Power of Story Send a Tweet        
- Advertisement -

Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 2 (2 Shares)  

Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites (# of views)   13 comments
OpEdNews Op Eds

If Increased Sanction Resolution, 362, Could Give Bush License for a Naval Blockade Why Support It?

By   Follow Me on Twitter     Message Cheryl Biren       (Page 4 of 14 pages) Become a premium member to see this article and all articles as one long page.     Permalink

Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags  Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H2 6/30/08

Author 3644
Become a Fan
  (8 fans)
- Advertisement -

In respect to the language that follows that calls for President Bush to "prohibit the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products," and begin "stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles," etc. entering or departing Iran, Congressman Wexler contended that the resolution "makes no reference whatsoever to the use of military force, it makes no reference, of course, to any language that would support an embargo. Although, again, I want to point out that I understand your concern and I understand your reluctance because it is strong language."

- Advertisement -

Indeed, the word "embargo" cannot be found within the four-page document, but prohibiting trade or commerce with another country in order to isolate it, e.g. preventing refined petroleum products from entering Iran, is by definition an embargo.

- Advertisement -

When pressed by Rob that comments coming in to him were pointing to a Naval blockade, Rep. Wexler dismissed it by saying there is no language in the resolution that calls for a Naval blockade. Again, the word "blockade" is not used. But, any effort to prevent supplies from reaching a country - which this resolution calls for - is after all a blockade.

- Advertisement -

Ultimately, the congressman conceded that he understood the "concern that the mechanism of enforcement in theory might be a Naval blockade." "But," he explained, "that’s the use of a military confrontation act and that is not something that I would support unless there was prior congressional approval. I understand the concern particularly in that it’s President Bush that we are talking about, but I don’t think reasonably that there is any language in 362 that authorizes a Naval blockade. If there is, I would not have signed it."

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |  7  |  8  |  9  |  10  |  11  |  12  |  13  |  14


- Advertisement -

View Ratings | Rate It


Cheryl Biren is a Philadelphia-based researcher, writer, editor and photographer. From 2007-2011, she served on the editorial board of Opednews.com.

Cheryl has also consulted for the Rob Kall Radio Show with guests such as Noam Chomsky, (more...)

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon Share Author on Social Media   Go To Commenting

The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Breaking Camp: Veterans Occupy National Archives Building

Nancy Pelosi Book Signing: Know Your Power, Just Don't Speak Truth to It

Animal Rights Activists Confront Parents at Ringling Bros. Circus

Meet the Protester Who 'May Have Received a Minor Injury' at the Hofstra Debate

Veterans Want YOU for Civil Resistance!

NJ Congressman: Bush Admin. Will 'Gulf of Tonkinize' Iran