09/28/07 "ICH" -- - -Hillary Clinton was either misinformed or economical with the truth in Wednesday night’s debate when she responded to my challenge to her by saying the Senate’s resolution earlier in the day on Iran was designed to permit economic sanctions against individual members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.
She and her staff should know the United Nations Security Council on March 24 already slapped economic sanctions on individual Guard Members. Like the Red Army in China, Iran allows Guard commanders to own and run private companies. Security Council Resolution 1747, which the United States voted for, froze financial assets held outside Iran on the seven military commanders, including General Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr and six other admirals and generals.
I know of no law dictating the State Department must first designate individuals or groups as terrorists before sanctions can be imposed on them. Dozens of countries have been under U.S. unilateral sanctions that are not designated as terrorist. The U.S. first imposed sanctions on Iran in 1979 over the hostages, not terrorism. The only possible purpose of the Senate resolution asking the State Department to designate the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization is to set it up for military attack in George Bush’s war on terror.
As Virginia senator Jim Webb valiantly said in the Senate, the United States has never before designated the military services of a sovereign state a terrorist group. Indeed, though there is international dispute over the definition of terrorism, there is little disagreement on the legal point that terrorists are non-state actors who target civilians, i.e., never members of a government. Governments can be guilty of war crimes, but not terrorism. And the resolution talks about attacks on American troops, not civilians.
The hypocrisy of Hillary and the 75 other senators who called for more unilateral sanctions on Iran, was exposed Monday by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier who said, according to Spiegel Magazine, that American companies are violating existing U.S. sanctions by surreptitiously doing business with Iran through front companies in Dubai.
Joe Lieberman wrote the resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq that was passed with Democratic support on October 11, 2002. Lieberman’s new resolution setting up a Bush-Cheney invasion of Iran passed by 76 to 22 with Democratic backing on September 26, 2007. These are two dates that will live in infamy in the 21st century. Led by Senator Clinton, it was another sad day for the Senate and for Senate Democrats, who were elected to the majority in November in order to end a war, not start a new one.
Mike Gravel is a former US Senator from Alaska and is currently running for the Democratic Nomination for President.
was clinton's immediate response, that cackling laugh that openly mocks the truth teller.
The debate was about a very real potential of a preemptive nuclear attack by this country against a country that just happens to be in-between two countries peoples we're already at war with.
... and this women "laughed"?
ah, what's the use ... it's obvious that the culmination of both insanity and power have rest their peak
I wish I had something good to say , but I don't ...
by
Mr M (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 1067 comments)
on Saturday, September 29, 2007 at 2:14:59 AM
We need, oh, about 75 more guys like him in the Senate. And about 350 in the Congress. Gravel has balls and speaks truth. Naturally that's why he's getting so little mainstream media attention. Just imagine... President Gravel. Or even a Gore/Gravel ticket. Sigh. if only.
Speaking of which, there are a few folks out there progressives should support this next cycle who if you want some representative government not beholden to the corporations, anyone concerned about fair elections should throw 5 bucks or whatever you can spare at the Clint Curtis campaign down in FL-24. Curtis is running against cretinous election fraudmaster Tom Feeney (named one of the 23 most corrupt in Congress for 3 years straight by CREW) and has to raise enough money before 9/30 or else the DCCC will likely recruit a balls-less DINO to run against him. Curtis is the only guy with the balls to speak out on election rigging. So all y'all, please consider dropping a few bucks on his campaign right now... www.clintcurtis.com
by
Neoconvict (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments)
on Saturday, September 29, 2007 at 2:36:11 PM
Apart from the poor prose and sometimes limited logic (One would expect better from a potential President) this piece it is clearly politicking at its most ordinary.
there is little disagreement on the legal point that terrorists are non-state actors who target civilians, i.e., never members of a government.
On first reading this implies that terrorist target only civilians.
The hypocrisy of Hillary and the 75 other senators who called for more unilateral sanctions on Iran, was exposed Monday by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier who said, according to Spiegel Magazine, that American companies are violating existing U.S. sanctions by surreptitiously doing business with Iran through front companies in Dubai.
I would like to know how what foreign Companies dealing with third countries are within the orbit of the US senate and how it makes those senators hypocrites.
Last time I looked there is such a things as sovereign Governments and International law. To outlaw the amoral (perhaps immoral) actions of these International corporations would take another bill(s), international agreements and god knows what.
To accuse Clinton II (the sequel “Women Strike Back”) of hypocrisy for this says more about candidate Gravel than her .
As for Joe Lieberman or Darth Vader’s (for that matter) writing of a Bill is irrelevant to Ms Clinton. In the final analysis she is only responsible for her vote. One can ask how relevant was this to the question posed. Given that every decision is taken in a context of the time... relevance is zero.
The only valid point in this article was why did she vote for this bill?
I would go as far to say people world wide want answers not petty politics. The next President of USA will affect most countries in the world too.
As for being elected to stop wars not start another one, true but more than a little glib and or disingenuous. Without the numbers to over rule Bush’s veto. It seems to me the Congress’ duty is to protect the soldiers until they can be brought home safely.
by
Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 532 comments)
on Sunday, September 30, 2007 at 12:20:18 AM
