Can someone explain the Senate Amnesty (Iraq) vote to me...

[HardWorkingDem]

Over at Americablog.org there is a posting about how 19 senators voted against condemning the Iraqi government for thinking about giving amnesty to Iraqis that have killed American soldiers.

What is posted doesn't seem right (especially with Hagel voting against it). Can someone smarter than I explain what is up with this vote?

Am I missing something? Thanks,


http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/06/19-republican-senators-think.html

[mike_c]

1. I'd have voted against it too....

1) American military personnel are occupying Iraq in contravention of international law-- their presence is a war crime; 2) Iraqis have not only the right, but the duty to defend themselves against foreign invasion and occupation; 3) the preamble suggests that U.S. personnel are "serving heroically" and that they have "served bravely," but I don't see any heroism in service to a crime against humanity. There is no heroism in serving fascism and neocolonialism. Personal bravery, yes, and in spades no doubt, but there is no honor in the cause they serve. Finally, 4) Iraq is a sovereign nation-- it is not the U.S. congress's business to meddle in their decisions about wartime amnesty-- unless the U.S. seeks a puppet regime under its control. But of course, we've disavowed that over and over, haven't we?

[HardWorkingDem]

2. Then do you think the 19 voted against it...(all Rethugs)

because they felt it was not the US's business to meddle in their wartime decision?

The thing that throws me off, is that this sort of measure is the exact thing one would come to expect from the Republicans - just like their very recent "timetable" vote.

My thinking is that I just don't get what the 19 voted nay for.

[mike_c]

3. I can't begin to imagine why those 19 voted against it...

...except to say that I'm reasonably sure their motives were different than the ones I expressed, LOL. I don't think any of them have anything to fear politically for voting against it-- I mean, the only meaningful criticism would likely come from fellow republicans and they are in such circle-the-wagons lockstep now that I don't think that's very likely. :shrug: