Amash votes against Iran resolution that may lead to war

[tsai3904]

H.Res. 568
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the importance of preventing the Government of Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.

Roll Call Vote:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll261.xml

Text:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hres568eh/pdf/BILLS-112hres568eh.pdf

This resolution may be what's used to justify war with Iran.


Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) warns that time is limited to prevent the Government of Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability;

(2) urges continued and increasing economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran to secure an agreement with the Government of Iran that includes--

(A) the full and sustained suspension of all uranium enrichment-related and reprocessing activities;

(B) complete cooperation with the IAEA on all outstanding questions related to Iran's nuclear activities, including--

(i) the implementation of the Additional Protocol to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons; and

(ii) the verified end of Iran's ballistic missile programs; and

(C) a permanent agreement that verifiably assures that Iran's nuclear program is entirely peaceful;

(3) expresses support for the universal rights and democratic aspirations of the Iranian people;

(4) affirms that it is a vital national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability;

(5) strongly supports United States policy to prevent the Government of Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability;

(6) rejects any policy that would rely on efforts to contain a nuclear weapons-capable Iran; and

(7) urges the President to reaffirm the unacceptability of an Iran with nuclear-weapons capability and opposition to any policy that would rely on containment as an option in response to the Iranian nuclear threat.

[Hyperion]

Good for Justin and props to Geoff Davis, Jimmy Duncan for joining Ron Paul.

In no way is this war necessary for American security.

[tsai3904]

Ron Paul's statement on H. Res. 568:

http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1974:statement-on-h-res-568-regarding-iran&catid=15:floor-statements


Mr. Speaker: I strongly oppose H Res 568, a resolution "expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the importance of preventing the Government of Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability."

Once again we see on the "suspension" calendar, which is customarily reserved for non-controversial legislation, a resolution designed to move the US toward a military conflict with Iran. Sadly, it has become non-controversial for Congress to call for US attacks on foreign countries that have neither attacked nor threatened the United States.

We should not fool ourselves about the timing of this legislation. Next week, high-level talks between Iran and the five permanent UN Security Council members plus Germany (P5+1) will resume. Those who seek US military action against Iran must fear that successful diplomacy will undermine their calls for war.

Disturbingly, some of my colleagues have suggested this resolution can be read as a form of ersatz Congressional approval for the use of military force against Iran.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has the authority to monitor the Iranian nuclear program to determine whether nuclear material is being diverted from civilian to military uses. The IAEA has never reported an Iranian violation. This legislation attempts to scare us into believing otherwise, but that fact remains. And the US Intelligence Community agrees with IAEA conclusions on this matter.

The most dangerous aspect of H. Res. 568 is that it dramatically lowers the threshold for conflict with Iran by replacing the prohibition against acquiring nuclear weapons to a prohibition against a "capability" to develop nuclear weapons.

However, as former senior Bush administration official, Flynt Leverett, has stated:

Iranian efforts to develop a "nuclear weapons capability"...may make American and Israeli elites uncomfortable. But it is not a violation of the NPT....While the NPT prohibits non-nuclear-weapon states from building atomic bombs, developing a nuclear weapons capability is, [allowed] under the NPT... It is certainly not a justification—strategically, legally, or morally—for armed aggression against Iran.

But this resolution states that the House "rejects any United States policy that would rely on efforts to contain a nuclear weapons-capable Iran." That makes it very clear that the intent of the House is to authorize force against Iran not if it acquires a nuclear weapon, but if it has a "capability" to acquire them some time in the future. The term "capability" is left undefined, of course, leaving it open to very broad interpretations by this and future administrations.

Mr. Speaker this is incredibly dangerous legislation. I urge my colleagues in the strongest manner to reject this stealth authorization for war on Iran.

[cstarace]

Continues to impress. We may have the next Ron Paul on our hands.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Continues to impress. We may have the next Ron Paul on our hands.

He was questioning Ron's desire to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons while saying he supports sanctions on them in a response to me on Facebook late last year, so I hope the counters I gave him led him to talk to Ron about it - and ultimately brought him to vote against these rounds of sanctions (after supporting the last ones).

[tsai3904]

Amash's explanation on this vote:

http://www.facebook.com/repjustinamash/posts/400303493342396


I voted "no" on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H Res 568, a resolution concerning Iran's nuclear program. The resolution "warns that time is limited" to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, supports the U.S.'s efforts to prevent Iran from "acquiring nuclear weapons capability," and "rejects any policy that would rely on efforts to contain a nuclear weapons-capable Iran," among other things.

It concerns me that "nuclear weapons capability" isn't defined, and multiple sources involved with the resolution, who I asked, haven't given me a uniform definition. I also am concerned with the idea that in the future we would automatically reject any policy that would seek to contain a nuclear-capable Iran, given that "nuclear weapons capability" isn't defined.

I strongly believe our current policy should not be containment. We should make every effort, along with the international community, to dissuade Iran from attempting to build or acquire nuclear weapons. But I worry that the two critical, vague statements in the resolution could box Members of Congress into supporting war, even if Iran takes actions that are short of building or acquiring nuclear weapons, or even attempting to do so. It passed 401-11-9.

It's great that we hold him accountable when he makes bad votes but lets thank him when he votes correctly.

[Spoa]

Thank you to Rep. Amash for standing up against the Law of the Sea Treaty.

CALL YOUR SENATORS AND REPS AND URGE THEM TO OPPOSE THE LAW OF THE SEA TREATY!

[Pisces]

Thank you to Rep. Amash for standing up against the Law of the Sea Treaty.

CALL YOUR SENATORS AND REPS AND URGE THEM TO OPPOSE THE LAW OF THE SEA TREATY!

I don't think representatives have much say over the LOST treaty. The Senate alone approves treaties. So focus on contacting your Senators.

[Spoa]

I don't think representatives have much say over the LOST treaty. The Senate alone approves treaties. So focus on contacting your Senators.

Thanks for the correction! So far, Senators Lee, Inhofe, and Demint are leading the fight against this treaty that threatens our sovreignty: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/05/29/congress-needs-to-tell-law-sea-treaty-to-get-lost/

Also, about 34 senators signed a letter in opposition to the treaty.
http://www.freedompub.org/profiles/blogs/u-s-republican-senators-must-unite-to-stop-law-of-the-sea-treaty

Unfortunately, RINOs like Senator Lugar want this treaty passed. I can't wait until he leaves congress...he's been fighting against liberty since day 1 of his term!

[Pisces]

Thanks for the correction! So far, Senators Lee, Inhofe, and Demint are leading the fight against this treaty that threatens our sovreignty: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/05/29/congress-needs-to-tell-law-sea-treaty-to-get-lost/

Also, about 34 senators signed a letter in opposition to the treaty.
http://www.freedompub.org/profiles/blogs/u-s-republican-senators-must-unite-to-stop-law-of-the-sea-treaty

Unfortunately, RINOs like Senator Lugar want this treaty passed. I can't wait until he leaves congress...he's been fighting against liberty since day 1 of his term!

You're welcome. Unforutunately, I think lame duck Kay Bailey Hutchinson will vote the wrong way as well. I'll contact her but I'm not sure it will do much good.