DOCSLIB.ORG

The War Powers Resolution: Concepts and Practice

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

The War Powers Resolution: Concepts and Practice Updated March 8, 2019 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R42699 The War Powers Resolution: Concepts and Practice Summary This report discusses and assesses the War Powers Resolution and its application since enactment in 1973, providing detailed background on various cases in which it was used, as well as cases in which issues of its applicability were raised. In the post-Cold War world, Presidents have continued to commit U.S. Armed Forces into potential hostilities, sometimes without a specific authorization from Congress. Thus the War Powers Resolution and its purposes continue to be a potential subject of controversy. On June 7, 1995, the House defeated, by a vote of 217-201, an amendment to repeal the central features of the War Powers Resolution that have been deemed unconstitutional by every President since the law’s enactment in 1973. In 1999, after the President committed U.S. military forces to action in Yugoslavia without congressional authorization, Representative Tom Campbell used expedited procedures under the Resolution to force a debate and votes on U.S. military action in Yugoslavia, and later sought, unsuccessfully, through a federal court suit to enforce presidential compliance with the terms of the War Powers Resolution. The War Powers Resolution (P.L. 93-148) was enacted over the veto of President Nixon on November 7, 1973, to provide procedures for Congress and the President to participate in decisions to send U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities. Section 4(a)(1) requires the President to report to Congress any introduction of U.S. forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities. When such a report is submitted, or is required to be submitted, Section 5(b) requires that the use of forces must be terminated within 60 to 90 days unless Congress authorizes such use or extends the time period. Section 3 requires that the “President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing” U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities. From 1975 through March 2017, Presidents have submitted 168 reports as the result of the War Powers Resolution, but only one, the 1975 Mayaguez seizure, cited Section 4(a)(1), which triggers the 60-day withdrawal requirement, and in this case the military action was completed and U.S. armed forces had disengaged from the area of conflict when the report was made. The reports submitted by the President since enactment of the War Powers Resolution cover a range of military activities, from embassy evacuations to full-scale combat military operations, such as the Persian Gulf conflict, and the 2003 war with Iraq, the intervention in Kosovo, and the anti- terrorism actions in Afghanistan. In some instances, U.S. Armed Forces have been used in hostile situations without formal reports to Congress under the War Powers Resolution. On one occasion, Congress exercised its authority to determine that the requirements of Section 4(a)(1) became operative on August 29, 1983, through passage of the Multinational Force in Lebanon Resolution (P.L. 98-119). In 1991 and 2002, Congress authorized, by law, the use of military force against Iraq. In several instances none of the President, Congress, or the courts has been willing to initiate the procedures of or enforce the directives in the War Powers Resolution. In the 115th Congress, U.S. military operations related to the joint counter-Houthi campaign conducted by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in Yemen spurred congressional legislative action in both houses of Congress. The Senate on December 13, 2018, voted to adopt S.J.Res. 54, a joint resolution to “direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities in the Republic of Yemen that have not been authorized by Congress,” marking the first instance that such a joint resolution received consideration and passed the full Senate under the expedited consideration provisions of Section 1013 of the Department of State Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1984 and 1985 (P.L. 98-164; 50 U.S.C. §1546a). In the 116th Congress, the House of Representatives on February 13, 2019, voted to adopt a similar joint resolution on U.S. military involvement in Yemen, H.J.Res. 37, and the Senate is expected to take up a companion measure, S.J.Res. 7, in March 2019. Congressional Research Service The War Powers Resolution: Concepts and Practice Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Provisions of the War Powers Resolution (P.L. 93-148) ................................................................. 1 Title ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose and Policy .................................................................................................................... 1 Consultation Requirement ......................................................................................................... 2 Reporting Requirements ............................................................................................................ 2 Congressional Action ................................................................................................................ 4 Priority Procedures .................................................................................................................... 5 Interpretive Provisions .............................................................................................................. 5 Constitutional Questions Raised ...................................................................................................... 6 War Powers of the President and Congress ............................................................................... 6 Legislative Veto ......................................................................................................................... 7 Automatic Withdrawal Provision .............................................................................................. 9 Major Cases and Issues Prior to the Persian Gulf War .................................................................... 9 Vietnam Evacuations and Mayaguez: What Is Consultation? ................................................. 10 Iran Hostage Rescue Attempt: Is Consultation Always Necessary and Possible? .................. 10 El Salvador: When Are Military Advisers in Imminent Hostilities? ....................................... 10 Honduras: When Are Military Exercises More than Training? ............................................... 12 Lebanon: How Can Congress Invoke the War Powers Resolution? ....................................... 13 Grenada: Do the Expedited Procedures Work? ....................................................................... 14 Libya: Should Congress Help Decide on Raids to Undertake in Response to International Terrorism? ....................................................................................................... 15 Persian Gulf, 1987: When Are Hostilities Imminent? ............................................................. 16 Invasion of Panama: Why Was the War Powers Issue Not Raised? ........................................ 18 Major Cases and Issues in the Post-Cold War World .................................................................... 18 Persian Gulf War, 1991: How Does the War Powers Resolution Relate to the United Nations and a Real War? ...................................................................................................... 20 Iraq-Post Gulf War: How Long Does an Authorization Last?................................................. 23 Somalia: When Does Humanitarian Assistance Require Congressional Authorization? ........ 25 Former Yugoslavia/Bosnia/Kosovo: What If No Consensus Exists? ...................................... 27 Bosnia ............................................................................................................................... 27 Kosovo .............................................................................................................................. 32 Haiti: Can the President Order Enforcement of a U.N. Embargo? ......................................... 35 Terrorist Attacks against the United States (World Trade Center and the Pentagon) 2001: How Does the War Powers Resolution Apply? .......................................................... 37 Use of Force Against Iraq Resolution 2002: A Classic Application of the War Powers Resolution? .......................................................................................................................... 40 Libya 2011: Establishing a New Definition of What Constitutes “Hostilities” for Purposes of Full Compliance with the War Powers Resolution? ......................................... 42 Administration Report to Congress on “United States Activities in Libya” Submitted on June 15, 2011 ........................................................................................... 43 The War Powers Resolution and Military Use of UAVs: Some Considerations ............... 43 Military Campaign Against the Islamic State ......................................................................... 44 Presidential Reporting on Individual Missions and the War Powers Resolution’s Withdrawal Requirement ..............................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Congress, Constitutional Responsibility and the War Power

    Congress, Constitutional Responsibility and the War Power

    Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review Volume 17 Number 3 Symposium: The War Powers Article 2 Resolution 6-1-1984 Congress, Constitutional Responsibility and the War Power Allan Ides Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Allan Ides, Congress, Constitutional Responsibility and the War Power, 17 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 599 (1984). Available at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol17/iss3/2 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CONGRESS, CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND THE WAR POWER by Allan Ides* I. INTRODUCTION That the national government has the power, both practical and constitutional, to place this nation at war is a given. That this power, potentially the most destructive and despotic of all powers vested in governments, is a necessity is no less plain. But our Constitution does more than create a national government with specified powers. Just as plainly as the Constitution grants or creates powers, it places limita- tions upon the exercise of those powers. Some of those limitations are specific negatives on governmental action, such as the proscriptions found in the Bill of Rights; others are structural devices designed to prevent the exercise of arbitrary power and to promote the ideals of a republican government.
  • Congress' Power of the Purse

    Congress' Power of the Purse

    Congress' Power of the Purse Kate Stitht In view of the significance of Congress' power of the purse, it is surprising that there has been so little scholarly exploration of its contours. In this Arti- cle, Professor Stith draws upon constitutional structure, history, and practice to develop a general theory of Congress' appropriationspower. She concludes that the appropriationsclause of the Constitution imposes an obligation upon Congress as well as a limitation upon the executive branch: The Executive may not raise or spend funds not appropriatedby explicit legislative action, and Congress has a constitutional duty to limit the amount and duration of each grant of spending authority. Professor Stith examinesforms of spending authority that are constitutionally troubling, especially gift authority, through which Congress permits federal agencies to receive and spend private contri- butions withoutfurther legislative review. Other types of "backdoor" spending authority, including statutory entitlements and revolving funds, may also be inconsistent with Congress' duty to exercise control over the size and duration of appropriations.Finally, Professor Stith proposes that nonjudicial institu- tions such as the General Accounting Office play a larger role in enforcing and vindicating Congress' power of the purse. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF APPROPRIATIONS 1346 A. The Constitutional Prerequisitesfor Federal Gov- ernment Activity 1346 B. The Place of Congress' Power To Appropriate in the Structure of the Constitution 1348 C. The Constitutional Function of "Appropriations" 1352 D. The Principlesof the Public Fisc and of Appropria- tions Control 1356 E. The Power to Deny Appropriations 1360 II. APPROPRIATIONS CONTROL: THE LEGISLATIVE FRAME- WORK 1363 t Associate Professor of Law, Yale Law School.
  • Explosive Weapon Effectsweapon Overview Effects

    Explosive Weapon Effectsweapon Overview Effects

    CHARACTERISATION OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS EXPLOSIVEEXPLOSIVE WEAPON EFFECTSWEAPON OVERVIEW EFFECTS FINAL REPORT ABOUT THE GICHD AND THE PROJECT The Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD) is an expert organisation working to reduce the impact of mines, cluster munitions and other explosive hazards, in close partnership with states, the UN and other human security actors. Based at the Maison de la paix in Geneva, the GICHD employs around 55 staff from over 15 countries with unique expertise and knowledge. Our work is made possible by core contributions, project funding and in-kind support from more than 20 governments and organisations. Motivated by its strategic goal to improve human security and equipped with subject expertise in explosive hazards, the GICHD launched a research project to characterise explosive weapons. The GICHD perceives the debate on explosive weapons in populated areas (EWIPA) as an important humanitarian issue. The aim of this research into explosive weapons characteristics and their immediate, destructive effects on humans and structures, is to help inform the ongoing discussions on EWIPA, intended to reduce harm to civilians. The intention of the research is not to discuss the moral, political or legal implications of using explosive weapon systems in populated areas, but to examine their characteristics, effects and use from a technical perspective. The research project started in January 2015 and was guided and advised by a group of 18 international experts dealing with weapons-related research and practitioners who address the implications of explosive weapons in the humanitarian, policy, advocacy and legal fields. This report and its annexes integrate the research efforts of the characterisation of explosive weapons (CEW) project in 2015-2016 and make reference to key information sources in this domain.
  • A Defense of the War Powers Resolution

    A Defense of the War Powers Resolution

    A Defense of the War Powers Resolution During the Vietnam era, public concern over the legitimacy of U.S. military involvement in Indochina heightened interest in the constitutional division of the war powers. Congressional efforts to ensure legislative con- trol over future decisions to commit forces abroad culminated in 1973 in the passage, over President Nixon's veto, of the War Powers Resolution.1 The war powers issue remains unsettled, however, as the Resolution has been attacked as an unconstitutional and ill-advised attempt to legislate a new allocation of the war powers. The controversy over the Resolution's constitutionality has intensified during the past year as a result of the Supreme Court's decision in Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Chadha,2 which apparently invalidated the legislative veto, and of Con- gress' efforts to reassert its institutional authority in response to President Reagan's use of American troops in Lebanon and Grenada. This Note examines the constitutional sources of the President's inde- pendent power to make war. It argues that whatever authority the Presi- dent has to initiate American involvement in hostilities abroad need not be based, as many commentators assume, on his role as Commander-in- Chief,' which is not subject to restrictions by Congress. Rather, that au- thority derives from the general grant of "executive power" to the Presi- dent. As a result, although the Executive may use force abroad during emergencies without prior congressional authorization, Congress may channel this power with concurrent resolutions or statutes. The Note con- cludes that the War Powers Resolution is constitutional and that it pro- vides a desirable restriction on the President's capacity to make war when Congress is silent.
  • NEEDLESS DEATHS in the GULF WAR Civilian Casualties During The

    NEEDLESS DEATHS in the GULF WAR Civilian Casualties During The

    NEEDLESS DEATHS IN THE GULF WAR Civilian Casualties During the Air Campaign and Violations of the Laws of War A Middle East Watch Report Human Rights Watch New York $$$ Washington $$$ Los Angeles $$$ London Copyright 8 November 1991 by Human Rights Watch. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Cover design by Patti Lacobee Watch Committee Middle East Watch was established in 1989 to establish and promote observance of internationally recognized human rights in the Middle East. The chair of Middle East Watch is Gary Sick and the vice chairs are Lisa Anderson and Bruce Rabb. Andrew Whitley is the executive director; Eric Goldstein is the research director; Virginia N. Sherry is the associate director; Aziz Abu Hamad is the senior researcher; John V. White is an Orville Schell Fellow; and Christina Derry is the associate. Needless deaths in the Gulf War: civilian casualties during the air campaign and violations of the laws of war. p. cm -- (A Middle East Watch report) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 1-56432-029-4 1. Persian Gulf War, 1991--United States. 2. Persian Gulf War, 1991-- Atrocities. 3. War victims--Iraq. 4. War--Protection of civilians. I. Human Rights Watch (Organization) II. Series. DS79.72.N44 1991 956.704'3--dc20 91-37902 CIP Human Rights Watch Human Rights Watch is composed of Africa Watch, Americas Watch, Asia Watch, Helsinki Watch, Middle East Watch and the Fund for Free Expression. The executive committee comprises Robert L. Bernstein, chair; Adrian DeWind, vice chair; Roland Algrant, Lisa Anderson, Peter Bell, Alice Brown, William Carmichael, Dorothy Cullman, Irene Diamond, Jonathan Fanton, Jack Greenberg, Alice H.
  • “Troops in Contact”

    “Troops in Contact”

    “Troops in Contact” Airstrikes and Civilian Deaths in Afghanistan Copyright © 2008 Human Rights Watch All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America ISBN: 1-56432-362-5 Cover design by Rafael Jimenez Human Rights Watch 350 Fifth Avenue, 34th floor New York, NY 10118-3299 USA Tel: +1 212 290 4700, Fax: +1 212 736 1300 [email protected] Poststraße 4-5 10178 Berlin, Germany Tel: +49 30 2593 06-10, Fax: +49 30 2593 0629 [email protected] Avenue des Gaulois, 7 1040 Brussels, Belgium Tel: + 32 (2) 732 2009, Fax: + 32 (2) 732 0471 [email protected] 64-66 Rue de Lausanne 1202 Geneva, Switzerland Tel: +41 22 738 0481, Fax: +41 22 738 1791 [email protected] 2-12 Pentonville Road, 2nd Floor London N1 9HF, UK Tel: +44 20 7713 1995, Fax: +44 20 7713 1800 [email protected] 27 Rue de Lisbonne 75008 Paris, France Tel: +33 (1)43 59 55 35, Fax: +33 (1) 43 59 55 22 [email protected] 1630 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 500 Washington, DC 20009 USA Tel: +1 202 612 4321, Fax: +1 202 612 4333 [email protected] Web Site Address: http://www.hrw.org September 2008 1-56432-362-5 “Troops in Contact” Airstrikes and Civilian Deaths in Afghanistan Map of Afghanistan ............................................................................................................ 1 I. Summary......................................................................................................................2 Key Recommendations ....................................................................................................7 Methodology .................................................................................................................
  • Congressional Record—House

    Congressional Record—House

    H78 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE January 9, 2020 demonstrated by a series of recent Mr. MCGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for more U.S. troops have been deployed to major disasters—which the Democrats the purpose of debate only, I yield the the region; operations against ISIS are working hard to support. customary 30 minutes to the gen- have been suspended; the Iraqi Par- We must remain committed to re- tleman from Texas (Mr. BURGESS), liament has voted to kick American building disaster-stricken commu- pending which I yield myself such time troops out of Iraq—all because of the nities, replacing crumbling infrastruc- as I may consume. During consider- brash decision of one man: the Presi- ture, and developing and deploying the ation of this resolution, all time yield- dent of the United States. infrastructure needed to connect us ed is for the purpose of debate only. Madam Speaker, there was no ques- like never before, including through GENERAL LEAVE tion that Soleimani was a ruthless 5G. Mr. MCGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I military commander. He had Amer- We cannot allow the Senate and this ask unanimous consent that all Mem- ican, Syrian, Lebanese, Iraqi, and Yem- administration to impede our efforts to bers be given 5 legislative days to re- eni blood on his hands. But that is not make American infrastructure better, vise and extend their remarks. up for debate today, nor is the question safer, and more resilient. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there of whether or not killing him was a f objection to the request of the gen- good or bad idea.
  • The War Powers Resolution: Concepts and Practice

    The War Powers Resolution: Concepts and Practice

    The War Powers Resolution: Concepts and Practice Updated March 8, 2019 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R42699 The War Powers Resolution: Concepts and Practice Summary This report discusses and assesses the War Powers Resolution and its application since enactment in 1973, providing detailed background on various cases in which it was used, as well as cases in which issues of its applicability were raised. In the post-Cold War world, Presidents have continued to commit U.S. Armed Forces into potential hostilities, sometimes without a specific authorization from Congress. Thus the War Powers Resolution and its purposes continue to be a potential subject of controversy. On June 7, 1995, the House defeated, by a vote of 217-201, an amendment to repeal the central features of the War Powers Resolution that have been deemed unconstitutional by every President since the law’s enactment in 1973. In 1999, after the President committed U.S. military forces to action in Yugoslavia without congressional authorization, Representative Tom Campbell used expedited procedures under the Resolution to force a debate and votes on U.S. military action in Yugoslavia, and later sought, unsuccessfully, through a federal court suit to enforce presidential compliance with the terms of the War Powers Resolution. The War Powers Resolution (P.L. 93-148) was enacted over the veto of President Nixon on November 7, 1973, to provide procedures for Congress and the President to participate in decisions to send U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities. Section 4(a)(1) requires the President to report to Congress any introduction of U.S.
  • Congress and the Supersonic Transport, 1960-1971 by John

    Congress and the Supersonic Transport, 1960-1971 by John

    Congress and the supersonic transport, 1960-1971 by John Marion Bell A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in History Montana State University © Copyright by John Marion Bell (1974) Abstract: Aviation state-of-the-art advances in the 1940's and 1950's paved the way for development of a commercial SST in the 1960's. Military aviation advances were translated directly into subsonic transports and it was felt that the next step in progress would be the SST. Through military programs and basic research by NACA, the United States government aided the development of a commercial SST even before undertaking an active SST program in the 1960's. Foreign governments were also at work on SST's and when the British and French merged their development programs in 1962 the United States was spurred by their competition. President Kennedy announced an active program in June, 1963 a day following Pan Am's order of Anglo-French SST's. There was little opposition to the airplane at first; what little there was was based on the aircraft's unavoidable sonic boom. A design competition was conducted by the FAA to select the best possible American design. Boeing was selected the winner in 1966 on the basis of a radical, swing-wing design. The program then entered a two-prototype development stage. Boeing soon ran into development problems and in 1968 abandoned its swing-wing in favor of a conventional fixed-wing. The airplane's problems were also complicated by the great increase in cost of development as well as a growing opposition based on the possible negative environmental impact of the SST.
  • The Politics and Ethics of Drone Bombing in Its Historical Context

    The Politics and Ethics of Drone Bombing in Its Historical Context

    The Politics and Ethics of Drone Bombing in its Historical Context Afxentis Afxentiou A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the University of Brighton for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy October 2018 To Marianna, for her love, support and patience 2 ABSTRACT This thesis intervenes in current debates concerning the violence of armed drones, developing a historical perspective on what is predominantly understood to be a novel form of warfare. It argues that debates on drones overlook the important linkages between drone warfare and earlier regimes of violence from the air. On the basis of a historical analysis of drone warfare, it offers a critique of drone bombing that goes beyond the narrative of “targeted killings”. The first part of this dissertation, comprising Chapter 1, introduces the central problematic of the thesis by revealing the crucial differences between, on the one hand, a description of drones strikes drawn from testimonies of people living under drones and, on the other, an account of these strikes based on the targeting methodology the U.S. military follows. This part demonstrates that the frame of “targeted killings” fails to offer an adequate lens through which the multifaceted violent effects of drone bombing can be explained, understood and criticised. The two chapters that constitute the second part of this thesis employ a genealogical historical method, demonstrating that the broader violent effects wrought by drone strikes – which testimonies reveal, but current military doctrine effaces – are intrinsically bound up with the development of the air weapon. More specifically, Chapter 2 offers a detailed account of the emergence of air power theory and discusses the doctrine of “strategic bombing”.
  • Powers of War: President Versus Congress Jordan D

    Powers of War: President Versus Congress Jordan D

    Claremont Colleges Scholarship @ Claremont CMC Senior Theses CMC Student Scholarship 2011 Powers of War: President Versus Congress Jordan D. Santo Claremont McKenna College Recommended Citation Santo, Jordan D., "Powers of War: President Versus Congress" (2011). CMC Senior Theses. Paper 256. http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses/256 This Open Access Senior Thesis is brought to you by Scholarship@Claremont. It has been accepted for inclusion in this collection by an authorized administrator. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CLAREMONT McKENNA COLLEGE POWERS OF WAR: PRESIDENT VERSUS CONGRESS SUBMITTED TO PROFESSOR ANDREW BUSCH AND DEAN GREGORY HESS BY JORDAN D. SANTO FOR SENIOR THESIS FALL 2011 NOVEMBER 28, 2011 2 3 Acknowledgements I am deeply grateful for all those people who helped to make this thesis possible. I would especially like to thank Professor Andrew Busch, whose assistance throughout this process has been invaluable and has helped to shed a new light on this subject for me. I would also like to thank my mother, who provided another set of eyes on this document when mine were too bleary from exhaustion to see. 4 Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction........................................................................................................5 Chapter 2: History of War Powers .......................................................................................7 Chapter 3: Presidents Past..................................................................................................15
  • Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq

    Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq

    PUBLIC LAW 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002 AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:44 Oct 23, 2002 Jkt 019139 PO 00243 Frm 00001 Fmt 6579 Sfmt 6579 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL243.107 APPS06 PsN: PUBL243 116 STAT. 1498 PUBLIC LAW 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002 Public Law 107–243 107th Congress Joint Resolution Oct. 16, 2002 To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq. [H.J. Res. 114] 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 dis- covery 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