone according to plan and the Shi'a and Kurds contrrol their own future. That we are perceived to have acted unilaterally and out of the blue has certainly been a benefit to those of us who despise the UN, so we're happy to have it thought they were uninvolved.

Posted by: oj at August 27, 2005 3:39 PM
...the post-war has gone according to plan and the Shi'a and Kurds contrrol their own future.
You are delusional. I you have some kind of agenda that's important to you, I suggest you reconcile it with reality, before it becomes a footnote to history.

-- Winston

Posted by: Winston Smith at August 27, 2005 6:23 PM

Winston:

Who do you folks in Oceania think is in control?

Posted by: oj at August 27, 2005 7:04 PM

EXPOSING YOUR MISTAKE: You have fallen into the trap of too narrowly defining the issue -- a trap that I assure you Mr. Fitzgerald will not fall into. Those who argue that it is not possible to prove that the Intelligence Identities and Protection Act has been broken may be correct, because that law is very narrowly drafted.

However, the point that you don't seem to see is that there are at least two other laws that apply, and that they have both been used by the Bush Admin. to go after leakers!

One is USCODE Title 18, Sections 793, 794. This law was used recently in the AIPAC indictments, and was also use by the Reagan Admin. to convict Samuel Morrison.

The other is USCODE Title 16, Section 641. This was used by the Bush Admin. a couple of years ago to convict Jonathan Randel.

All three of the cases I have cited were leaks of classified information. Go read the laws and look up the cases. THEN you can talk about mistakes!

Posted by: WilliamR at August 29, 2005 12:44 PM

William:

So you agree that the essay is quite wrong, no?

And, of course, the Identities act was written specifically because identities weren't covered.

Posted by: oj at August 29, 2005 12:51 PM
« NEVERMIND: | Main | THAT'S ENOUGH WOOL: »