First up on our list of three is the War Funding bill, aka HR 2642, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act of 2008 (and now also goes by the title of Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008); it was passed last week in the House after having passed in the Senate last month.
The House approved a $165 billion legislation to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq on Thursday with no conditions on how the White House would use the appropriation.
This bill effectively funds the war in Iraq at least through the end of good ol' George W's presidency. Can we say "caved" or what? The only thing good I can say about this bill is the fact that it has the new GI Bill, so our brave service men and women will be taken care of on the education front at the very least.
Of course, Capitulator of the House Nancy Pelosi crowed about the wonderfulness of the bill because of the GI Bill (which is, again, the only really good thing about the bill):
"We were able to come to this compromise because we were ready," Pelosi said on the floor, according to an official transcript. "I'm very pleased that this legislation has the GI Bill. Finally, it became clear that it was what we had to do, what we owed our young people; we say thank you to them by sending them to college."
"We owe our troops more than sending them into war on a false premise, without the equipment and training they need, without a plan for success, without a strategy to leave," she added. "This war has not made the region more stable; it has not made our country safer; and it has undermined our capability to protect the American people. It should come to an end safely, honorably, responsibly, and soon."
But we'll sure still keep funding it eh Nancy and the rest of you Critters? I also notice the word "compromise". Where was the compromise? Inclusion of the GI Bill?!? That's a compromise?!?
And big surprise - now John McCain is all for the new GI Bill. Back then:
Sen. John McCain did not vote last month when Senators passed their version of a war funding emergency supplemental. But he said the bill being considered then was overloaded with funding for non-war related projects and he objected to a sweeping new benefit for veterans to get the equivalent of state college tuition and a living stipend after only a few years service because he worried it would affect military retention rates.
Instead:
He (McCain) had offered a less generous counterproposal that would have given service members a much smaller credit for college and given better benefits to people who served longer.
And now:
It (McCain's bill) would also have allowed veterans to transfer their benefits to family members. This last point is addressed in the compromise with a clause to allow veterans to transfer their benefits. But the benefits themselves will be at the higher level endorsed by Sens. Jim Webb, D-VA, Chuck Hagel, R-Neb, and John Warner, R-VA.
"That has always been my primary concern with respect to the Webb bill, and it is essential that we continue to act decisively to encourage military service and ensure the well being of our All Volunteer Force," McCain said in the written statement.
My my. Color me surprised. Not.
Here's how your Congress Critters voted on the War Funding bill last week:
In the House, part I.
In the House, part II (the part with the GI Bill).
Next up, the abomination that is the FISA bill.
Now, I'm about half way through reading this stinker, and I have to say the language is so vague that really, any good lawyer could parse it to their advantage.
So far, it does seem to keep a loose warrant requirement, but lengthens the time in which to receive one and the go ahead and tap first can be given by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence, and which they will have to swear was lawful within the limits of the 4th Amendment. Except of course the last portion of that Amendment which states "and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized."
Also the language in the requirements of what constitutes not tapping someone in the United States is somewhat laughable, as they cannot:
intentionally acquire any communication as to which the sender and ALL intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States.
(emphasis mine)
Does this mean if I send an email to 10 of my friends and one of them happens to be knowingly in Europe or Bali or somewhere other than here, that they can obtain my email legally because not ALL of the people on the email were known to be in the U.S.? Nice built in justification in the language, Congress...
This FISA bill is also the bill that gives retroactive immunity to the telecom companies that knowingly ponied up our private communications to BushCo even though the companies knew it to be illegal. Can anyone say ex post facto? (Which is unconstitutional..)
A stellar piece of legislation this bill is my friends. It nevertheless whizzed through the House last week and will come up for a vote in the Senate this week. Way to go House. Not. Jackasses.
Here's the link to how the House voted on this stain of a bill.
At the end of this column will be the links to the contact information for your Congress Critters if you would so like to give them a piece of your mind.
Last up, and though seemingly harmless, probably the most scary to me: the Sense of the Congress resolution on Iran, aka H Con Res 362.
(Oh stop laughing at the oxymoron...) (Sense my patootie...)
First, for good measure, here's what Representative John Conyers said May 8th in a letter to Bush regarding Iran (pay attention to the highlighted portion):
"Our concerns in this area have been heightened by more recent events," Conyers wrote. "The resignation in mid-March of Admiral William J. 'Fox' Fallon from the head of U.S. Central Command, which was reportedly linked to a magazine article that portrayed him as the only person who might stop your Administration from waging preemptive war against Iran, has renewed widespread concerns that your Administration is unilaterally planning for military action against that country. This is despite the fact that the December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate concluded that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003, a stark reversal of previous Administration assessments."
(emphasis mine)
And, here's what the Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said just this past Saturday regarding what he thinks the danger level of Iran is right now:
"I don't believe that what I see in Iran today is a current, grave and urgent danger. If a military strike is carried out against Iran at this time ... it would make me unable to continue my work," said the IAEA chief.
Now, for the resolution.
This resolution is non-binding, as it is a "Sense of" resolution and was introduced in the House (and has a companion resolution in the Senate - S Res 580) last month. Since then, AIPAC has sent an army of lobbyists to the Hill touting it and both resolutions have rapidly gained co-sponsors, among them many many Democrats that you would never think would co-sponsor any such thing. (Seriously, the list makes you want to cry; use the THOMAS link in the intro to look the resolutions up by their numbers; it times out so I can't link them.) Not sure when a vote could happen; it's still in Committee, but because sponsors have been signing on rapidly of late, there is quiet rumor-mongering going on that it could emerge soon. I'm concerned enough to include it this week. And so I present you with the info.
Now, keep in mind that this is non-binding. First, it laundry lists some of the reasons Iran is a threat. Among these:
Whereas the November 2007 National Intelligence Estimate reported that Iran was secretly working on the design and manufacture of a nuclear warhead until at least 2003, but that Iran could have enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon as soon as late 2009;
Whereas an Iranian nuclear weapons capability would pose a grave threat to international peace and security by fundamentally altering and destabilizing the strategic balance in the Middle East, and severely undermining the global nonproliferation regime;
Whereas Iran's overt sponsorship of several terrorist groups, including Hamas and Hezbollah, and its close ties to Syria raise the possibility that Iran would share its nuclear materials and technology with others;
Whereas Iran continues to develop ballistic missile technology and is pursuing the capability to field intercontinental ballistic missiles, a delivery system suited almost exclusively to nuclear weapons payloads
Starting to sound mighty familiar eh?
Whereas Iran's rapid development of its nuclear capabilities is outpacing the slow ratcheting up of economic and diplomatic sanctions
Oh crap.
Whereas Iran is further destabilizing the Middle East by underwriting a massive rearmament campaign by Syria;
Whereas through these efforts, Iran seeks to establish regional hegemony, threatens longstanding friends and allies of the United States in the Middle East, and endangers vital American national security interests
Then Congress does insert this to assuage our fears:
Whereas nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress--
Well sigh of relief right? Not really. Think about it. BushCo won't risk another pre-emptive war so they don't need a force authorization; they just need to bait Iran into attacking. And that's where this resolution becomes kinda scary, non binding though it is:
(1) declares that preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability, through all appropriate economic, political, and diplomatic means, is vital to the national security interests of the United States and must be dealt with urgently;
(2) urges the President, in the strongest of terms, to immediately use his existing authority to impose sanctions on--
(A) the Central Bank of Iran and any other Iranian bank engaged in proliferation activities or the support of terrorist groups;
(B) international banks which continue to conduct financial transactions with proscribed Iranian banks;
(C) energy companies that have invested $20,000,000 or more in the Iranian petroleum or natural gas sector in any given year since the enactment of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996; and
(D) all companies which continue to do business with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps;
(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; and
(4) urges the President to lead a sustained, serious, and forceful effort at regional diplomacy to support the legitimate governments in the region against Iranian efforts to destabilize them, to reassure our friends and allies that the United States supports them in their resistance to Iranian efforts at hegemony, and to make clear to the Government of Iran that the United States will protect America's vital national security interests in the Middle East.
Didn't catch the scary part? It looks like just an urging of sanctions and diplomacy right? Not very scary. Look at number 3 again:
(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
Still not seeing it? Here's number 3 with highlights by me:
(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
Now let me give you the definition of the term "blockade" (from Merriam-Webster):
1: the isolation by a warring nation of an enemy area (as a harbor) by troops or warships to prevent passage of persons or supplies; broadly : a restrictive measure designed to obstruct the commerce and communications of an unfriendly nation
For some perspective:
Naval blockades interfere with freedom of navigation on the high seas and have historically been considered acts of war
and
Section 5 of the U.N. Participation Act authorizes the President to impose economic and communication sanctions mandated by the Council.5 Under Chapter VII, Article 41, of the Charter, such sanctions "may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication."6 The President may invoke this statutory authority to impose comprehensive U.S. sanctions without a proclamation of national emergency, but not before the Council has acted under Article 41 of the Charter, and it does not authorize him to impose any U.S. sanctions that do not conform with those prescribed by the Council.
(link and emphasis mine)
Even more perspective:
One of the most basic principles of international law is freedom of maritime navigation: the freedom of one state's vessels to ply their trade on the high seas (and innocently through the waters of other states, including straits) without hindrance or interference by other states. High seas and related freedoms are now codified in the United Nations' 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea, which is generally considered to reflect customary international law, and to which the United Kingdom and 129 other states, including Yugoslavia and Russia, are party. The 1982 Convention generally prohibits a warship from one state from visiting or boarding a foreign ship on the high seas. There are a number of exceptions, relating for instance to piracy and slavery, none of which apply here.
and
A unilateral oil "blockade" enforced against third states would not be based on sound legal principles and would constitute a significant escalation. We should care whether the enforcement of such a "blockade" is or is not legal because the stability of international relations is best served by complying with the international rule of law.
Translation: We can't legally block Iran from importing petroleum products from other countries. We can't legally blockade Iran without a U.N. Security Council resolution. Any blockade short of a U.N. resolution can (and probably will) be seen by Iran as an "act of war" by the U.S. And how do we think Iran will treat such an embargo? While there's really no knowing, you do the math.
So, is this the kind of Congressional resolution that BushCo would like to have before they leave office, even if non-binding? Given the inch/mile mentality of BushCo, I'd say you betcha. Gulf of Tonkin anyone?
Here's what Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on June 4th as he left the White House:
Emerging from a 90-minute White House meeting with President George W. Bush on June 4, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said the two leaders were of one mind:
"We reached agreement on the need to take care of the Iranian threat. I left with a lot less question marks [than] I had entered with regarding the means, the timetable restrictions, and American resoluteness to deal with the problem. George Bush understands the severity of the Iranian threat and the need to vanquish it, and intends to act on that matter before the end of his term in the White House."
Not that there's anything to really worry about, but seriously, in my opinion, this is the kind of resolution that shouldn't see the light of day in Congress with BushCo in charge...
Finally in this edition of Critter Watch, here are the links to contact your Congress Critters if you so feel the need:
The House of Representatives
The Senate
Hope you find something that interests you or informs you and keep in mind that the format will be tinkered with a bit over the next few weeks.
Also, suggestions are welcome in the comments and if you have any questions, please leave them as well in the comment section.
|
