posted March 09, 2012 06:00 AM            

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5zNwOeyuG84

Article: http://destructionist.wordpress.com/category/co ngressman-jones-introduces-bill-that-would-subject-panetta-obama-to-impeachment/

posted March 09, 2012 10:39 AM            

There seems to be a hell of a lot of the Constitution our so called Constitutional Scholar in Chief never read.

Article 1 USC gives Congress the power to declare war. Not O'Bomber, not NATO and sure as hell not the United Nations.

So, when O'Bomber was using US military aircraft to drop US made bombs on Libya...for whatever reasons, he was engaged in WAR. Bombing a foreign nation from their own airspace above their cities or even their uninhabited deserts IS AN ACT OF WAR.

Because of what Qaddafi was doing.... making war on his own citizens, the Congress of the United States would have given O'Bomber all the necessary authority he needed to use US military forces to stop it..in, I would say, about 15 minutes.

BUT

O'Bomber never appeared in front of a joint session of Congress and asked for their approval..authority or a declaration of war to enter into a military campaign...WAR to stop Qaddafi.

Some say I'm always picking on O'Bomber and I am. He richly deserves ever word.

But, O'Bomber is not the only one who has committed US military forces to fight in foreign lands, each incident involving an ACT of WAR. Committing US military forces across an international border IS an ACT of WAR and unless the circumstances are so dire and so immediate as to preclude getting advanced authorization from Congress then...each incident is a violation of the Constitution and should be treated by Congress as an impeachable offense by whatever President makes that move.

We now have a political class in Washington which has grown over many years to believe they can do anything. In their minds they're Masters of the Universe and whatever they say..or do...IS THE LAW.

amelia28 is not the only one in America to see this for what it is...though, I commend her that she does see it and doesn't like it.

In my opinion, there's only one way to stop the political class from running rough shod over every duly constituted authority protecting the rights of the people of America and the nation its-self.

All it takes is one Member of the US House of Representatives with the balls to file a Bill of Impeachment laying out clearly what parts of the Constitution and laws of America were broken, how the actions taken broke those laws and name the person responsible.

Then, we can have a hell of a fight on the floor of the House and the Bill of Impeachment may get enough votes to send the matter to the US Senate for a trial.

But, win or lose, a massive shot would have been fired across the bow of those who have come to think they are above the law, above the Constitution and can get away with whatever they decide to do...legal or not.

We have the machinery...within the Constitution and the laws of the United States to put a stop to any infringement of our laws and our rights as citizens by any elected or appointed official...as well as any unelected bureaucrat.

We just have to use that machinery from time to time to remind those who think of themselves as the Political Class; who the hell works for whom.

posted March 09, 2012 12:41 PM            

We don't currently have a one world government we have international organizations such as the UN that consist of representatives from various nations around the world that each have their own individual political systems.

But, please explain to us Amelia in your own words, what the United States "used to be" like? You didn't enlighten us about that specific statement. I'm curious to know what exactly is the America you're accustomed to? And what point in time while you were living did this country begin to fail to live up to your expectations?

posted March 09, 2012 07:06 PM            

High crimes and misdemeanors.

Running guns..some fully automatic rifles across an international border into Mexico violated both US law and International law.

Paying off his campaign contributors with taxpayer money in the form of loan guarantees which will never be repaid is bribery.

Lying through his teeth to America in his State of the Union speech that there are no provisions for abortion in the O'BomberCare bill is a fraud in the inducement to vote for and support O'BomberCare.

Violating the 1st Amendment rights of Catholics and members of other religions is most certainly an impeachable offense.

Interfering with the federal bankruptcy proceedings for General Motors and Chrysler when O'Bomber has absolutely no Executive Branch authority to interfere with the proceedings of the federal judiciary is most certainly an impeachable offense.

posted March 09, 2012 10:34 PM            

Second, there are sufficient grounds for impeaching O'Bomber right now.

Third, what O'Bomber has done, is doing and intends to continue doing is making war on American citizens, American institutions, the American economy, the US Constitution and the American military.

If O'Bomber is reelected, he's going to find the US ungovernable under his Socialist policies. He's going to have a Republican House and probably a Republican Senate, both of which will block virtually every one of his Socialist initiatives.

The next time he bypasses Congress, especially the Senate and attempts to appoint his radical comrades to administration posts without the "advice and consent" of the Senate, he may well find himself on the receiving end of a Bill of Impeachment.

posted March 10, 2012 12:58 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by NativelyJoan:
No one's getting impeached, nor do they deserve to be impeached. Bush isn't even president, so nope he can't be impeached and you're complaint can be directed at many past American presidents not just Bush and Obama as already noted by Jwhop.

We don't currently have a one world government we have international organizations such as the UN that consist of representatives from various nations around the world that each have their own individual political systems.

But, please explain to us Amelia in your own words, what the United States "used to be" like? You didn't enlighten us about that specific statement. I'm curious to know what exactly is the America you're accustomed to? And what point in time while you were living did this country begin to fail to live up to your expectations?

Sidenote: Amelia, no one's rejecting what you post, at least I'm not trying too. I take into consideration the things you post however, disagreements are unavoidable, especially considering this is a forum filled with controversial topics. As long as people aren't trying to personally insult you, having disagreements is all apart of civil discourse.

---

Hi Joan,

You say-No one's getting impeached, nor do they deserve to be impeached. Bush isn't even president, so nope he can't be impeached and you're complaint can be directed at many past American presidents not just Bush and Obama as already noted by Jwhop.

My response: Bush can still get charged for treason and both Obama and Bush do deserve to be impeached and I am perfectly aware that Bush and Obama are not the only presidents sadly that have committed treason and outright disregarded the constitution and this is why I have posted about the two party system. Candidates who can’t be bought like Ron Paul don’t make it to presidency as they are not part of the CFR or attend Bilderberg meetings to decide for us the fate of our world in SECRET. JFK was going to end the FED and he was then murdered. What do you think the pyramid with an eye at the top of the pyramid symbol in our dollar is all about? Ask yourself who created our fiat and current monetary system?
http://www.funfactory.spruz.com/forums/?page=post&id=A2A021C6-CB08-4E45-B0BC-A39A34BA 86F0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGk5ioEXlIM

You say: We don't currently have a one world government we have international organizations such as the UN that consist of representatives from various nations around the world that each have their own individual political systems.

My response: The foundations for a one world government are been set and these international organizations are part of this, we are experiencing the beginnings of a new world order. Another part of this is uniting Mexico/USA/Canada to create an American union; they want to do the same with Asia and Africa as they have already done with Europe. Collapsing the dollar is a crisis that will create a reaction from the public demanding a solution and then the government will provide the solution upon request for the crisis they created to get what they want; the solution will be a new currency that will unite Mexico, USA, and Canada. You can disagree with me all you want but eventually you will not disagree with me anymore, is only a matter of time because as things progress and they get closer and closer to their objectives what is happening will be harder and harder to ignore.

Also we are starting wars with a bunch of countries when we should be minding our own business, starting false flag wars and the world is in the brink of WWIII. Our food and water has poison (fluoride, GMO, cornsyrup which most of it comes from GM corn and most of it has traces of mercury, pesticides, our meat has antibiotics, plastic is bad for us and the environment as it mimicks estrogen reducing fertility of men and increasing chances of breast cancer in women to name a few of the problems with plastic, evidence that vaccines are bad for children resulting in death/autism and other conditions, oh and the pharmaceutical industry which makes people sicker, keeps people sick but alive or kills people with some of their meds).

All these examples can be referred to as soft kill and are part of keeping people weak and dumb down, easy to control and dependent on big corporations and are also ways to keep the population down.
http://www.naturalnews.com/035183_statin_drugs_diabetes_warnings.html

You say: But, please explain to us Amelia in your own words, what the United States "used to be" like? You didn't enlighten us about that specific statement. I'm curious to know what exactly is the America you're accustomed to? And what point in time while you were living did this country begin to fail to live up to your expectations?

Swat teams with guns come into our public schools and search all students bc there is someone in school selling pot (watch documentary war on kids:http://lewrockwell.com/decoster/decoster191.html), the military is gaining more and more power and so is the police, our nation has become a police state. Police/government/military can now come into your house thanks to the new NDAA provisions that allows the U.S. government and the military to “indefinitely detain United States citizens and lawful resident aliens captured within the United States of America without charge until the end of hostilities.”
The controversial legislation, signed into law by Obama on New Years Eve, allows American citizens to be abducted and held in a detention camp anywhere in the world without trial under section 1031.

People have to take off their shoes at the airport and be searched like criminals which before 911 this was not the case. There are excessive regulations for everything with the purpose to oppress us and make money from us and get rid of the middle class and create more dependency towards the government. The regulations have been growing exponentially since I was little. Did you know that you don’t actually own your house or car and that you co own it with the government and they can take it away whenever you want, well that wasn’t always the case. I did not grow up with the patriot act for example. Police brutality has gotten a lot worse since I was little bc this is part of getting us to get use to a master/slave world. Things have definitely gotten worst.

You say-Sidenote: Amelia, no one's rejecting what you post, at least I'm not trying too. I take into consideration the things you post however, disagreements are unavoidable, and especially considering this is a forum filled with controversial topics. As long as people aren't trying to personally insult you, having disagreements is all a part of civil discourse.

My response: I agree but if two people disagree repeatedly about politics I stop debating with that friend or person after a while and focus on other aspects of our relationship and on other people when it comes to politics, I just prefer to save my energy for something else bc I need my energy, I don’t have an excess of it like some people I have met. I never wanted to change your mind about anything. When I started posting stuff on this forum I didn’t have you or anyone for that matter in mind. I am just sharing information that I think is crucial hoping to reach a few people but not necessarily you so don’t think I am trying to change your mind please.

posted March 11, 2012 06:54 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by amelia28:
Obama Admin Cites 'Int'l Permission,' Not Congress, As 'Legal Basis' For Action In Syria

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5zNwOeyuG84

Article: http://destructionist.wordpress.com/category/co ngressman-jones-introduces-bill-that-would-subject-panetta-obama-to-impeachment/

I am providing information to wake people up because I care about myself and others and because I don't want a one world government which is basically already here that is why the military is not getting permission from congress for long term wars that last more than 90 days like our constitution states and instead gets its permission from NATO and the United Nations. This is treason and both Bush and Obama have done this and both should be impeached. The United States is not what it used to be and I am not going to have a debate about what I post. I just hope a few people read what I post and look into it with an open mind bc I am worried as hell. For the rest who reject what I post without thoroughly looking into it I am not interested in wasting my energy having a debate with you bc I need to reserve my energy and use it wisely at this point but wish you the best. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5zNwOeyuG84

---

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted March 11, 2012 06:54 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwhop:
Considering that O'Bomber has already committed several impeachable offenses against the United States; what is your rational for saying...no one is going to be impeached?

High crimes and misdemeanors.

Running guns..some fully automatic rifles across an international border into Mexico violated both US law and International law.

Paying off his campaign contributors with taxpayer money in the form of loan guarantees which will never be repaid is bribery.

Lying through his teeth to America in his State of the Union speech that there are no provisions for abortion in the O'BomberCare bill is a [b]fraud in the inducement to vote for and support O'BomberCare.

Violating the 1st Amendment rights of Catholics and members of other religions is most certainly an impeachable offense.

Interfering with the federal bankruptcy proceedings for General Motors and Chrysler when O'Bomber has absolutely no Executive Branch authority to interfere with the proceedings of the federal judiciary is most certainly an impeachable offense.

How many more would you like?[/B]

---

posted March 12, 2012 09:14 AM            

Just so you can get this straight in your head, Americans self identify as conservative at the rate of 60%. The range runs from 59% to a little over 61%...every time this poll is run and it's been running for decades and it's not a demoscat/Republican thing. Party affilliation is not an issue in this poll.

"WE"! Sure as hell not YOU and what you represent NJ.

Out of the 21% of Americans who claim to be liberals, you're on the far leftist fringe which might be a few as 8%-10%...the communists, Socialists, Progressives and Anarchists.

Now, as for your comment "no one is going to be impeached".....I wouldn't be so sure if I were you.

Thanks amelia for starting this thread. This is a big deal. It's a hell of a lot bigger deal than some think. As Americans find out...and they're going to find out...that O'Bomber thinks he doesn't need Congressional approval or authority to commit US military forces in offensive military action, many of them are going to go look the issue up in the Constitution. They're going to find that "ONLY CONGRESS CAN DECLARE WAR"! Period.

I can't imagine there would ever be a US Congress or even a member of Congress who would object to any president using US military forces to defend the US..even if he/she didn't get their express approval to do so in advance.

But, offensive use of US military forces are an entirely different matter.

I have to give Ron Paul credit for pounding on this issue for years as president after president have used US military forces in offensive capacities without getting a Declaration of War from Congress.

O'Bomber has just been put on "official notice" that using US military forces in an offensive capacity without an authorizing ACT of Congress would be an impeachable act as a "high crime and/or misdemeanor"...as spelled out in the Constitution.

Obama impeachment bill now in Congress
Declares president's use of military without approval 'high crime, misdemeanor'
Drew Zahn
March 12, 2012

Let the President be warned

Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr., R-N.C., has introduced a resolution declaring that should the president use offensive military force without authorization of an act of Congress, “it is the sense of Congress” that such an act would be “an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor.”

Specifically, Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution reserves for Congress alone the power to declare war, a restriction that has been sorely tested in recent years, including Obama’s authorization of military force in Libya.

In an exclusive WND column, former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo claims that Jones introduced his House Concurrent Resolution 107 in response to startling recent comments from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.

“This week it was Secretary of Defense Panetta’s declaration before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he and President Obama look not to the Congress for authorization to bomb Syria but to NATO and the United Nations,” Tancredo writes. “This led to Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., introducing an official resolution calling for impeachment should Obama take offensive action based on Panetta’s policy statement, because it would violate the Constitution.”

In response to questions from Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., over who determines the proper and legal use of the U.S. military, Panetta said, “Our goal would be to seek international permission and we would … come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress – I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here.”

“Well, I’m almost breathless about that,” Sessions responded, “because what I heard you say is, ‘We’re going to seek international approval, and then we’ll come and tell the Congress what we might do, and we might seek congressional approval.’ And I just want to say to you that’s a big [deal].”

Asked again what was the legal basis for U.S. military force, Panetta suggested a NATO coalition or U.N. resolution.

Sessions was dumbfounded by the answer.

“Well, I’m all for having international support, but I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat,” Sessions said. “They can provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution.”

The exchange itself can be seen below:

The full wording of H. Con. Res. 107, which is currently referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, is as follows:

Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.

Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it

posted March 12, 2012 10:39 AM            

quote:

---

jwhop:Yeah NJ "WE"!

Just so you can get this straight in your head, Americans self identify as conservative at the rate of 60%. The range runs from 59% to a little over 61%...every time this poll is run and it's been running for decades and it's not a demoscat/Republican thing. Party affilliation is not an issue in this poll.

"WE"! Sure as hell not YOU and what you represent NJ.

Out of the 21% of Americans who claim to be liberals, you're on the far leftist fringe which might be a few as 8%-10%...the communists, Socialists, Progressives and Anarchists."

---

You've got quite an imagination Jwhop. What you fail to get straight is that your words don't account for this entire population because you can't speak on behalf of 300 million people. You also can't possibly be citing public opinion polls in providing that percentile data because those are fundamentally inaccurate, biased and flawed. Have you spoken to the 300 million people that live in this country individually? If so please provide that data, because if not you're words have no weight in regards to public opinion statistics. Polling systems are flawed and in no way, shape or form are an accurate reflection of the entire population. Favoring the majority opinion is one of the many problems we have in our society. Pretending as though minority opinions are irrelevant within the context of public opinion. Especially considering the majority opinion is relative to perception and hegemony, which might actually lend itself against the true majority opinion.

Another thing, you seriously underestimate my generation Jwhop. Regardless of what you think our opinions sway away from conservatism. Which will be reflected once again come November. It's interesting because you do enjoy speaking on behalf of myself and my generation don't you. When have I ever stated that I'm a far left individual or a Marxist, socialist etc. Don't assume what you don't know especially in regards to myself, sir. Keep your assumptions to politics, or whatever you enjoy pandering about and far away from my personal or political views.

posted March 12, 2012 10:42 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwhop:
Yeah NJ "WE"!

Just so you can get this straight in your head, Americans self identify as conservative at the rate of 60%. The range runs from 59% to a little over 61%...every time this poll is run and it's been running for decades and it's not a demoscat/Republican thing. Party affilliation is not an issue in this poll.

"WE"! Sure as hell not YOU and what you represent NJ.

Out of the 21% of Americans who claim to be liberals, you're on the far leftist fringe which might be a few as 8%-10%...the communists, Socialists, Progressives and Anarchists.

Now, as for your comment "no one is going to be impeached".....I wouldn't be so sure if I were you.

Thanks amelia for starting this thread. This is a big deal. It's a hell of a lot bigger deal than some think. As Americans find out...and they're going to find out...that O'Bomber thinks he doesn't need Congressional approval or authority to commit US military forces in offensive military action, many of them are going to go look the issue up in the Constitution. They're going to find that "ONLY CONGRESS CAN DECLARE WAR"! Period.

I can't imagine there would ever be a US Congress or even a member of Congress who would object to any president using US military forces to defend the US..even if he/she didn't get their express approval to do so in advance.

But, offensive use of US military forces are an entirely different matter.

I have to give Ron Paul credit for pounding on this issue for years as president after president have used US military forces in offensive capacities without getting a Declaration of War from Congress.

O'Bomber has just been put on "official notice" that using US military forces in an offensive capacity without an authorizing ACT of Congress would be an impeachable act as a "high crime and/or misdemeanor"...as spelled out in the Constitution.

[b]Obama impeachment bill now in Congress
Declares president's use of military without approval 'high crime, misdemeanor'
Drew Zahn
March 12, 2012

Let the President be warned

Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr., R-N.C., has introduced a resolution declaring that should the president use offensive military force without authorization of an act of Congress, “it is the sense of Congress” that such an act would be “an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor.”

Specifically, Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution reserves for Congress alone the power to declare war, a restriction that has been sorely tested in recent years, including Obama’s authorization of military force in Libya.

In an exclusive WND column, former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo claims that Jones introduced his House Concurrent Resolution 107 in response to startling recent comments from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.

“This week it was Secretary of Defense Panetta’s declaration before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he and President Obama look not to the Congress for authorization to bomb Syria but to NATO and the United Nations,” Tancredo writes. “This led to Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., introducing an official resolution calling for impeachment should Obama take offensive action based on Panetta’s policy statement, because it would violate the Constitution.”

In response to questions from Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., over who determines the proper and legal use of the U.S. military, Panetta said, “Our goal would be to seek international permission and we would … come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress – I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here.”

“Well, I’m almost breathless about that,” Sessions responded, “because what I heard you say is, ‘We’re going to seek international approval, and then we’ll come and tell the Congress what we might do, and we might seek congressional approval.’ And I just want to say to you that’s a big [deal].”

Asked again what was the legal basis for U.S. military force, Panetta suggested a NATO coalition or U.N. resolution.

Sessions was dumbfounded by the answer.

“Well, I’m all for having international support, but I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat,” Sessions said. “They can provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution.”

The exchange itself can be seen below:

The full wording of H. Con. Res. 107, which is currently referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, is as follows:

Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.

Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under Article I, Section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/obama-impeachment-bill-now-in-congress/?cat_orig=us [/B]

---

Bless you Jwhop dear

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted March 12, 2012 12:02 PM            

Poll after poll after poll after poll have been done on this subject and the results are steady as a rock...decade after decade.

America is a center right nation. It's you and the leftist kooks you hang with who are in the overwhelming minority and badly out of step with America and the large majority of Americans.

posted March 12, 2012 12:28 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwhop:
NJ, I don't need to speak to 300 million people to find out what their political leanings are...America is a center right nation. It's you and the leftist kooks you hang with who are in the overwhelming minority and badly out of step with America and the large majority of Americans.

---

Goodness Jwhop, it's truly impossible for you to comment without attempting to speak on behalf of myself and this entire nation of people. You care oh so much about what other people think, it's actually amusing. You also loose credibility every time you make remarks that postulate ideas about American views that you can't personally verify by providing concise and accurate data. Times have changed, viewpoints have changed, what used to be a "center right" majority opinionated nation is no longer and I have a hard time verifying that America ever was such a nation.

There is no single identifiable American political viewpoint because America is filled with a variety of very different kinds of people. I'm not narrow minded enough to assume that this entire nation supports my personal viewpoints, because that would be making an incredibly gross judgment. It would also be grounding the assumption that Americans aren't individuals and independent thinkers which according to you their not, according to you they all think exactly the same.

posted March 12, 2012 02:15 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwhop:
Thank you Ami Anne.

---

Thank YOU Jwhop!

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted March 12, 2012 05:03 PM            

D3. When thinking about politics and government, do you consider yourself to be...

(READ LIST, ROTATE TOP TO BOTTOM, BOTTOM TO TOP)

Very conservative.................23%

Somewhat conservative.............36%

MODERATE (DNR).....................................2%

Somewhat liberal................. 24%

Very liberal......................10

UNSURE/REFUSED (DNR)...................................5%

Now, thinking about journalism…

36. Thinking about journalism overall in the United States today, do you think journalism is generally heading in the right direction or the wrong direction?

Right direction/strongly.......................7%

Right direction/somewhat......................16%

(DNR)...................................12%

Wrong direction/somewhat......................18%

posted March 13, 2012 02:41 PM            

we have not declared war through congress or any other means since world war II.

posted March 13, 2012 04:44 PM            

JOINT RESOLUTION ON IRAQ
October 11, 2002

Congress passes a bipartisan resolution authorizing President Bush to use military force, acting alone if necessary, in order to ensure that Iraq disarms any weapons of mass destruction.

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.