Tuesday, March 6, 2007

How can Americans block an attack on Iran?

Now I like pragmatism! Payvand has just published a nice article by Dokhi Fassihian, calling the Anti-war Americans to constructive action:

Have the congress pass a legally binding resolution that restricts the President’s ability to use funds for military force against Iran.


HOW?

Make sure that AIPAC (American Israeli Political Action Committee) that lobbies both republicans and the democratic candidates does not BLOCK congressional resolutions that prohibit an attack on Iran.

HOW?
  1. Directly contact your members of Congress –in both the House and Senate - and ask them to support binding legislation that prohibits a US attack on Iran.
  2. If you are donors to the 2008 presidential and Congressional campaigns, leverage your contributions by supporting candidates incrementally and making them contingent on a constructive policy of diplomacy and an unequivocal opposition to military options with regard to Iran.

What Are Those Resolutions?

Legally binding:
  • H.J. 14: introduced by Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) on January 12, 2007, explicitly requires Congressional authorization for any use of military force against Iran absent a national emergency or attack by Iran, and prohibits the use of any act prior to this act as authorization of use of force against Iran.
  • H.R. 770: introduced by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) on January 31, 2007 prohibits the use of funds for to carry out any covert action for the purpose of causing regime change in Iran or to carry out any military action against Iran in the absence of an imminent threat, in accordance with international law and constitutional and statutory requirements for Congressional authorization. It also calls for constructive engagement with Iran.
Non-binding resolutions that express the opinion of Congress
  • H.Con.Res 33: introduced by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) on January 16, 2007 expresses the “Sense of the House” that military action requires Congressional authorization.
  • H.Con.Res. 45: introduced by Frank Wolf (R-VA) on January 24, 2007 calls for the implementation of the International Study Group (Baker-Hamilton) Recommendations, including the launching of “a new diplomatic initiative to unite the region and build international consensus for stability and reconstruction in Iraq.”
  • S.Res. 39: introduced on January 24, 2007 by Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) expresses the sense of the Senate on the need for approval by the Congress before any offensive military action by the United States is taken on any country.
  • S. Con. Res. 13: introduced on February 15, 2007 by Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT) expresses the sense of the Congress that the President should not initiate military action against Iran without first obtaining authorization from Congress.
Spread the word to your peace loving American friends!

9 comments:

AllBlog said...

Hello Naj,

Great post, as usual. You might be interested to know that Senator James Webb, a Virginia Democrat, introduced legislation yesterday that would prohibit President Bush from spending money on unilateral military action against Iran without the consent of Congress.

Here are the news links:

http://news.google.com/news?hl=
en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&ncl=1114133120
&filter=0

Daniel said...

I guess the bottom line is that George and the Neocons don't really care what Congress or the Democrats say. I fear that we can't rely upon normal procedures to get rid of abnormal despots!

Like your blog, Naj.

N. said...

Hi daniel, thanks!

I cannot help being happy about Libby though! so, if people PUSH for it, they can cut away their branches and hopefully their roots at some point!

nunya said...

Believe it or not, this was my congressman. I sent him a letter asking him to endorse a piece of legislation around three an a half years ago and I was sent back a dismissive letter that basically said, no way, I won't endorse that legislation because (I'm paraphrasing here) the bible thumpers own me, to hell with what women want.

This city is so polically corrupt it's nauseating. The M-I-C pretty much owns and runs it. The Bush Administration managed to get a Federal prosecutor fired from her job here. for investigating my old congressman, and his buddies. With Diebold voting machines in use here, the non-corrupt, not-part-of-th-good-'ol-boy-network candidate never had a chance. She's awesome.

Brother Tim said...

Those are all good ideas, but the only resolution that will hold water is Articles of Impeachment. Anything less will only get the King's Veto, or one of his many Fatwahs (signing statements), saying he'll do as he damn well pleases.

HopeSpringsATurtle said...

Very nice nice. Pragmatic a hell. If you listen to Jim Webb's speech from today (at my site) he lays out a similar plan. Jim Webb has strength, and people like and respect him. I think and pray the house of cards is coming down.

HopeSpringsATurtle said...

Oops, I see some of the Webb info was already here. And Nunya, Cunningham even looks like a mouth-breather. I hope he dies in prison.

Fleming said...

Naj, it is great to know you as "Naj" instead of just "N."

This post is excellent. I'm catching up on blog reading after several days of distractions, and being an American (I'm shamed to admit it these days), I will make good use of what you've written

Naj said...

Hi Fleming,

I'm happy to be using my real name too. I never meant to be anonymous and I even met with one of the fellow bloggers. But the next thing I knew she had blogged about "me"! That turrrrrned me oofffff into anonymity! Age of google leaves one little privacy, I guess :)