[Peace-discuss] Rep. Jones introduces bipartisan Iran War Powersresolution

[Robert Naiman]

I would guess that whoever wrote the post on alt.slack is not
following this issue very closely. The criticism is not relevant to
the resolution or the situation.

The criticism might be meaningful, if, say, Congress were on the verge
of passing a law prohibiting a U.S. attack on Iran, and legislators
were fighting about which legislative approach were best, with people
trying to sort out which would be most legally binding.

That is not the case here. There is nothing near a majority of Members
of Congress even talking about the threat of a U.S. attack on Iran,
let alone working actively to stop it.

In such a situation, what is relevant is trying to use organizing
tools like the resolutions that have been introduced to build
Congressional opposition to the Administration's policy.

Hence the appeal for people to contact members of Congress to ask them
to co-sponsor the resolutions.

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/involved/warpowers.html


On 1/18/07, Chas. 'Mark' Bee <c-bee1 at itg.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert Naiman " <naiman.uiuc at gmail.com>
> To: "Chas. 'Mark' Bee" <c-bee1 at itg.uiuc.edu>
> Cc: "Peace Discuss" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 10:18 AM
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Rep. Jones introduces bipartisan Iran War
> Powersresolution
>
>
> >I have no idea what this person is talking about. There is no section
> > two of the resolution. Perhaps this reference to "section two" was
> > meant as a rhetorical flourish.
> >
> > The text can be found on the Library of Congress' "Thomas" site:
> > http://thomas.loc.gov. Any resolution or legislation that has been
> > introduced can be found there.
> >
> > In this case, the direct link is:
> >
> > http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.J.RES.14:
> >
> > As you can see, the resolution as introduced has only one section.
>
>   Ah!  He made a mistake - in his last sentence, he says section 1 (b).  It
> reads:
>
> (b) Requirements- Absent a national emergency created by attack by Iran, or a
> demonstrably imminent attack by Iran, upon the United States, its territories
> or possessions or its armed forces, the President shall consult with Congress,
> and receive specific authorization pursuant to law from Congress, prior to
> initiating any use of military force against Iran.
>
>   I still don't consider his scenario very likely, but it does sound fairly
> shrublike.  =)
>
>
>
>
> >
> > On 1/18/07, Chas. 'Mark' Bee <c-bee1 at itg.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Robert Naiman " <naiman.uiuc at gmail.com>
> >> To: "Peace Discuss" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> >> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 9:15 AM
> >> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Rep. Jones introduces bipartisan Iran War
> >> Powersresolution
> >>
> >>
> >> > Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) has introduced a bipartisan resolution
> >> > stating that the President cannot attack Iran without Congressional
> >> > authorization. The punch line is substantively the same as the DeFazio
> >> > resolution; the significance is that since this was introduced by a
> >> > Republican, it's a much more plausible ask for a Republican (e.g. Rep.
> >> > Johnson) to sign on.
> >> >
> >> > (The text is also more minimalist - no "Whereas George Bush has ....")>
> >> > The
> >> > Just Foreign Policy alert has been updated to incorporate the
> >> > Jones resolution:
> >> >
> >> > http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/involved/warpowers.html
> >>
> >>   Found on alt.slack:
> >>
> >> "...Section two of the resolution (the first part of
> >> it you quoted) would actually give Bush the go-ahead to invade Iran any
> >> time he wants, just by saying "their continued development of nuclear
> >> weapons, in conjunction with their continued support of Iraqi insurgents,
> >> both financial and material, has shown their desire and intentions to
> >> disrupt and destroy our way of life. The conflict in Iraq has helped
> >> create what is undeniably a national emergency both in this country and in
> >> Iraq. Iran has demonstrated not only a lack of concern for the lives of
> >> American troops and Americans in general, but shown willingness in helping
> >> end these lives and the desire to pursue technologies that would allow
> >> them to cause death and destruction to Americans on a much larger scale.
> >> To combat this enemy who has already been instrumental in the loss of many
> >> American lives, I have ordered 200,000 U.S. troops across the Iraq Iran
> >> border. This action is one taken under full support of Congress under
> >> powers granted by HJR 14. Iran, acting thru Iraqi insurgents, has attacked
> >> American troops. Iran, thru it's continued support of the same insugrents,
> >> and thru continued pursuit of nuclear weapons, has shown a desire for
> >> imminent attack on American armed forces, and the American people at large."
> >> If you think that's something that won't happen, just look at how he tries
> >> to justify other bullshit such as warrantless searches of mail and phone
> >> taps. Strike section 1 (b) from the bill then pass it, that way you don't
> >> give monkey boy something he can twist to try and support further war...."
> >>
> >>
> >>   No clue what this guy meant - it would be interesting to see the entire
> >> resolution.  I'm having a hard time finding it.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Peace-discuss mailing list
> >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> >> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> >>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>