Congress Must Not Cede Its War Power To Israel

[Purveyor]

By Sheldon Richman
Future of Freedom Foundation

The American people should know that pending right now in Congress is a bipartisan bill that would virtually commit the United States to go to war against Iran if Israel attacks the Islamic Republic. “The bill outsources any decision about resort to military action to the government of Israel,” Columbia University Iran expert Gary Sick wrote to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) in protest, one of the bill’s principal sponsors.

The mind boggles at the thought that Congress would let a foreign government decide when America goes to war, so here is the language (PDF):

If the government of Israel is compelled to take military action in legitimate self-defense against Iran’s nuclear weapon program, the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide, in accordance with the law of the United States and the constitutional responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of military force, diplomatic, military and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people and existence.

This section is legally nonbinding, but given the clout of the bill’s chief supporter outside of Congress — the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC [PDF]), leader of the pro-Israel lobby — that is a mere formality.

Since AIPAC wants this bill passed, it follows that so does the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who opposes American negotiations with Iran and has repeatedly threatened to attack the Islamic Republic. Against all evidence, Netanyahu insists the purpose of Iran’s nuclear program is to build a weapon with which to attack Israel. Iran says its facilities, which are routinely inspected, are for peaceful civilian purposes: the generation of electricity and the production of medical isotopes.

MORE...

http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/pasadena/opinion/richman-congress-must-not-cede-its-war-power-to-israel/article_389ee178-6204-56e2-ab45-159ce8a376e3.html

[Drew Richards]

1. I read about this a few days ago and it really ticks me off that anyone in Congress

would even suggest it...but then, NOTHING suprises me with the clowns in Congress anymore...They are all the 1% and bought and paid for to the highest bidder.

[Purveyor]

3. Like israel isn't? eom

[Aerows]

4. This is unbelievable

There is no way that bill should pass. I can't believe anyone would even bring it up.

[dballance]

5. I would hope that it gets vetoed.

This is terrible foreign policy. It would certainly embolden Bibi.

[okaawhatever]

6. This story needs to get more exposure. Everyone pass it along. nt

[tritsofme]

7. This story is incredibly misleading.

That the section is legally non-binding not a formality, it's the law. It has the legal significance of the Senate passing a resolution congratulating the Super Bowl winner.

[El_Johns]

15. I don't understand your sentence.

"That the section is legally non-binding not a formality, it's the law."

what?

[tritsofme]

17. The story tries to downplay that this is a non-binding

resolution and has no force of law.

There is no commitment of money or authorization for use of American forces, to suggest otherwise as they try to here is untruthful.

[madinmaryland]

9. LIEberman's dream come true. nt

[fadedrose]

10. I had relatives in Slovakia

run over by Germany and Russia.

Could the Congress attack German and Russia, pretty please?

[Douglas Carpenter]

11. the more rejectionist and and intransigent the Israeli state becomes the more Congress swears

fidelity to them

[Jefferson23]

12. The letter Columbia Professor Sick wrote to Senator Schumer:

Dear Senator Schumer,

I have read the text of the draft legislation that was introduced today under the title “Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act of 2013.” You are prominently named as a supporter.

The bottom line of this bill as written would remove any real negotiating authority from the U.S. government by specifying in advance the terms of an impossible settlement. At the same time, the bill outsources any decision about resort to military action to the government of Israel, by committing the United States in advance to support any military action by Israel.

The bill ignores President Obama’s declared intention of insuring that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon. Instead, it insists on the objective defined by Prime Minister Netanyahu, among others, to eliminate all capability by Iran to ever build a nuclear device. As I’m sure you know, even the most peaceful nuclear activity can be used for military purposes. It is possible to regulate how far a country is away from a nuclear weapon. It is not possible to eliminate the possibility entirely. That is the dilemma at the heart of the nuclear non-proliferation effort.

A decade ago, the United States and some allies attempted to replace a good outcome that was achievable with a perfect outcome that was not. At that time, we rejected an Iranian offer to limit enrichment to 3,000 centrifuges and insisted on zero. As a result, today Iran has some 19,000 centrifuges.

The deal on the table with Iran offers the best opportunity in more than a generation to make sure that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon. This bill would sabotage that effort before it even begins.

In addition to imposing new sanctions, which the members of the UN Security Council agreed not to do, this bill as written commits the US government to prove a negative. Quite simply it makes it impossible to negotiate any agreement with Iran short of unconditional surrender of its national sovereignty.

In fact, the enforcement of the objectives of this bill would require a permanent US presence in the decision-making process of the Iranian government, because there is no way to insure that someone in Iran is not plotting to build a nuclear weapon except to be omnipresent.

That is what we tried to do in Iraq. It is called occupation, and it is achieved not by negotiation but by war.

I urge you to withdraw your support from this dangerous bill.

Gary Sick
Columbia University

[SidDithers]

13. Future of Freedom Foundation

The Future of Freedom Foundation (FFF) is a nonprofit libertarian foundation based in Fairfax, Virginia. It was founded by libertarian author and former defense attorney Jacob G. Hornberger in 1989 in order to advance the libertarian philosophy by "providing an uncompromising moral and economic case for individual liberty, free markets, private property, and a limited government." Sheldon Richman is vice president and editor. James Bovard is a policy advisor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_Freedom_Foundation

Nothing good at presstv today?

Sid

[SidDithers]

14. Books published by the Future of Freedom Foundation...

Separating School and State: How to Liberate America’s Families

The Case for Free Trade and Open Immigration

Your Money or Your Life: Why We Must Abolish the Income Tax

The Tyranny of Gun Control

Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State

The Dangers of Socialized Medicine




And you're bringing this libertarian bullshit to DU why??

Sid

[Ichingcarpenter]

16. Are you supporting this bill? ARE YOU?

Is the real question.... Well are you?


The bill has 13 Democratic co-sponsors and when you add that to the 45 Republican Senators, you're already at 58. It only takes 67 to override a veto.

Did you read the Bill?
Look at the line

The Government of ______ denies its people fundamental freedoms, including freedom of the
press, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and freedom of conscience.


That line could apply to Saudi Arabia, Israel in some degree and any other fucked up country.

It undermines President Obama's efforts with Iran and supports Republican goals

Here's the bill

http://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Nuclear%20Weapon%20Free%20Iran%20Act.pdf