On 1/20/07, Leigh Meyers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
Rep. Walter Jones has introduced a resolution stating that "Absent a
national emergency created by attack by Iran, or a demonstrably imminent
attack by Iran, upon the United States...the President shall...receive
specific authorization pursuant to law from Congress, prior to
initiating any use of military force against Iran." Since
Rep. Jones is a Republican, it is more likely that Republican Members
of Congress would be willing to co-sponsor this Resolution.
This is a joke, right? I'm not a legal scholar, but to the best of my
knowledge this attempt at an 'anti-authorization', or a 'pre-emptive
de-authorization' has about as much legal validity as attempting to get
a court order against someone who MIGHT do something when there's no
evidence that the person has done, or intends to do the deed being
ordered against.
It's called 'prior restraint', and courts do this with *much*
trepidation, and a high risk-of-reversal probability on any such ruling
when it goes to appeal.
The Bush administration is saying they have no intention of attacking
Iran, therefore there's nothing to order
The Demoncrats can do the laughable... pass a non-binding resolution or
a 'sense of the congress blah blah'.
George and Dick will use them for ass wipe.
If the White House really wants to go to war with Iran just now,
there's nothing that can be done to prevent it. But it may not be in
such a hurry.
--
Yoshie
<http://montages.blogspot.com/>
<http://mrzine.org>
<http://monthlyreview.org/>
