US Congress: Charge Ahmadinejad for inciting genocide

[Scurrilous]

Source: Ynetnews

House of Representatives passes resolution calling on UN Security Council to punish Iranian president for statements made regarding destruction of Israel

"The US House of Representatives passed a resolution calling on the UN Security Council to charge Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating international laws pertaining to genocide by calling for the destruction of Israel.

Written after the Holocaust, the UN Genocide Convention defines the act of genocide as, among other things, the act of killing members of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the targeted group.

It also however prohibits conspiracy to commit genocide, as well as "direct and public incitement to commit genocide." A majority of 411 members of congress voted in favor of taking Ahmadinejad's to court for his statements, agreeing that they fell under the prohibited actions detailed in the UN's Genocide Convention. Two representatives voted against calling on the UN to take such action."

Read more: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3415589,00.html

---

Congress Votes to Send Iran President Before U.N. Court

http://campaignsandelections.com/oh/releases/index.cfm?ID=1328

Congress Votes to Send the President of Iran Before a United Nation's Court

While Refusing a New York Times Translation of the President's Remarks

<snip>

"Today the House of Representatives passed H. Con.Res.21, a resolution that pressures the United Nations Security Council to charge Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on Genocide and the United Nations Charter because of his alleged calls for the destruction of Israel.

"There is reasonable doubt with regard to the accuracy of the translations of President Ahmadinejad's words in this resolution. President Ahmadinejad's speeches can also be translated as a call for regime change, much in the same manner the Bush Administration has called for regime change in Iraq and Iran, making this resolution very ironic," Kucinich said.

Kucinich attempted to insert into the Congressional Record two independent translations of the speech from The New York Times and Middle East Media Research Institute, which contain significant differences in the translations of the speech compared to the resolution before the House. However, Members objected formally and the attempt was blocked.

"When I learned of these translations, I felt obligated to bring it to the attention of the House. It seems that much has been lost in translation. Members have a right to know of the translations and the refusal to permit them to become a part of the Congressional Record does a disservice to Members."

[BlackHawk706867]

1. Why is it they don't make the same proposal for GWB? eom ww

[Javaman]

26. Do as I say, not as I do.

Because if they did that, those who voted for this fucked up war would find themselves in a very interesting spot morally and ethically. Can't have members of the house and senate reflecting on their hypocrisy now, what is wrong with you?

Sigh.

[peacebird]

what about passing a resolution to close GITMO? A resolution BANNING TORTURE?

A resolution condemning the bush administration policies for the genocide in Fallujah? The slaughter of innocent people in Afghanistan and Iraq?

:GRR:

Let he without sin cast the first stone - methinks our house of reps has bloody hands too.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[peacebird]

2. what about passing a resolution to close GITMO? A resolution BANNING TORTURE?

A resolution condemning the bush administration policies for the genocide in Fallujah? The slaughter of innocent people in Afghanistan and Iraq?

:GRR:

Let he without sin cast the first stone - methinks our house of reps has bloody hands too.

[Xipe Totec]

3. And Bush called for AND destroyed Iraq. That makes him what?

inquiring minds want to know.

[global1]

4. This Is The 21st Century - We Talk About A Global Community - And We....

still can't translate languages?

So we're being told that there are at least three different versions/translations of Ahmadinejad's words - but we chose to believe the one that's interpreted with the most damaging language.

Couldn't we hire language translation experts to review all three versions and come up with a correct interpretation before we fly off the handle and inch toward starting a war.

It would be sad if we got into a confrontation because we didn't take the time to understand what someone was saying.

Is this how we want wars to start?

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rec_report]

6. Charge Bush *first.* n/t

[The Stranger]

7. What was Norm Podheretz calling for recently?

[Scurrilous]

8. Chairman of Neocons, Norman Podhoretz, Calls For Bombing Iran Now in WSJ (May 30, 2007)

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/may/30/chairman_of_neocons_norman_podhoretz_calls_for_bombing_iran_now_in_wsj

[stillcool]

9. Stoke that fire...

It almost seems like Iran has the ability to get Iraq to finally sign those oil-laws.

[SOS]

10. Yet actual mass murder is ignored by the chumps in Congress.

The slaughter of the Shan in Burma.
Mass murder in Equatorial Guinea.
4 million dead in the Congo.
Mass executions in China.
250,000 dead in East Timor.
Darfur.
100,000 slaughtered in Tibet.

[LeftishBrit]

33. Good point!

There's a lot of selectiveness about which targets to address.

[superconnected]

11. So it begins...

This is where the iran war will start in the US history books...

[youngdem]

12. I see we are still attempting to equate him with Hitler

Can't wait to watch Hillary's leadership in slamming this right out of the gate.....(crickets)

Iran is to Iraq what Ebola is to the head cold.

We are REALLY gonna regret it if we attack them with our military spread out and worn out.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[some guy]

14. Another day, another reason to support DK

*snip*
Kucinich attempted to insert into the Congressional Record two independent translations of the speech from The New York Times and Middle East Media Research Institute, which contain significant differences in the translations of the speech compared to the resolution before the House. However, Members objected formally and the attempt was blocked.

"When I learned of these translations, I felt obligated to bring it to the attention of the House. It seems that much has been lost in translation. Members have a right to know of the translations and the refusal to permit them to become a part of the Congressional Record does a disservice to Members."

A similar House resolution, H. Res. 523, passed the House two days after the October 26, 2005, speech and before these translations were available. Kucinich supported that resolution in the 109th Congress.

"I am unequivocal in my support for the security and survival of Israel, and I do have serious concerns with the remarks made by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran. But, I object to resolutions that lay the groundwork for an offensive, unprovoked war.

"The resolution passed by the House today sets a dangerous precedent in foreign affairs. A mistranslation could become a cause of war. The United States House may unwittingly be setting the stage for a war with Iran.

"We must make every effort to ascertain the truth because peace in the world may hang in the balance. The only way to definitively know what President Ahmadinejad meant is for the United States to engage in meaningful, diplomatic relations with the country of Iran."

*snip*

I can easily see why he's "unelectable" - he just makes too damn much sense.

:banghead:

[IndianaGreen]

15. Our Congress cares more about Israel than they do about defunding the war.

Their priorites are all out of whack!

[Andrushka]

17. What bollocks

When did he call for Israel's destruction in either quoted episode? The "wiped off the map" bullshit lie just doesn't die, does it?

[brentspeak]

18. What makes it a "lie"?

[yodermon]

29. the translation of his statement is

"removed from the page of time", not "wiped off the map".

Make of it what you will.

[Zhade]

31. The fact that he DIDN'T say wiped off the map, which is impossible for you not to know by now.

It's certainly been pointed out again and again what was actually said, which was about Israel's place in history.

But then, you already know that, having asked this same question before.

[barb162]

38. The fact is he did say "wiped off the face of the earth"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1601413,00.html

Iran's new president created a sense of outrage in the west yesterday by describing Israel as a "disgraceful blot" that should be "wiped off the face of the earth". Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who is more hardline than his predecessor, told students in Tehran that a new wave of Palestinian attacks would be enough to finish off Israel.
snip
But Mr Ahmadinejad rejected compromise: "There is no doubt that the new wave in Palestine will wipe off this stigma from the face of the Islamic world." Recalling the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, leader of Iran's Islamic revolution, he said: "As the imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."
snip

[CJCRANE]

51. AFAIK

He said something about the "regime" "disappearing from the pages of history". That's about political change.

It's all in the translation. But who cares - I won't be doing the fighting.

[barb162]

66. Well, you can read the Guardian article I just posted , BBC, etc.

[Malikshah]

53. Wrong. But hey, what's being accurate when one wants to hate.

[barb162]

67. Read the news in the Guardian, the BBC, etal.

Are you saying the Guardian ( and a host of other left wing publications) got this wrong? They are not right wing sources. If you can't take mainstream or left wing press for your sources, I guess you can just go your own way and believe whatever you want. Kofi Annan even made a negative statement about Ahmadinejad's remarks as did many world leaders. Who cares what he or they say, right? What does accuracy have to do with anything when one wants to to be in denial and hate.

[Malikshah]

69. Yes, yes I am. It is a bit simplistic to label sources in such a way.

The articles are, in fact, incorrect in their translations if they state that Ahmadinejad called for the destruction of Israel.

Accuracy in translation is key. Sources have been provided that have yet to be refuted.

It is strange that such lies can be continued.

[barb162]

71. Al Jazeera: "Ahmadinejad: Wipe Israel off map"

Ahmadinejad: Wipe Israel off map
UPDATED ON:
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2005
6:49 MECCA TIME, 3:49 GMT

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has openly called for Israel to be wiped off the map.
snip
http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=15816

I guess EVERYONE has it wrong and the lies just continue and continue????
:sarcasm:

Label sources or don't label them as you wish.
Why don't you provide a source or two that you think have it correct?

[Malikshah]

72. No, just the one's who mistranslate.

Strange, how one attempts to categorize media sources on this issue, whereas I am focusing on correct translation.

The statements have been provided in this thread already. I assumed that one reads the posts in the thread.
Here's a new one that has been linked to yet on the thread-- it's by someone who actually knows the language.


http://www.juancole.com/2006/05/hitchens-hacker-and-hitchens.html

[barb162]

73. Al Jazeera uses its own translators into English. Al Jazeera is wrong?

This preemptive mindset is dangerous for us all, you know. You can focus all you want on translations; I'll continue to focus on sources.

Oh, and well, um, Kofi Annan had plenty of translators when he was at the UN.
That ol' preemptive mindset is dangerous for us all.

[Malikshah]

74. Ah. Source provided. No response. More attacks.

Quite sad.

Bye.

[barb162]

75. Those pesky little facts.

Al Jazeera uses its own translators, the Secretary-General of the UN uses his own translators, etc.
Those Damn Facts!

And somehow saying AL Jazeera uses its own translators is an attack? My, my, my. Interesting "logic" there.

Ta-ta, dearie

[bemildred]

19. I look forward to the day when Congress does more than posture like a bunch of baboons.

And when the hell did it become OK for them to meddle in foreign affairs, anyway? I thought that was supposed to be Bush's sole prerogative.

[dansolo]

20. Wouldn't proposing using nuclear weapons also be considered genocide?

Should Joe Lieberman also be charged, since he wants to nuke Iran?

[ShortnFiery]

24. I dunno, why don't we ask the good citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Hiroshima & Nagasaki - the Worst Terror Attack in History

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrSlayer]

22. This is a stupid, pointless waste of time.

Politics just become more absurd every day. Sometimes I wonder why I bother.

[Nihil]

23. How conveniently timed for NetanNutter's visit!

There are just *so* many things wrong with this Congressional action.

Talk about being in AIPAC's pockets ...

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JFen]

25. Zionists

We have an administration (and large portion of Americans) who are afraid to stand up to Israel for fear that God will stick them dead if the United States does not "befriend" Israel.

Unfortunately, logic won't convince them otherwise.

[LeftishBrit]

34. Just three little points:

(1) Iran is not responsible for absolutely everything bad that happens in the world, even if Bush et al want to make it look that way.

(2) Israel ALSO isn't responsible for absolutely everything bad that happens in the world, even if one or two people want to make it look that way.

(3) Bush and Cheney need to be made PERSONALLY accountable for the mess they've caused, and not blame Iran, Israel, Iraq or the dwarf planet Pluto for their actions. (And their poodle might take some responsibility too!)

[Megahurtz]

54. Agreed. n/t

[Vidar]

27. Charge Bush for carrying it out.

[Poll_Blind]

28. AIPAC's got a war boner and there's little you can do to stop it.

  The fact that DK was shot down just trying to show that there are other interpretations to Ahmadinejad's statements is a reminder that there's little hope of stopping the eventual attack on Iran.

  So just sit back, relax, and keep paying those taxes!

PB

[Zhade]

30. Meanwhile, our Congress enables ongoing genocide in Iraq.

Oh sweet irony, how foul-tasting you often are!

[barb162]

41. If we were to leave today, would the Shia and Sunnis stop

the terror attacks on each other? How about the other factions in attacking each other? The Democrats have the majority right now and I don't see any of them saying, gee, let's enable ongoing genocide over there. I think just about everyone in Congress wishes right now they had never heard the word Iraq.

[daleo]

59. Yes, congress made a little boo-boo regarding Iraq

I suppose they will eventually "wish they had never heard the word Iran". How many will have to die before they change their minds again?

[barb162]

62. Congress shouldn't condemning genocidal statements?

[barb162]

63. They made more than a boo-boo on Iraq.

A lot worse. But this is about genocidal statements and asking the UN to take up the matter.

[daleo]

65. I believe the U.S. government accused Saddam of genocide

That includes congress. A while later the U.S. military invaded.

Most congressmen wouldn't use a U.N. resolution to wipe their bottoms, but now they want a U.N. condemnation? This is the path to aggressive military action against Iran - condemnation, demonization, then war. This path has been taken so many times now, that the ruts are well worn and very deep.

[barb162]

68. I think Bush was more on the WMD thing.

And certain atrocities by Saddam's kids and Saddam himself. I don't recall "genocide" per se except perhaps in regard to the Kurds? I don't quite remember.

[daleo]

70. I would say these descriptions were mostly about the Kurds

I also recall references to destruction of the "marsh Arabs" (via land reclamation).

Then there was Kuwait, which he could legitimately be said to have wanted to "wipe off the map", although that didn't mean he wanted to eliminate the population - just absorb them into Iraq, thus "wiping Kuwait off the map".

The point is, I can't see these calls for condemnation of Iran's leadership in isolation from the wider goals of recent U.S. policy. Condemnations have been very selective, and have usually led to war, or threats of war. Given that history, I can't help but be cynical about it all.

[LeftishBrit]

32. Good idea! - And they can vote to send Bush and Cheney to the same court, while they're at it!

This changes my mind on impeachment - I thought it was a waste of time, but if Congress can vote to 'impeach'the President of Iran, they can bloody well vote to impeach Bush!

[barb162]

64. Or at the least, ask the UN to have Bush censured along with

the Pres. of Iran.
(bwaha)

[htuttle]

35. Oh, so NOW we care what the UN says?

Looking right past our own NUMEROUS violations of UN conventions and the Charter itself?

[snappyturtle]

36. Great point....I'm off to see if I can find out how my congresscritter

voted. Israel has a couple outstanding UN resolutions it hasn't met either....so we go after Iran. Makes sense to me. :sarcasm:

[SergeyDovlatov]

37. Only Dennis and Paul voted against it

What about other antiwar congressmen? Where are they? Voting present?

Here is a Paul's speach from the floor:

Statement on H Con Res 21

June 20, 2007

Madam Speaker: I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. This resolution is an exercise in propaganda that serves one purpose: to move us closer to initiating a war against Iran. Citing various controversial statements by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, this legislation demands that the United Nations Security Council charge Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Having already initiated a disastrous war against Iraq citing UN resolutions as justification, this resolution is like dйja-vu. Have we forgotten 2003 already? Do we really want to go to war again for UN resolutions? That is where this resolution, and the many others we have passed over the last several years on Iran, is leading us. I hope my colleagues understand that a vote for this bill is a vote to move us closer to war with Iran.

Clearly, language threatening to wipe a nation or a group of people off the map is to be condemned by all civilized people. And I do condemn any such language. But why does threatening Iran with a pre-emptive nuclear strike, as many here have done, not also deserve the same kind of condemnation? Does anyone believe that dropping nuclear weapons on Iran will not wipe a people off the map? When it is said that nothing, including a nuclear strike, is off the table on Iran, are those who say it not also threatening genocide? And we wonder why the rest of the world accuses us of behaving hypocritically, of telling the rest of the world “do as we say, not as we do.”

I strongly urge my colleagues to consider a different approach to Iran, and to foreign policy in general. General William Odom, President Reagan’s director of the National Security Agency, outlined a much more sensible approach in a recent article titled “Exit From Iraq Should Be Through Iran.” General Odom wrote: “Increasingly bogged down in the sands of Iraq, the US thrashes about looking for an honorable exit. Restoring cooperation between Washington and Tehran is the single most important step that could be taken to rescue the US from its predicament in Iraq.” General Odom makes good sense. We need to engage the rest of the world, including Iran and Syria, through diplomacy, trade, and travel rather than pass threatening legislation like this that paves the way to war. We have seen the limitations of force as a tool of US foreign policy. It is time to try a more traditional and conservative approach. I urge a “no” vote on this resolution.

[High Plains]

47. Pretty right on for a nutbag.

[Egnever]

40. These guys never cease to amaze

what in the world is wrong with our representatives? Too much rush and hanity?

[barb162]

42. So is he inciting to commit genocide? Yes he is.

Take a look at several of his speeches. It is undeniable.

http://www.adl.org/main_Anti_Semitism_International/ahmadinejad_words.htm
snip
June 3, 2007
"With God's help, the countdown button for the destruction of the Zionist regime has been pushed by the hands of the children of Lebanon and Palestine . . . By God's will, we will witness the destruction of this regime in the near future."

snip

August 2, 2006
"Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented."

(as quoted by Iranian TV)

"Are they human beings?... They (Zionists) are a group of blood-thirsty savages putting all other criminals to shame."

(as quoted by Iranian TV)
snip

[Name removed]

43. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bunnies]

45. You seem to be ingoring the word "regime". n/t

[barb162]

49. ?

[LeftishBrit]

52. He said 'the Zionist regime'

He didn't say 'the Kadima regime' or 'the Likud regime' or 'the right-wing Israeli regime' or 'the Israeli occupation'. There is NO conceivable Israeli government that would not be 'Zionist'. Even if Peace Now formed the Israeli government, and ended the occupation tomorrow, it would still be 'Zionist' inasmuch as it would support the continued existence of a state of Israel. Thus, it is clear that Ahmadejinad opposes the very existence of Israel, at least as an independent Jewish state; not just its current government or the occupation.

Now, considering how many leaders have actually started wars, not just uttered inciting *words*, I think it's a bit hypocritical of Congress to focus just on this one - especially when they're not impeaching Bush or Cheney. But that doesn't make Ahmadejinad a good man or a good leader. And no, I am NOT in favour of any sort of war with Iran.

[Megahurtz]

55. Biased Website,

incorrect translations.

[barb162]

60. Then use whichever web sites you feel have correct translations

or no bias. Perhaps you choose to deny he has made these several statements on several different dates.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IndianaGreen]

77. He didn't say that, but special interests don't want the American people to know the truth

We were manipulated and lied to in order to justify war against Iraq, and now we are being manipulated and lied to in order to justify war against Iran.

No Questions Asked?

Congress Votes to Send the President of Iran Before a United Nation’s Court While Refusing a New York Times Translation of the President’s Remarks

Washington, Jun 20 - WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today the House of Representatives passed H. Con.Res.21, a resolution that pressures the United Nations Security Council to charge Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on Genocide and the United Nations Charter because of his alleged calls for the destruction of Israel.

“There is reasonable doubt with regard to the accuracy of the translations of President Ahmadinejad’s words in this resolution. President Ahmadinejad’s speeches can also be translated as a call for regime change, much in the same manner the Bush Administration has called for regime change in Iraq and Iran, making this resolution very ironic,” Kucinich said.

Kucinich attempted to insert into the Congressional Record two independent translations of the speech from The New York Times and Middle East Media Research Institute, which contain significant differences in the translations of the speech compared to the resolution before the House. However, Members objected formally and the attempt was blocked.

“When I learned of these translations, I felt obligated to bring it to the attention of the House. It seems that much has been lost in translation. Members have a right to know of the translations and the refusal to permit them to become a part of the Congressional Record does a disservice to Members.”

A similar House resolution, H. Res. 523, passed the House two days after the October 26, 2005, speech and before these translations were available. Kucinich supported that resolution in the 109th Congress.

“I am unequivocal in my support for the security and survival of Israel, and I do have serious concerns with the remarks made by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran. But, I object to resolutions that lay the groundwork for an offensive, unprovoked war.

“The resolution passed by the House today sets a dangerous precedent in foreign affairs. A mistranslation could become a cause of war. The United States House may unwittingly be setting the stage for a war with Iran.

“We must make every effort to ascertain the truth because peace in the world may hang in the balance. The only way to definitively know what President Ahmadinejad meant is for the United States to engage in meaningful, diplomatic relations with the country of Iran.”

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=67929

[bamacrat]

44. Kettle...

I mean cmon, what the hell why can't we charge the criminals and genocide spreaders in our own government first.

[High Plains]

46. Don't these bozos have pressing business to attend to?

Apparently not.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WindRavenX]

50. do we have any logical and reasonable elected officials anymore?

Or are they all a bunch of war-mongering monkeys?

[daleo]

56. Stage 1 of demonizing Iran

Which is all part building up to aggressive military action. We have seen this time after time.

[spanone]

58. Dear congressfools, do something constuctive, like restoring the Constitution.

[IndianaGreen]

78. Congress is more interested in starting another war, than they are about defunding the Iraq war

Shame on this bunch of panderers and cowards.

[Socal31]

61. So because we dont like Bush,

we have to defend this piece of horse-sh*t? I guess that is where my views start to differ with most DU-ers it seems.


Also, we are not systematically trying to eliminate any specific race, culture, religion. Calling Iraq "Genocide" is hyperbole at best.

Just because we have some house-cleaning to do, doesnt mean we cant look around the world also.

[rocktivity]

76. Rocknation: Charge Bush with COMMITTING genocide

:mad:
rocknation

[Scurrilous]

79. ‘Ahmadinejad doesn’t want Jews’ annihilation’

Iranian leader’s aide says anti-Israel statements aimed at rallying Arab world around Islamic revolution’s values. ‘All Muslims want to see Zionist regime change into a Palestinian regime,’ he says.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3416197,00.html

<snip>

"Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does want the Jews to be annihilated but rather to change the regime in Israel,” a senior aide to the Iranian president said Friday.

On August 3, 2006 the Iranian president said that the Middle East would be better off "without the existence of the Zionist regime." He also called Israel an "illegitimate regime" with "no legal basis for its existence."

During the Iranian-organized conference questioning the Holocaust on December 12, 2006 Ahmadinejad said Israel would "soon be wiped out."

In an interview published on the pro-regime Raja news website, Rohalla Housseinian, the Iranian leader’s consultant for political and security affairs, said, “Ahmadinejad is not interested in annihilating the Jews who live in occupied Palestine. What he wants is to change the Zionist regime.

“All Muslims want to see the Zionist regime change into a Palestinian one. Why is the United States permitted to call for changing the regime in Iran and our leaders are forbidden from calling for an end to the Zionist regime?” he said."