Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002

Introduced in Congress on October 2, 2002, in conjunction with the Administration's proposals,[3][8] H.J.Res. 114 passed the House of Representatives on Thursday afternoon at 3:05 p.m. EDT on October 10, 2002, by a vote of 296–133,[9] and passed the Senate after midnight early Friday morning, at 12:50 a.m. EDT on October 11, 2002, by a vote of 77–23.[10] It was signed into law as Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law (United States) 107–243 (text) (PDF) by President Bush on October 16, 2002.

• 215 (96.4%) of 223 Republican Representatives voted for the resolution.
• 81 (39.2%) of 208 Democratic Representatives voted for the resolution.
• 6 (<2.7%) of 223 Republican Representatives voted against the resolution: Reps. Duncan (R-TN), Hostettler (R-IN), Houghton (R-NY), Leach (R-IA), Morella (R-MD), Paul (R-TX).
• 126 (~60.3%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted against the resolution.
• The only Independent Representative voted against the resolution: Rep. Sanders (I-VT)
  • Reps. Ortiz (D-TX), Roukema (R-NJ), and Stump (R-AZ) did not vote on the resolution.

Final Congressional vote by chamber and party, October 2002

• 29 (58%) of 50 Democratic senators voted for the resolution. Those voting for the resolution were:

Sens. Baucus (D-MT), Bayh (D-IN), Biden (D-DE), Breaux (D-LA), Cantwell (D-WA), Carnahan (D-MO), Carper (D-DE), Cleland (D-GA), Clinton (D-NY), Daschle (D-SD), Dodd (D-CT), Dorgan (D-ND), Edwards (D-NC), Feinstein (D-CA), Harkin (D-IA), Hollings (D-SC), Johnson (D-SD), Kerry (D-MA), Kohl (D-WI), Landrieu (D-LA), Lieberman (D-CT), Lincoln (D-AR), Miller (D-GA), Nelson (D-FL), Nelson (D-NE), Reid (D-NV), Rockefeller (D-WV), Schumer (D-NY), and Torricelli (D-NJ).

• 21 (42%) of 50 Democratic Senators voted against the resolution. Those voting against the resolution were:

Sens. Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), and Wyden (D-OR).

• 1 (2%) of 49 Republican senators voted against the resolution: Sen. Chafee (R-RI).
• The only independent senator voted against the resolution: Sen. Jeffords (I-VT)

Amendment in the nature of a substitute sought to have the United States work through the United Nations to seek to resolve the matter of ensuring that Iraq is not developing weapons of mass destruction, through mechanisms such as the resumption of weapons inspections, negotiation, enquiry, mediation, regional arrangements, and other peaceful means.

Sponsored by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA).[11]

Failed by the Ayes and Nays: 72 - 355[12]

Amendment in the nature of a substitute sought to authorize the use of U.S. armed forces to support any new U.N. Security Council resolution that mandated the elimination, by force if necessary, of all Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, long-range ballistic missiles, and the means of producing such weapons and missiles. Requested that the President should seek authorization from Congress to use the armed forces of the U.S. in the absence of a U.N. Security Council resolution sufficient to eliminate, by force if necessary, all Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, long-range ballistic missiles, and the means of producing such weapons and missiles. Provided expedited consideration for authorization in the latter case.

Sponsored by Rep. John Spratt (D-SC-5).[13]

Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 155 - 270[14]

An amendment considered as adopted pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 574[15]

Sponsored by House Rules.[16]

Resolution (H.RES.574) agreed to by voice vote[17]

To provide statutory construction that constitutional authorities remain unaffected and that no additional grant of authority is made to the President not directly related to the existing threat posed by Iraq.

Sponsored by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV).[18]

Amendment SA 4868 not agreed to by Yea-Nay Vote: 14 - 86[19]

To provide a termination date for the authorization of the use of the Armed Forces of the United States, together with procedures for the extension of such date unless Congress disapproves the extension.

Sponsored by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV).[20]

Amendment SA 4869 not agreed to by Yea-Nay Vote: 31 - 66[21]

To authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces, pursuant to a new resolution of the United Nations Security Council, to destroy, remove, or render harmless Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons-usable material, long-range ballistic missiles, and related facilities, and for other purposes.

Sponsored by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI).[22]

Amendment SA 4862 not agreed to by Yea-Nay Vote: 24 - 75[23]

To amend the authorization for the use of the Armed Forces to cover an imminent threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction rather than the continuing threat posed by Iraq.

Sponsored by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL).[24]

Amendment SA 4865 not agreed to by Yea-Nay Vote: 30 - 70[25]

Events leading up to the Iraq War
14 July Revolution 1958 Iraqi–Kurdish conflict 1961–1991 17 July Revolution 1968 Iranian Revolution 1978–1979 Ba'ath Party Purge 1979 Iran–Iraq War 1980–1988 Iraqgate 1982–c.1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait 1990 Gulf War 1990–1991 Sanctions against Iraq 1990–2003 Iraqi uprisings 1991 Iraqi no-fly zones conflict 1991–2003 Iraq disarmament crisis 1991–2003 Arms-to-Iraq affair 1992–1996 September 11 attacks 2001 U.S. anthrax attacks 2001 U.S. invasion of Afghanistan 2001 Prague connection 2001 Iraq Resolution 2002 Wood Green ricin plot 2003 Colin Powell's UN presentation 2003

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit refused to review the legality of the invasion in 2003, citing a lack of ripeness.

In early 2003, the Iraq Resolution was challenged in court to stop the invasion from happening. The plaintiffs argued that the President does not have the authority to declare war. The final decision came from a three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit which dismissed the case. Judge Lynch wrote in the opinion that the Judiciary cannot intervene unless there is a fully developed conflict between the President and Congress or if Congress gave the President "absolute discretion" to declare war.[26]

Similar efforts to secure judicial review of the invasion's legality have been dismissed on a variety of justiciability grounds.

The vast majority of international legal scholarship contended that the war was an illegal war of aggression, and United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan stated in 2004 that the invasion was illegal, and that it was "not in conformity with the UN Charter".[27][28]

Debate about the legality of the 2003 invasion of Iraq under international law, centers around ambiguous language in parts of U.N. Resolution 1441 (2002).[29] The U.N. Charter in Article 39 states: "The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security".

The position of the U.S. and U.K. is that the invasion was authorized by a series of U.N. resolutions dating back to 1990 and that since the U.N. security council has made no Article 39[30] finding of illegality, that no illegality exists.

Resolution 1441 declared that Iraq was in "material breach" of the cease-fire under U.N. Resolution 687 (1991), which required cooperation with weapons inspectors. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states that under certain conditions, a party may invoke a "material breach" to suspend a multilateral treaty. Thus, the U.S. and U.K. claim that they used their right to suspend the cease-fire in Resolution 687 and to continue hostilities against Iraq under the authority of U.N. Resolution 678 (1990), which originally authorized the use of force after Iraq invaded Kuwait.[31] This is the same argument that was used for Operation Desert Fox in 1998.[32] They also contend that, while Resolution 1441 required the UNSC to assemble and assess reports from the weapons inspectors, it was not necessary for the UNSC to reach an agreement on the course of action. If, at that time, it was determined that Iraq breached Resolution 1441, the resolution did not "constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq".[33] The United States government argued, wholly apart from Resolution 1441, that it has a right of pre-emptive self-defense to protect itself from terrorism fomented by Iraq.[34]

It remains unclear whether any party other than the Security Council can make the determination that Iraq breached Resolution 1441, as U.N. members commented that it is not up to one member state to interpret and enforce U.N. resolutions for the entire council.[35] In addition, other nations have stated that a second resolution was required to initiate hostilities.[36]