It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Republican Bill Requires Congressional Approval to Attack Iran

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 12:21 AM
link   
Rawstory


Recent US actions could signal Iran conflict, despite White House denials; GOPer's bill requires Congress OK on Iran

Despite its claims to the contrary, some see evidence that the White House is preparing for conflict with Iran.

In the U.S. House today, Republican Rep. Walter Jones (NC) introduced a resolution requiring the President "to receive congressional authorization to use military force against Iran," reports McClatchy Newspapers.

"The resolution requires that – absent a national emergency created by an attack, or a demonstrably imminent attack, by Iran upon the United States or its armed forces – the President must consult with Congress and receive specific authorization prior to initiating any use of military force against Iran," Rep. Jones said in a press release.

"Today, there is a growing concern – justified or not – that some U.S. officials are contemplating military action against Iran," Jones continues. "This resolution makes it crystal clear that no previous resolution passed by Congress authorizes such use of force. The Constitution of the United States declares that, while the Commander in Chief has the power to conduct wars, only Congress has the power to authorize them."


Well when the Reps themselves are introducing bills like this to draw the literal line in the sand at the Iraqi border, you know the going has to be pretty rough at the top. But will it really mean anything, even if they can get it passed? And what if Bush decides to head into Iran before they can get it passed?

If the US is planning these patriot missile deployments in the region, that might mean that they are expecting missile retaliations from Iran or Syria againt US interests or other regional targets such as Israel. Nice. Weeee, let's go to more war!




posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 09:39 AM
link   
""The resolution requires that – absent a national emergency created by an attack, or a demonstrably imminent attack, by Iran upon the United States or its armed forces – the President must consult with Congress and receive specific authorization prior to initiating any use of military force against Iran,""

Uh - Oh.

ABSENT an Attack by IRAN, the President needs congress approval?

'' or its armed forces ''

So technically, If we find one dead Iranian amongst the insurgents in Iraq..

couldnt we class that as an attack on our forces, thus needing NO approval from congress?



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 10:09 AM
link   
H.J.Res.14; “Concerning the use of military force by the United States against Iran” does not have any cosponsors as yet and more than likely will languish in committee like all of his introduced bills (only one out of his six has cosponsors).

The wording of the bill as shown also seems a bit opaque and dangerous; leaning toward almost a full approval of martial action with the exception of a planned theater campaign.

Eg, from the posted news source:


absent a national emergency created by an attack… by Iran upon the United States or its armed forces – the President must consult with Congress and receive specific authorization prior to initiating any use of military force against Iran”.emphasis added


This may leave the door wide open, legally, for ill defined defensive operations that may directly conflict with the War Powers Resolution (which is more applicable in the first place).

I also wouldn’t point to Rep. Walter Jones as a prime representative of the Republican Party either as he switched parties to run for his seat, which in indicative of many of his stances both professionally and personally.


mg



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
So technically, If we find one dead Iranian amongst the insurgents in Iraq..

couldnt we class that as an attack on our forces, thus needing NO approval from congress?


I think it's clear, to me anyway, what this legislation is saying. And that is that unless Iran attacks us on our soil, causing a national emergency, or if they attack us, on a grand scale, in Iraq, then Bush will need to seek congressional approval prior to any attack on Iran. And really, that's the way it should be done anyway, from both a moral and strategic standpoint.

Needless to say, if he did seek congressional approval to go into Iran at this point, I think we all know what the answer would be. He'd have to present one hell of a case that it was in our best interests to initiate an attack on Iran. And with all that reliable intelligence we have? HA, yeah right.



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Well it is obvious Iran has been trying to grow and initiate on grand scale a nuclear arms program. They've been appointing meetings with Venezuela and Syria all three have been critics of the United States.

Do any of you think Iran is a threat? IMO yes they are to the middle east, to the U.S, to themselves. Advancing a weapons system without advancing any of the countries domestic problems is key in noticing this. They rather have weapons than a growing economy, decent education, etc..



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
... then Bush will need to seek congressional approval prior to any attack on Iran. And really, that's the way it should be done anyway, from both a moral and strategic standpoint.


The president sought congressional approval for Iraq almost a year prior to the invasion without this kind of legislation because….

This is already covered under the afore mentioned war Powers Act and the same conditions apply:



Sec.2(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
Source


The introduction of the legislation by Rep. Walter Jones is nothing more than an “attention getter” because it is redundant.


mg



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 11:36 AM
link   
I hear ya, mg, and it well could be that this is just an attention getter, although that doesn't seem likely- coming from someone in his own party. To me it seems more a case of where Jones may really feel that a specific bill NEEDS to be introduced to deal with Iran specifically, so that there are no misconceptions and attempts by Bush to use legal loophole interpretations to circumvent the War Powers Resolution.

One thing I found curious, and glad you sourced that article (thanks):


(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.


I wonder if these reports have been continually submitted to Congress as described. Note that this calls for TERMINATION of the use of the armed forces unless congress authorizes their continuance. Curious.



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
I wonder if these reports have been continually submitted to Congress as described. Note that this calls for TERMINATION of the use of the armed forces unless congress authorizes their continuance. Curious.


This act was put into law primarily to limit the growing powers that were assumed to the president of the US and historically sourcing from the presidential power concerns stemming from the Viet Nam conflict.

One of the limiting factors in reporting to congress is time. If a withdraw occurs before or (such as in the case of Reagan's bombing of Libya or the big Mo. shelling Lebanon) the events were too short lived.

This 'timing' has been a source of controversy of the years, namely raising justified concerns about the Presidents ability to drag the US into war (among many other concerns with this act) by an overt 'seemingly defensive' act without the prior approval of congress. Just this single concern prompted the very serious debate about the presidential use of US forces in pre-emption...first strike...etc.

There is a good article that will address your question in some good detail with a time line of examples here: The War Powers Resolution: After 30 Years

And I emphasize again that Jones is not a “true blue” GOP member…he switched parties to run for his seat and predominately votes along the Democrat Party line.


mg



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by missed_gear
And I emphasize again that Jones is not a “true blue” GOP member…he switched parties to run for his seat and predominately votes along the Democrat Party line.


I get your point, but honestly, I don't care if he's from the Reptilian Intergalactic Council. The fact is that I'd agree with a specific resolution on Iran such as this because I really feel it is needed to prevent this warmonger from starting WW3.

And that second article report you pointed out to me (again, thanks), confirms the specific need for it. The War Powers Resolution has been the subject of continual controversy, and it needs to get solved once and for all to limit the power of the President to engage our armed forces.

The lives of so many should NEVER be subject to the will and ideologies of one man. At least not in this country. The War Powers Resolution came close, but left too much up to interpretation, and hence all the problems. I don't understand why they can't ammend that legislation to be clear, and agreed upon by all.



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 12:47 PM
link   
I believe that bill is to bring awareness to the fact that Bush is building a way to attack Iran soon.

Bush said yesterday that he will start ahead with is new strategy no matter what, using the funds that he have right now.

So in other words Bush is pushing his presidential powers of a president at war, he will go ahead with the deployment of more troops and whatever he is doing with money or not.

People we have been warned and This Republican bill may be the one to stop Bush powers.



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
I believe that bill is to bring awareness to the fact that Bush is building a way to attack Iran soon.


Imho, this administration would not dare overtly attack Iran; the current administration given this point in time will act only defensively. That said…the catalyst that will provide the “sale” is where to look.


mg



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
I believe that bill is to bring awareness to the fact that Bush is building a way to attack Iran soon.


Well, it seems Jones isn't the only one concerned about Bush's intentions in Iran:

Senators to Bush: Stay out of Iran

Also, could this be another reason there seems to be so much recent activity to warn Bush about thinking of going into Iran?:
Iran says nuke program near complete!

But the most worrisome to me of the indicators has to be the patriot missile and Stennis carrier deployments. Also:

From: U.S. and Britain to Add Ships to Persian Gulf in Signal to Iran


Officials expressed doubt that the Stennis and its escorts would be asked to set sail before the holiday season, but it could be ordered to sea several weeks earlier than planned. It could then overlap for months with the Eisenhower, which is not scheduled to return home until May, offering ample time to decide whether to send another carrier or to extend the Eisenhower’s tour to keep the carrier presence at two.

Doubling the number of carriers in the region offers commanders the flexibility of either keeping both strike groups in the gulf or keeping one near Iran while placing a second carrier group outside the gulf, where it would be in position to fly combat patrols over Afghanistan or cope with growing violence in the Horn of Africa.

But these same officials acknowledge that Iran is the focus of any new deployments, as administration officials view recent bold moves by Iran — and by North Korea, as well — as at least partly explained by assessments in Tehran and North Korea that the American military is bogged down in Iraq and incapable of fully projecting power elsewhere.


Emphasis mine. I'm curious as to exactly what kind of "signal" this IS sending to Iran. Parking a force that strong on Iran's back door may serve as a warning to Iran, but it will also serve as potential escalation material, and brings the possibility of Iran making a move first one step closer as well.



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
But the most worrisome to me of the indicators has to be the patriot missile and Stennis carrier deployments. Also:


The troop deployment labeled a “surge” is getting all the media attention.

The Reagan is also being reported as heading to the region. The deployment of the two carrier groups will overlap with the current deployment of the Eisenhower. UPI Article

The Stennis group also includes DESRON 21 adding all this to the three international task forces (CTF 150, 152, and 58…some 44 vessels) and the elements of the US 5th fleet operating in the region already.

Not to mention an admiral (William “Fox” Fallon) has just been placed in commanding CENTCOM.

Hmmm.


mg



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by missed_gear
The deployment of the two carrier groups will overlap with the current deployment of the Eisenhower.


Yep yep, mg, I knew about that, that the Eisenhower is due to come back in May. Which makes me wonder:

What if the Pentagon's recent move to extend deployment times is in anticipation of being able to keep the Eisenhower there, as one benefit? In other words, that carrier may not be coming back anytime soon.


Reference:

U.S. Active Duty Time Limit Goes Bye Bye



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   
It seems King George may have already assumed the powers to do whatever he wants, according to Tony Snow.

"The President has the ability to exercise his own authority if he thinks Congress has voted the wrong way."

www.dailykos.com...

So, if the American people and congress are against a war with Iran and a military daft, it matters not one bit to GWB, he'll go ahead and do what he wants anyway.

Now, in my estimation, that makes GWB a dictator. Tony Blair too thinks he is above the law and, as has been shown before, will suspend the rule of law or interpret laws to suit / protect his own goals, or those goals he is required to pursue at the behest of others



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 08:01 PM
link   
I think it makes a lot of sense to try to reign in the previous idea that there was a 'general declaration of war' after 911. After the debacle that is iraq, we're definitly going to need official recognition that 'yes, we, the people and government, do specifically want to go to war in this instance'.


britguy
So, if the American people and congress are against a war with Iran and a military daft, it matters not one bit to GWB, he'll go ahead and do what he wants anyway.

IF that bill fails, then Bush would have a legitimate arguement (though we might reject the arguement) that he was given legal support to fight the wider "war on terror", and not have to go back to congress each time the enemy moves beyond some arbitrary border on our maps.

The idea is that Congress itself said 'you are vested with the authority to determine the specifics, we support the war in general', and then, ESPECIALLY if congress specifically rejects this bill, it can be argued that congress was re-affirming that.

Lets also remember though that the Iraq War was put to its own vote, inspite of there being an arguement for prior support on the 'war on terror'.


Agit8dChop
ABSENT an Attack by IRAN, the President needs congress approval?
'' or its armed forces '' So technically, If we find one dead Iranian amongst the insurgents in Iraq..

If we actually did find iranian troops fighting against us in Iraq, then, hell yeah, he doesn't need to get specific congressional approval to go into Iran. Iran would've declared war on us if they did that.
[qoute]couldnt we class that as an attack on our forces, thus needing NO approval from congress?

Of course. And if it did happen, Congress would, correctly, approve of the war against Iran anyway.

Anyway, the point of the bill is to restrict the president and prevent an escalation of the war into Iran, not to further it.


missed_gear
This may leave the door wide open, legally, for ill defined defensive operations that may directly conflict with the War Powers Resolution (which is more applicable in the first place).

Lets face it, IF Iran is attacking us, we'd sure as hell better respond. And if they were attacking US, Congress would quickly approve a response. Bush wouldn't have to claim to have prior permission to do so, he'd get it upon asking.


The introduction of the legislation by Rep. Walter Jones is nothing more than an “attention getter” because it is redundant.

It might be, but it is sensible. It reaffirms that Bush needs to get congressional support, it underscores that the public are against the war in general at this point, it prevents the president from being able to say that he already has the authority.
He didn't need, by some arguements, to get specific permission to invade Iraq, because we already 'declared war on international terrorist organizations and their supporters'.
Bush simply hasn't, as of yet, tried to make that legal arguement. But its definitly out there.


TrueAmerican
really feel that a specific bill NEEDS to be introduced to deal with Iran specifically

Indeed. It doesn't say 'if bush wants to go to war with anyone, he needs to ask', but specifically talks about Iran. Because there is a lot of talk of just outright invading iran these days, AND there are arguements that the previous congressional election, somehow, didn't represent a rejection of the Iraq War or its expansion.



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 08:05 PM
link   
it is not that bush is a dictator it is just a common fact. congress even knows that the in-evitable is comming, they just want to avoid as much as possible with this congresional approval. our vast oil pockets are running dry. we need more oil. we need a package, so to speak larger than the one we have now with the saudis. we will not get it. we are in direct competence with other nations like china and so forth. we have to do something about iran and friends are in the picture, with this nuke thing and the oil situation. the big oil heads ,at be, are getting together to discuss a plan. if things go sour, which they will, because iran and friends will not let it happen they are in this scheme of oil thing too with saudi.(oil to our country.) china is not going to back down to less progress of oil to their country either. the nations have this problem, it will only get worse. we nations are competing for the oil , OUR LIVELYHOOD depends on it. that is why china is gearing up for the domminos to fall also. they will take sides over this oil thing. china elected a side and we will have to deal with it. like i said , and will keep saying the domminos will fall there is nothing we can do about it ,unless they find another FAT ELEPHANT oil pocket. it will not go away. ALL PEOPLE, listen to me. PREPARE for it. it will happen i have been saying this long before the oil heads to meet this february. i told you this february the domminos will fall. and who is involved and now the list gets bigger cause people are takeing sides . the domminos are falling now do something about it.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 10:10 AM
link   
There are ways around everything.

The real problem is that will this hamstring future presidents in future conflicts



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Lets face it, IF Iran is attacking us, we'd sure as hell better respond. And if they were attacking US, Congress would quickly approve a response. Bush wouldn't have to claim to have prior permission to do so, he'd get it upon asking.

No doubt…but my point about “ill defined” could easily point to proxy representation and/or direct covert involvement by Iran in Iraq etc. as a probable cassis belli….something upon which public opinion is now being tested and fixed.


Originally posted by Nygdan
Bush simply hasn't, as of yet, tried to make that legal arguement. But its definitly out there.

Agreed, but not necessarily as “sensible”…congress need not attempt or seek to introduce to the president a bill (which will be vetoed) to message the president concerning this issue. Certainly, if the veto is overturned, constitutional debates will undoubtedly occur; but these very well may outlast his term and never address the issue.


mg



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Ok one thing to consider is that Bush already may have sent an “executive order to the secretary of defense and the CIA to start planning for possible military operations in Iran and Syria”.

To do this he does not need the approval of the “The people” and neither of “Congress”.

He can pretty much can start “His war” in secret.

When Bush said in the Address to the nation, “We’re also taking step to bolster the Security of Iraq and protect American interest in the Middle East”

It does not take a rocket scientist to understand his meaning, he “Already has taken steps to do so” and he is by passing congress and the will of the People in the US .

Further more is all about “the US interest in the Middle east” but what he means is Private interest in the Middle East .

When Bush order the raid of the Iranian consulate in Iraq were guest of the “democratically elected prime minister of Iraq” very clearly he was sending a message that Maliki is nothing more than a figure in Iraq and US is the one running the show.

The truth is that no matter what Bush is trying to do he is beyond his own means when it comes to troops he do not have enough troops to launch a campaign in the borders or within the borders of Iran and an air campaign will only cause a nasty retaliation by the country that is to be targeted and they are in their own right to defend itself.

Finding ways to link Iran government to the militias in Iraq is nothing more than more fabricated intelligence, Shiites in Iran will go to the aid of their fellow Shiites in Iraq but no necessarily they are send by the Iranian govenrment.

That has to be prove but in Bush agenda that can be by passed or fabricated at will like the WMDs in Iraq.

If this happen is going to end worst than Iraq and the failure of the Bush administration in his pursue of power and control, this will be the end of our nations respect or what it has left in the world.

Bush will retire with the title of a former president but our nation and we the people will have to face the errors of his judgments and the rest of the world.

When he created he "hoax" of war on terror he gave himself the rights to judge and launch attacks to the targets that already were in his plan before 9/11.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join