Agree or disagree with this statement (from Iran ammendment recently passed)

[calteacherguy]

(5) that the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224

Comments:

1) Note it says "should." I don't believe this power to designate rests with the Senate. My understanding is this is a non-binding resoulution.

2) It has been proven that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is indeed engaged in terrorist activity. I invite anyone to prove me wrong on this.

3) I would like to know more about what Executive Order 13224 is...anyone know?

Bottom line: This resoulution doesn't give the administration any power it doesn't already have, as I read it.

Edit - Executive order 13224:

In general terms, the Order provides a means by which to disrupt the financial support network for terrorists and terrorist organizations by authorizing the U.S. government to designate and block the assets of foreign individuals and entities that commit, or pose a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism. In addition, because of the pervasiveness and expansiveness of the financial foundations of foreign terrorists, the Order authorizes the U.S. government to block the assets of individuals and entities that provide support, services, or assistance to, or otherwise associate with, terrorists and terrorist organizations designated under the Order, as well as their subsidiaries, front organizations, agents, and associates.

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/2002/16181.htm

[Kelly Rupert]

1. Agree. I think the hype is unwarranted, and no different

from any of the "OMG THIS MEANS WE'RE GONNA BOMB IRAN FOR REAL" noise we get every few weeks.

[calteacherguy]

2. I think the danger of war with Iran is very real.

But I don't think this ammendment is a war vote, or gives the administration any power they don't already have.

[Kelly Rupert]

3. Just because I get irritated when people cry wolf

doesn't mean I think there aren't wolves out there, y'know?

[jmp]

5. Yeah, this is nothing like 2002

:sarcasm:

[Kelly Rupert]

8. It really isn't.

People who claim it is seem to have hazy memories. Perhaps you may have missed the "March to War" blaring on CNN every 15 minutes, the repeated speeches about how Saddam must disarm or face military action, the pundits all talking about how if the UN doesn't authorize military force then it will have failed its mission. Talk of war was all over the media, and all over world politics.

Here? The only people seriously talking about war with Iran (as anything more than a, "well maybe in a few years, depending on how things shake out") are the blogheads on the left and right.

[jmp]

10. That wasn't the beginning of it.

H.J.Res. 75 Stated that Iraq’s refusal to allow weapons inspectors was a material
breach of its international obligations and constituted “a mounting
threat to the United States, its friends and allies, and international
peace and security.” Passed in the House: December 20, 2001

That was Dec 2001


Was CNN blaring "March to War" with Iraq in Dec of 2001? :eyes:

[Kelly Rupert]

11. Ironic you say that, actually.

Since in Dec. 2001, CNN was running a special rather-ominously entitled "The Unfinished War" about the Gulf War.

That aside, Bush hadn't yet begun his war push yet; that didn't start until September 2002. Any comparison between a current war push and the one in 2002 that this one is supposedly reminiscent of should probably start with the actual push for war.

[jmp]

14. The groundwork is laid first ...

Then you get the very visible push. In 2001 it was declaring Iraq a "threat". In 2007 it's declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard "terrorist".

[The Wielding Truth]

4. This explains the amendment as compared to original bill.....

http://irannuclearwatch.blogspot.com/2007/09/revised-lieberman-kyl-amendment.html

It helped me understand it a bit better. Hope ir helps other DUers.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, not a terrorist organization.

It is part of the Iranian armed forces. AGIR does provide support to Hezbollah, and perhaps to shiite palestinian forces, but generally that support is in the form of military weapons and training for conflict with the IDF, not for operations against civilians - as in not terrorism. Of course 'terrorism' is a very loose term, so some nations classify Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, others as simply a militia and political force within the disfunctional Lebanese government. Likewise, the AGIR most likely does provide support to shiite militias in Iran, and once again categorizing these operations as terrorist is hugely problematic.

Why are you so eager for another bad war?

[xchrom]

7. what this resolution does and all the ''official'' talk about iran does is it makes bush relevant.

it gives him power.

no -- technically it doesn't do a damn thing to move us toward war with iran.

but all this muscle talk both from dems and republick party people is that it keeps bush from fading into the background.

we have not beaten him -- and for now we have regenerated and invogorated his administration.

now they can move us a good deal closer to war with iran -- and hold dem feet to the fire using this resolution.

but you seem to be happy with that.

[Honeycombe8]

9. Not sure I fully understand it, but if it doesn't give authority that doesn't already exist, then

there would be no point to it.

It must, by virtue of it being proposed and voted on, give authority.

I think the danger is not the bill, but WHO is in charge right now, when this bill is passed. We have all learned that this administration cannot be trusted. They are underhanded, corrupt, unethical. They will use this for some purpose that the American people don't necessarily want.

Can't this bill wait? Or is it necessary at all?

[Kelly Rupert]

12. So your theory is because you can't understand the wording,

it must give power to Bush, because he's not trustworthy.

I trust you have not heard of the term "symbolic resolution."

[Honeycombe8]

13. No. Let me explain it to you in simple terms, so you can understand.

1. Poster said the bill does not give any authority the admin. doesn't already have.

Fact: Bills are usually proposed and passed for a purpose, not to make a "statement," so to speak. As with the IWR, which did not out and out "give authority" where none existed (according to the White House), but which was passed for that purpose, it ultimately was used as authority, and has been cited countless times since its passing. Additionally, Clinton herself stated that the purpose of the bill was so that the administration could use it as authority for imposing sanctions.

2. This bill either gives authority or supports a certain point of view that may or may not be good/valid.

Fact: This administration has shown that it cannot be trusted. To either give authority or support a certain point of view of an untrustworthy administration is foolish. In *'s words, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice...uh....uh...well, don't fool me again."

This seems very much like a repeat. Not exactly. But similar.

Do you understand now? Yeah, I thought you would. You may not admit it, but you do. (I expect you're a Clinton supporter. My post was not a criticism of Clinton for voting for it, but a pure discussion of the bill. Sorry if you feel so ashamed of her vote that you feel compelled to attack anyone who tries to discuss it.)

[Kelly Rupert]

15. Heh, you haven't read through the Congressional Record ever, have you?

Here's some of what was passed the day of the Iran amendment.

10 bills renaming post offices, one resolution declaring support for National Life Insurance Month, one for Sickle Cell Disease Awareness Month, one for VFW Day, one expressing concern for Lebanon's democratic institutions, one demanding the President develop a strategy for world poverty, one expressing sympathy for the victims of Hurricanes Felix, Dean, and Henriette, one condemning the UN Human Right Council for ignoring human rights abuses while targeting Israel, one expressing support for "Campus Fire Safety Month," all nonbinding and granting no money or power to anything, and there are many others equally pointless--and they're passed every single day.

Much of what Congress does is indeed purely to make a statement.

To reiterate: you couldn't understand the wording of this bill, so you assumed it had to be giving power to the President. You are incorrect.

And btw, the name of the person I support is in that little picture right by my name.