New bill to forbid covert action against Iran

[Greeby]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c110NKgBAs::

Iran Nuclear Nonproliferation Act (Introduced in House)

HR 770 IH

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 770

To prohibit the use of funds 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.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 31, 2007

Ms. LEE (for herself, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. CONYERS, and Ms. WATERS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services and Select Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

[Poll_Blind]

1. Now that's what I call a pre-emptive strike! Go Dennis! n/t

PB

[williesgirl]

2. Thrilled to be 5th rec - go Dems - keep these criminals from repeating Iraq in Iran.

[Marie26]

3. I wonder what prompted this

They must've heard something about imminent/ongoing covert actions in Iran, right?

[bryant69]

7. Not Necessarily

America has a long history of covert actions against nations they don't like, particularly the right wing. This administration has become somewhat obsessed with Iran. It's logical to assume they would at least consider something like this.

Smart move, at any rate, although I imagine if it passes it will have quite a signing statement attached to it. "President Bush has read this document clearly, and noted that where the congress used the word "forbids" they clearly meant the word "encourages."

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Marie26]

12. Does it matter?

The whole point of covert actions is that they're, you know, covert. How would Congress even find out about it? They can pass & sign this, and Bush can just ignore it w/o even bothering w/a signing statement. I'm glad they're trying this anyway. The US does have a history of using covert ops (in Latin America, for example) & there's some evidence that they're trying the same thing in Iran now.

"LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS.

No funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense or any other department or agency of the Government of the United States may be used 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."

Retired colonel claims U.S. military operations are already 'underway' in Iran

During an interview on CNN Friday night, retired U.S. Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner claimed that U.S. military operations are already 'underway' inside Iran, RAW STORY has found.

"I would say -- and this may shock some -- I think the decision has been made and military operations are under way," Col. Gardiner told CNN International anchor Jim Clancy.

Gardiner, who designed a war game in November of 2004 for Atlantic Magazine ("Will Iran be next?") which simulated "preparations for a U.S. assault on Iran," also claimed that Aliasghar Soltaniyeh, the Iranian ambassador to the United Nation's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told him a few weeks ago that units who had attacked the Revolutionary Guard had been captured and confessed to working with Americans.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Retired_colonel_claims_U.S._Military_operations_0415.html

[va4wilderness]

4. Way to go!

This is badly needed.

I just hope no such covert actions have been carried out so far. Nothing would surprise me anymore. Nothing.

[newyawker99]

10. Hi va4wilderness!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Peace Patriot]

5. Kudos to these Reps for listening to EIGHTY-FOUR PERCENT of the American

people who oppose any U.S. participation in a widened Mideast War (summer '06). This is what democracy looks like!

-------------------

You gotta be worried, though, about "in the absence of an imminent threat." That's the kind of loophole that Cheney could drive a fleet of battleships through.

Iraq was an "imminent threat," if y'all will recall. 45 minutes to London--remember? Harboring Al Qaeda.

Why does this have to be stated? OBVIOUSLY, the President is tasked with defending us in the event of any real attack. Rather than reading "My Pet Goat," I mean. Actually has to get AF jets up in the air, to defend the nation's capitol, anyway. So why include this sop to the warmongers--and legal out for the Junta?

I know, I know. Dancing around the imperial presidency takes some real footwork.

I want to propose something more radical. Strip the President of all war-making powers, get rid of nukes, and reduce the "Defense" budget to a true defensive posture (cut it by 90%). The President CANNOT conduct an offensive war. No more wars of choice!

What have we lost, if we do this? We have NOT lost the ability to defend ourselves. We can still have an anti-missile system to knock incomings out of the sky, and sufficient troops and other forces to defend our shores. We have only lost the cancerous growth on our backs of the war-manufacturing industry.

Why should the President have ANY capability of offensive war?

This resolution is trying to deal with the fact that Congress has violated its oath of office, on a number of occasions, starting with Vietnam, by GIVING AWAY its power to declare war to the President. Thus, a gigantic military machine has been built up, handy for use in corporate resource wars and by incipient tyrants.

That is the main problem with the resolution. It is trying to force the President back within the law, but it is Congress that has broken the law, as much as Bush has--most recently on the Iraq War. The resolution is trying to TAKE BACK power that Congress ALREADY HAS.

Instead, it should go further. It should propose a Constitutional amendment that completely restructures and defines "defense," and that makes it IMPOSSIBLE for Congress to GIVE AWAY its power to the President.

[dogday]

6. Now that is a bill and a worthy effort

Let us see how this is accepted in the house....

[deepthought42]

8. This is what I want to see! n/t

[dogday]

9. Kick

[EVDebs]

11. Maybe too late, covert ops TaskForce 121 etc are still out there...nt