AIPAC blockade legislation in Congress on Iran: "like a hot knife through butter."
HHW
Sanctions Resolution Raises Controversy
H.Con.Res. 362, new resolution introduced on May 22, 2008 by
Representatives Gary Ackerman (D-NY) and Mike Pence (R-IN), is raising
controversy in Washington and across the country. There is particular
clause that some many fear is tantamount to declaring that the
President should pursue a naval blockade against Iran, which would be
an act of war. An office of one of the co-sponsors of the bill claims
this is not the intention of the legislation and points to a “Whereas”
clause in the bill that states “nothing in this resolution shall be
construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran” as
evidence that the resolution does not call for a blockade. Here is the
specific language under the “Resolved” section in the resolution that
has many concerned:
(3) demands that the President initiate an international effort to
immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and
diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear
enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran
of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection
requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and
cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international
movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the
suspension of Iran's nuclear program;
The bill was introduced just prior to the American Israel Public
Affairs Committee Annual Policy Meeting and urging co-sponsorship is
one of AIPAC’s central legislative asks. They are currently
circulating a letter in support of H.Con.Res. 362 and the Senate
companion, S.Res. 580.
According to the House leadership, this resolution is going to “pass
like a hot knife through butter” before the end of June on what is
called suspension - meaning no amendments can be introduced during the
20-minute maximum debate. It also means it is assumed the bill will
pass by a 2/3 majority and is noncontroversial. As of June 18, the
bill already has 169 co-sponsors. If and when the bill is voted on
suspension, there will be a roll call vote and AIPAC will use how
member’s voted on the resolution in the lead up to the elections.
It is unclear if all of the bill’s co-sponsors really know what
they’ve signed onto. Before the legislation is steamrolled to a vote,
the language is controversial enough that it should certainly be
closely examined, particularly given the heightened state of tensions
between the U.S. and Iran.
The language has been circulated to several experts and lawyers and I
will post any opinions received.
HHW
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's the informal reply from one of the international lawyers:
Response from International Lawyer on Blockade Issue
Posted: 23 Jun 2008 08:07 AM CDT
As promised, I will post responses today I have received from lawyers
who are experts in international law regarding H.Con.Res. 362 and
whether it could be construed as calling on the President to pursue a
blockade against Iran.
Here is one response I received:
"Here the concurrent resolution is asking the President to do
something which cannot possibly be done effectivly without the use of
force while disclaiming that it authorizes the use of force. Nice try,
but no cigar.
"If the US were to do unilaterally what clause 3 of H.Con. Res. 362
demands, it would clearly be a violation of international law on any
number of grounds, the main one being the principle of freedome of the
seas. But it doesn't do that; it only asks the President 'to initiate
an international effort.' If that effort were successful and the
Security Council passed a resolution calling on all UN members to
implement clause 3 as a threat to the peace under Ch. VII of the UN
Charter, that could conceivably be legal, since the International
Court of Justice has ruled in the Libyan case that anything the
Security Council does is legal. But I don't see that happening.
"The same thing goes for the sanctions called for in Clause 2, i.e.
they would constitute violations of international law if applied
unilaterally by the US. That, however, is something the US could do
unilaterally, since it wouldn't require a Security Council resolution
and the US doesn't give a damn about international law. It would
merely require an extension of the Iran Sanctions Act.
"To return to your original question, does the Ackermann/Pence
resolution call for a blockade? Not necessarily. Whether a given
behavior by one or more states constitutes a blockade is a question of
fact. In other words, it would depend on how the intent of clause 3
was implemented.
"It is difficult to see how ships 'entering' Iran could be subjected
to 'stringent inspection' without the use of force. On the other hand,
communications destined for or arriving from Iran could be intercepted
in any number of ways, most of them illegal, but many of them
undoubtedly already in force.
"I don't know if that helps, but it's such a stupidly worded
resolution that it's almost impossible to get a handle on it."
____________________________________________
That's just what AIPAC and Bush want, an ambiguous statute that
arguably calls for a blockade of Iran. A blockade is an act of war.
ElParedon
and terror-pimps in the White House would have us believe that Omar Khadr is
a monster. Khadr is the 21-year-old Canadian who is facing one of the first
show-trials at Guantanamo.
But let's just step back a minute and consider Mr. Khadr's case.
The son of an alleged Islamic fundamentalist, Khadr was sent to one of those
fundamentalist madrassa schools in Pakistan back when he was 14. From there,
he went to Afghanistan to join with the Taliban in fighting against the
remnant warlord backers of the Soviet Union, which had attempted to run
Afghanistan as a vassal state.
Then came 9-11 and the October 2001 U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. Young
Khadr suddenly found himself fighting against the world's most powerful
military.
In 2002, after the Taliban government had fallen, Khadr was still out in the
hills with the forces of resistance. The Taliban government was gone, but
the war was not over. In fact it's still not over, with the Taliban
resurgent in much of Afghanistan.
In this situation, with some 20,000 U.S. and European troops battling across
Afghanistan, Khadr, by then at the ripe age of 15, found himself with a
group of five older fighters in a compound up in the hills. Some U.S.
Special Forces came on the location, and, peeking through cracks in the
door, saw the group armed with AK rifles. They called on the men to
surrender, but the men allegedly refused.
At that point, the brave Americans called in an air strike and clobbered the
building. After that softening up, they went inside to pick up the pieces.
Someone at that point, and U.S. military prosecutors claim it was the
wounded Khadr, tossed a grenade while lying injured on the ground. The
grenade killed Special Forces Sergeant Christopher Speer. Speer's comrades
opened fire, with three of them hitting Khadr.
When they went to check on him, the critically injured, yet miraculously
still living Khadr reportedly pleaded, "Shoot me!" Reportedly, some of Sgt.
Speer's buddies were ready to do just that. Apparently the "clicking" of
injured captives by American forces (a war crime) is not uncommon, and even
has its own slang word. But a medic with the group interceded and stopped
the battlefield execution, and took action to save Khadr's life.
Khadr was eventually shipped off to Guantanamo at the age of 15, in
violation of a 2002 protocol signed by the U.S. which extended the
protection of the Geneva Conventions against imprisoning child soldiers from
the prior "under 15" standard to "under 18." No matter, "bad guy" Khadr
would be one of at least 2,500 children that the U.S. has admitted to
incarcerating in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo, and elsewhere as "enemy
combatants."
Today, Khadr is 21. He has spent the second half of his teenage years
confined in a prison camp on the naval base at Guantanamo.
This is what Bush and Cheney are really referring to when they assure us
that they are holding "the worst of the worst" on the island of Cuba.
They are keeping us safe from 15-year-old boys.
And what, exactly, is Omar Khadr's "crime"?
As far as I can tell, if he did toss that grenade (and there is testimony
from American witnesses that the thrower may have been another man, who was
killed in the resulting U.S. barrage of fire), Khadr was simply
demonstrating extraordinary bravery of the kind that would earn a Silver
Star, at least, had it been a U.S. soldier or Marine doing the same thing
under the same circumstances. Consider: he and his comrades-in-arms,
battling in defense of their religion and, in some cases, their nation, were
bombarded from the air. They were then approached by armed U.S. troops --
the very ones who had called in the air strike. This was a battle, and it
was not over yet. For all Khadr knew, those U.S. soldiers were going to kill
them all. And in any event, Khadr and his fellow fighters had a right to
defend themselves to the death to prevent capture. Sure it's unfortunate
that Sgt. Speer was killed, but that's what happens in wars.
Still, a fighter killing another fighter during warfare is not the act of a
"terrorist." It may be brutal and it may be tragic, but it is the act of a
soldier. That soldier, if captured, is not a criminal, but a POW. Moreover,
if he is a child, the Geneva Conventions and the subsequent protocol
mentioned above, require that he be treated not as a POW but as a victim of
war.
Bush and Cheney don't want to admit that the people fighting U.S. forces in
Afghanistan are legitimate soldiers, entitled to protection under the rules
of war. They want us to believe that anyone who takes up a gun in defense of
their homeland or of the homeland of their allies, and fights against the
U.S. military forces that are spread all over the globe like Roman Legions
of old, are "terrorists," deserving of whatever fate we hand them, by
whatever rules we want to gin up.
But it's worth remembering that this particular "terrorist," at the time of
his "crime," was simply a scared and badly wounded 15-year-old kid who had
the balls to toss a grenade at well-armed soldiers on a search-and-destroy
mission.
In an interesting twist that further highlights the absurdity of calling a
15-year-old a hardened terrorist, Speer's widow, Tabitha, and another
soldier who lost an eye in the grenade blast, sued not Khadr, but his
father's estate, claiming that his "failure to control his son" had been the
proximate cause of their losses. A federal district judge, in February 2006,
awarded the two $102.6 million in damages. In other words, the court
concluded Khadr wasn't responsible for his actions; his father was. And yet
the U.S. is prosecuting Omar Khadr for being a hardened terrorist at an age
when he was too young to drive!
The Bush/Cheney administration's incarceration and prosecution of this boy
was a war crime. His continued incarceration and the attempt to prosecute
him as a terrorist today makes a mockery of America's motto: Home of the
Brave.
We should all be ashamed.
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His latest
book is "The Case for Impeachment (St. Martin's Press, 2006 and now
available in paperback). His work is available at
www.thiscantbehappening.net.
HHW
> On Jun 23, 1:08 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 2008
> > SanctionsResolutionRaises Controversy
>
> > Representatives Gary Ackerman (D-NY) and Mike Pence (R-IN), is raising
> > controversy in Washington and across the country. There is particular
> > clause that some many fear is tantamount to declaring that the
> > President should pursue a naval blockade against Iran, which would be
> > an act of war. An office of one of the co-sponsors of the bill claims
> > this is not the intention of the legislation and points to a “Whereas”
> > construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran” as
> > specific language under the “Resolved” section in theresolutionthat
> > has many concerned:
>
> > (3) demands that the President initiate an international effort to
> > immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and
> > diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear
> > enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran
> > of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection
> > requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and
> > cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international
> > movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the
> > suspension of Iran's nuclear program;
>
> > The bill was introduced just prior to the American Israel Public
> > Affairs Committee Annual Policy Meeting and urging co-sponsorship is
> > one of AIPAC’s central legislative asks. They are currently
> > circulating a letter in support of H.Con.Res. 362 and the Senate
> > companion, S.Res. 580.
>
> > like a hot knife through butter” before the end of June on what is
> > called suspension - meaning no amendments can be introduced during the
> > 20-minute maximum debate. It also means it is assumed the bill will
> > pass by a 2/3 majority and is noncontroversial. As of June 18, the
> > bill already has 169 co-sponsors. If and when the bill is voted on
> > suspension, there will be a roll call vote and AIPAC will use how
>
> > It is unclear if all of the bill’s co-sponsors really know what
> > they’ve signed onto. Before the legislation is steamrolled to a vote,
> > the language is controversial enough that it should certainly be
> > closely examined, particularly given the heightened state of tensions
> > between the U.S. and Iran.
>
> > The language has been circulated to several experts and lawyers and I
> > will post any opinions received.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------
>
> Here's the informal reply from one of the international lawyers:
>
> Response from International Lawyer on Blockade Issue
> Posted: 23 Jun 2008 08:07 AM CDT
> As promised, I will post responses today I have received from lawyers
> who are experts in international law regarding H.Con.Res. 362 and
> whether it could be construed as calling on the President to pursue a
> blockade against Iran.
>
> Here is one response I received:
>
> something which cannot possibly be done effectivly without the use of
> force while disclaiming that it authorizes the use of force. Nice try,
> but no cigar.
>
> "If the US were to do unilaterally what clause 3 of H.Con. Res. 362
> demands, it would clearly be a violation of international law on any
> number of grounds, the main one being the principle of freedome of the
> seas. But it doesn't do that; it only asks the President 'to initiate
> an international effort.' If that effort were successful and the
> implement clause 3 as a threat to the peace under Ch. VII of the UN
> Charter, that could conceivably be legal, since the International
> Court of Justice has ruled in the Libyan case that anything the
> Security Council does is legal. But I don't see that happening.
>
> "The same thing goes for the sanctions called for in Clause 2, i.e.
> they would constitute violations of international law if applied
> unilaterally by the US. That, however, is something the US could do
> unilaterally, since it wouldn't require a Security Councilresolution
> and the US doesn't give a damn about international law. It would
> merely require an extension of the Iran Sanctions Act.
>
> behavior by one or more states constitutes a blockade is a question of
> fact. In other words, it would depend on how the intent of clause 3
> was implemented.
>
> "It is difficult to see how ships 'entering' Iran could be subjected
> to 'stringent inspection' without the use of force. On the other hand,
> communications destined for or arriving from Iran could be intercepted
> in any number of ways, most of them illegal, but many of them
> undoubtedly already in force.
>
>
> ____________________________________________
>
> That's just what AIPAC and Bush want, an ambiguous statute that
> arguably calls for a blockade of Iran. A blockade is an act of war.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
H.Con.Res. 362 Could Be Marked up in Committee
Posted: 23 Jun 2008 09:49 AM CDT
Sources indicated that H.Con.Res. 362 may now be marked up in the
House Foreign Affairs Committee, to which it was referred on May 22,
2008, before it is placed on the Suspension calendar for a vote. The
legislation is not (yet) on the Suspension calendar for this week, but
sources do continue to indicate that a vote is imminent.
A Congressional insider also examined the bill closely and told me
that the language is ambiguous and could be construed in either a
provocative or a benign way. The source asked, “What does it mean if
it doesn’t mean a blockade? There are innocuous ways to interpret it,
but why not just make clear what they mean?” The source also said the
language depends on how you define a blockade and referred to
President John F. Kennedy declaring a "quarantine" during the Cuban
Missile Crisis because he was told by lawyers that to declare a
"blockade" was clearly an act of war. The source also said the term
“departing” in clause 3 is of particular concern.
If the bill will be marked up in the House Foreign Affairs Committee
first, it presents an opportunity for Members of Congress to change
the provocative language and also go on record regarding their
intentions with this legislation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A likely sequence:
An ambiguous Congressional authorization, arguably for an act of war,
is probably what this administration wants. Drafted by AIPC, passed
by a Democratic Congress terrified of AIPAC---there's two layers of
confusion right there. Institute the blockade and the Iranians respond
to the casus belli somehow, maybe with an anti-ship missle. Who could
ask for a better Gulf of Tonkin situation. Next step American air
attacks on Iranian nuclear installations and military generally are
ordered by the President.