Dems seek to bar U.S. attacks on Iran

[Sarge]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070119/ap_on_go_co/us_iran

WASHINGTON - Democratic leaders in Congress lobbed a warning shot Friday at the White House not to launch an attack against Iran without first seeking approval from lawmakers.

"The president does not have the authority to launch military action in Iran without first seeking congressional authorization," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record), D-Nev., told the National Press Club.

The administration has accused Iran of meddling in Iraqi affairs and contributing technology and bomb-making materials for insurgents to use against U.S. and Iraqi security forces.

President Bush said last week the U.S. will "seek out and destroy" networks providing that support. While top administration officials have said they have no plans to attack Iran itself, they have declined to rule it out.

This week, the administration sent another aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf — the second to deploy in the region. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the buildup was intended to impress on Iran that the four-year war in Iraq has not made America vulnerable. The U.S. is also deploying anti-missile Patriot missiles in the region.

The U.S. has accused Tehran of trying to develop nuclear weapons. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday that Iran would not back down over its nuclear program, which Tehran says is being developed only to produce energy.

Reid made the comments as he and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., spoke to the National Press Club on Democrats' view of the state of the union four days before Bush addresses Congress and the nation. His remarks were the latest Democratic display of concern about the possibility of military action in Iran and Bush's power to launch it.

Last week, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record), D-Del., challenged the president's ability to make such a move. In a letter to Bush, Biden asked the president to explain whether the administration believes it could attack Iran or Syria "without the authorization of Congress, which does not now exist."

Meanwhile, Lee Hamilton, the Democratic co-chair of the Iraq Study Group, told the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Friday that the U.S. must try to engage Iran and Syria in a constructive dialogue on Iraq because of the countries' influence in the conflict.

The Bush administration, and several members of Congress, say they oppose talks with Iran and Syria because of their terrorist connections. Bringing the two countries into regional talks aimed at reducing violence in Iraq was one of the study group's recommendations.

"Do we have so little confidence in the diplomats of the United States that we're not willing to let them talk with somebody we disagree with?" Hamilton asked.

(AP) Iranian president Mahmoud Imanutajob smiles after learning his colleges in the US Senate will try to ban the US from attacking Iran

[Riggo-toni]

:doh: :doh: :doh:

[SkinsOrlando]

Not surprising at all....................................ugh.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Good. Attacking Iran would be a huge mistake. Do you really want to trust the people who have gotten us stuck in Iraq? I'm glad someone is stepping up now. Let's see how many republicans sign on with this. I'm sure Hagel will be with it.

[Johnny Punani]

Good. Attacking Iran would be a huge mistake. Do you really want to trust the people who have gotten us stuck in Iraq? I'm glad someone is stepping up now. Let's see how many republicans sign on with this. I'm sure Hagel will be with it.

That is actually bad because it sounds like a power grab by the congress. They might have power to declare a full scale war but not power to stop any military action. That falls under the authority of the President.

[Ignatius J.]

I'm not usually one to hide behind the constitution, so I'll give more reasons than that. But I'll start with.

1) Congress is supposed to have this authority.

2) Attacking Iran right now is a bad idea

3) Sarge is misrepresenting facts again, as no one is talking about a ban of any kind.

But I can't help but feel that all I'm doing is adding to the flame here. Everyone who cares already knows the truth, but I just can't help playing the moth to sarge's flame.

[Kilmer17]

Actually, anyone with a basic grasp of the Constitution and the Seperation of Powers understands that Harry Reid is completely out of line.

Congress doesnt have this authority, regardless of what Reid or anyone else says.

[HSW]

Actually, anyone with a basic grasp of the Constitution and the Seperation of Powers understands that Harry Reid is completely out of line.

Congress doesnt have this authority, regardless of what Reid or anyone else says.

Anyone with a basic grasp of warefare knows that we are not in a position

to committ our forces/resources anywhere else right now

[Kilmer17]

Anyone with a basic grasp of warefare knows that we are not in a position

to committ our forces/resources anywhere else right now

Whether we could or not isnt the point. Reid and Co dont have the authority to make that call.

[HSW]

Whether we could or not isnt the point. Reid and Co dont have the authority to make that call.

Well if they don't have the authority to do it then what are you

upset about? Eithor they can or they cannot.

[DjTj]

Actually, anyone with a basic grasp of the Constitution and the Seperation of Powers understands that Harry Reid is completely out of line.

Congress doesnt have this authority, regardless of what Reid or anyone else says.

You're right that Congress doesn't have the authority to explicitly bar military action against a country, but I don't think Reid is saying that. All he said was "The president does not have the authority to launch military action in Iran without first seeking congressional authorization."

That statement seems consistent with the War Powers Act and the war powers clause of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

Several Senators said the exact same thing in the late summer of 2002, and there was of course a vote before military actions in Iraq commenced.

[Kilmer17]

Well if they don't have the authority to do it then what are you

upset about? Eithor they can or they cannot.

Who's upset?

[Kilmer17]

The President has the authority to launch whatever he feels is necessary for the protection of the US and it's citizens.

In much the same way that Reagan had Grenada, Clinton had Somalia etc etc.

They dont need Congress to approve it.

[HSW]

The President has the authority to launch whatever he feels is necessary for the protection of the US and it's citizens.

In much the same way that Reagan had Grenada, Clinton had Somalia etc etc.

They dont need Congress to approve it.

Times have changed. He has burnt too many bridges with the public

and the Republicans have to worry about the next set of elections

in two years.

[Sarge]

I'm not usually one to hide behind the constitution, so I'll give more reasons than that. But I'll start with.

1) Congress is supposed to have this authority.

2) Attacking Iran right now is a bad idea

3) Sarge is misrepresenting facts again, as no one is talking about a ban of any kind.

But I can't help but feel that all I'm doing is adding to the flame here. Everyone who cares already knows the truth, but I just can't help playing the moth to sarge's flame.

Hey man, straight from YAhoo. Talk to them.

Now, as for the caption at the bottom of the picture..................

[Kilmer17]

Times have changed. He has burnt too many bridges with the public

and the Republicans have to worry about the next set of elections

in two years.

All reasons why he might not do it, but not reasons why he's not ALLOWED to do it.

[DjTj]

The President has the authority to launch whatever he feels is necessary for the protection of the US and it's citizens.

In much the same way that Reagan had Grenada, Clinton had Somalia etc etc.

They dont need Congress to approve it.

Whether or not they need Congress to approve it (which is technically an open question that the courts have not decided), I would argue that Congress has a duty to speak up here, and Congress has done so in almost every case:

On October 25, 1983, President Reagan reported to Congress "consistent with" the War Powers Resolution that he had ordered a landing of approximately 1900 U.S. Army and Marine Corps personnel in Grenada. He said that the action was in response to a request from the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States which had formed a collective security force to restore order in Grenada, where anarchic conditions had developed, and to protect the lives of U.S. citizens.

Many Members of Congress contended that the President should have cited section 4(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, which would have triggered the 60-90 day time limitation. On November 1, 1983, the House supported this interpretation when it adopted, by a vote of 403-23, H.J Res. 402 declaring that the requirements of section 4(a)(1) had become operative on October 25. The Senate did not act on this measure and a conference was not held. The Senate had adopted a similar measure on October 28 by a vote of 64 to 20, but on November 17 the provision was deleted in the conference report on the debt limit bill to which it was attached. (37) Thus both Houses had voted to invoke section 4(a)(1), but the legislation was not completed.

On November 17, White House spokesman Larry Speakes said the Administration had indicated that there was no need for action as the combat troops would be out within the 60-90 day time period. Speaker Thomas O'Neill took the position that, whether or not Congress passed specific legislation, the War Powers Resolution had become operative on October 25. By December 15, 1983, all U.S. combat troops had been removed from Grenada.

Eleven Members of Congress filed a suit challenging the constitutionality of President Reagan's invasion of Grenada. A district judge held that courts should not decide such cases unless the entire Congress used the institutional remedies available to it. (38) An appellate court subsequently held that the issue was moot because the invasion had been ended. (39)

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32267.html#_1_21

A major issue for Congress was whether to authorize U.S. action in Somalia. On February 4, 1993, the Senate passed S.J.Res. 45 to authorize the President to use U.S. armed forces pursuant to U.N. Security Council Resolution 794. S.J.Res. 45 stated it is intended to constitute the specific statutory authorization under Section 5( of the War Powers Resolution. On May 25, 1993, the House amended and passed S.J.Res. 45. The amendment authorized U.S. forces to remain for one year. S.J.Res. 45 was then sent to the Senate for its concurrence, but the measure did not reach the floor.

As sporadic fighting resulted in the deaths of Somali and U.N. forces, including Americans, controversy over the operation intensified. On September 9, 1993, the Senate adopted an amendment to S. 1298, the Defense Authorization Bill, expressing the sense of Congress that the President by November 15, 1993, should seek and receive congressional authorization for the continued deployment of U.S. forces to Somalia. It asked that the President consult with Congress and report the goals, objectives, and anticipated jurisdiction of the U.S. mission in Somalia by October 15, 1993. On September 29, the House adopted a similar amendment to its bill, H.R. 2401. On October 7, the President consulted with congressional leaders from both parties for over two hours on Somalia policy and also announced that U.S. forces would be withdrawn by March 31, 1994.

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/IB81050.html#_1_9

[Kilmer17]

Congress has a duty to respond, not to preemptively tell the President what to do or not to do.

[HSW]

All reasons why he might not do it, but not reasons why he's not ALLOWED to do it.

Actually NOBODY can answer this question since we would not know

what level of conflict he would choose.

[DjTj]

Congress has a duty to respond, not to preemptively tell the President what to do or not to do.

So you're saying that they're not allowed to talk about the future?

Reid isn't trying to pass a law that says the President can't invade Iran without Congressional approval. The most that could possibly come from this is a non-binding Resolution, and what will most likely result is just what's happenning now - political posturing.

I don't understand what you're complaining about.

[HSW]

So you're saying that they're not allowed to talk about the future?

Reid isn't trying to pass a law that says the President can't invade Iran without Congressional approval. The most that could possibly come from this is a non-binding Resolution, and what will most likely result is just what's happenning now - political posturing.

I don't understand what you're complaining about.

He ain't complaining or upset....

[Kilmer17]

there is a difference between offering an opinion on what the President SHOULD do and making a declaration that the President cant do something.

[HSW]

there is a difference between offering an opinion on what the President SHOULD do and making a declaration that the President cant do something.

Ah no there is not.

" I do not think he should do this"....He does it...

" He cannot do this"....He does it...

All the same.

[DjTj]

there is a difference between offering an opinion on what the President SHOULD do and making a declaration that the President cant do something.

So you're saying that before Harry Reid says anything, he has to start off with, "In my opinion, ..." Everything he says is an opinion.

...and even backing up from that. Am I not allowed to say that the President can't take military action without approval from Congress? I think that would be a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court has yet to rule decisively on that issue ... War powers are a subject on which reasonable minds can certainly disagree.

[Kilmer17]

So you're saying that before Harry Reid says anything, he has to start off with, "In my opinion, ..." Everything he says is an opinion.

...and even backing up from that. Am I not allowed to say that the President can't take military action without approval from Congress? I think that would be a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court has yet to rule decisively on that issue ... War powers are a subject on which reasonable minds can certainly disagree.

That's quite a fine line you're trying to walk.

I think it's clear that he was saying it as the Dem Congress stance.