Posted on 06/21/2007 9:45:15 AM PDT by anotherview
Jun. 21, 2007 17:38 | Updated Jun. 21, 2007 17:46
House urges UN to charge Ahmadinejad
By BY HILARY LEILA KRIEGER AND JTA
The US House of Representatives urged the UN Security Council Wednesday to charge Iran's president under genocide conventions.
The non-binding resolution, initiated by Reps. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Steve Rothman (D-N.J.), passed by 411-2. It cites an October 27 speech in which Mahmoud Ahmadinejad allegedly called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and calls for the Security Council to charge him under its 1948 convention for the prevention of genocide.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) attempted to read into the record alternate translations of Ahmadinejad s remarks that suggest the Iranian leader was calling Israel to come to an end through democratic means, and not through violence.
"I am unequivocal in my support for the security and survival of Israel, and I do have serious concerns with the remarks made by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran," said Kucinich, a long-shot candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination. "But I object to resolutions that lay the groundwork for an offensive, unprovoked war."
One of the alternate translations was by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).
Kucinich and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), a long-shot contender for the Republican presidential nomination, were the only votes against. The sponsors of the resolution cited the UN charter to support their argument that Ahmadinejad should be charged.
The charter - which Iran has accepted - requires all UN member states to 'refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.'
"When the leader of an armed nation such as Iran calls for the destruction of a fellow member state of the United Nations, the UN must prosecute and punish him," Rothman said. "It is my hope that this resolution will effectively increase pressure on the United Nations to hold Iranian President Ahmadinejad accountable for his genocidal words and prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons."
Thank you for posting President Reagan’s speech. Excellent response to the Libertarians here.
I happen to be one of those crazy people who believe that the United States has generally been a force for good in the world. U.S. isolationism at this point in history would be a great victory for tyrants and dictators everywhere. An attack on the U.S. would eventually follow, quite possibly with nuclear weapons supplied by a nation like Iran.
He voted against an Authorization for Use of Military Force in 2003 because it used the word 'force' instead of 'war'. But in 2001 he voted Yea on an Authorization for Use of Military Force . I take it this Declaration of War is one Paul only took in the last couple years.
Ronald Reagan at 40th Anniversary of D-Day (Omaha Beach-Pointe du Hoc)
Typical disingenuousness from a Paul supporter.
Oh, that makes it okay then. So long as Israel is destroyed through "democratic means." /sarcasm.
Understatement of the day.
For those defending Bubble Boy it is worth reading what he said about the vote. Get out your puke bucket because I could swear this is Chamberlain speaking:
This resolution is an exercise in propaganda that serves one purpose: to move us closer to initiating a war against Iran. ...
I hope my colleagues understand that a vote for this bill is a vote to move us closer to war with Iran.
Clearly, language threatening to wipe a nation or a group of people off the map is to be condemned by all civilized people. And I do condemn any such language. But why does threatening Iran with a pre-emptive nuclear strike, as many here have done, not also deserve the same kind of condemnation? ...
Restoring cooperation between Washington and Tehran is the single most important step that could be taken to rescue the US from its predicament in Iraq.” General Odom makes good sense. We need to engage the rest of the world, including Iran and Syria, through diplomacy, trade, and travel rather than pass threatening legislation like this that paves the way to war.
As I recall, that was one of his greatest speeches. No time to read it right now, but I will later today. Thanks for posting the link.
Not at all. Ron Paul simply understands that if we leave the Islamofascists alone, they'll leave us alone. See, they want to take over the world... but if we leave them alone, they'll change their minds and suddenly become reasonable characters who just want to engage in peaceful trade with their neighbors, and maybe host the Olympics someday.
Nope. Ron Paul gave speeches opposing intervention in Iraq before we went in.
That's irrelevant and beside the point. In fact, if Bush had requested a declaration of war from Congress, Ron Paul would almost certainly have voted against it. However, once a lawful declaration of war had been made, Constitutionally, Paul would have put his personal opposition aside and stood by his country. There was no more vociferous opponent of America's entry into World War II than Charles Lindberg, but once the decision was lawfully taken, Lindberg also put side his opposition and did a great deal to support the war effort.
More importantly, a point I left out of my previous post was that if a declaration of war had been made, not just Ron Paul, but the majority of the American people could have been more easily kept "on board" for the effort, for a whole panoply of reasons. For example, the MSM could have been controlled, and the demoralizing leaks of national security plans and information could have been punished.
The publisher and editor of the New York Times could have been tried for treason, and traitorous leakers in the State Dept and CIA could have been dealt with. Instead of getting rich on their books and upcoming movie, Joe and Valerie Wilson could be in prison, etc., etc., etc... The whole war of terror situation and status could have been immeasurable better.
Ron Paul is wrong on Iraq because he doesn't understand that Saddam Hussein (and Iran, Syria and others) was indeed complicit in "initiation of force" against us, but he is Constitutionally correct in that our leadership failed to confront the threat in a Constitutionally appropriate manner. Ominously, it is now clear from developments on the domestic front that our national leaders view the Constitution as an impediment and a threat to their agendas rather than a source of legitimacy and strength.
Wrong again. Ron Paul initially supported our deployment to Afghanistan despite the lack of a so-called "lawful" declaration of war.
Our presence in Iraq is completely authorized under the law and under the Constitution, despite Ron Paul's semantic codepinkery.
So Ron Paul's opposition to the Iraq intervention is not based on Constitutional principles but his own personal quirks.
There was no more vociferous opponent of America's entry into World War II than Charles Lindberg, but once the decision was lawfully taken, Lindberg also put side his opposition and did a great deal to support the war effort.
Ron Paul is no Charles Lindbergh.
he is Constitutionally correct in that our leadership failed to confront the threat in a Constitutionally appropriate manner
No he isn't. Ron Paul knows about as much about the US Constitution as I know about Tocharian grammar.
To wit: his bizarre suggestion that instead of assaulting al-Qaeda in Afghanistan the Congress should have issued letters of marque and reprisal.
Just maybe some in congress are beginning to realize the futility of meaningless and easily ignored symbolic measures and motions. Kucinich and Paul are the smart ones in this. If the useless congress wants to do something to actually help out, they could mount a serious drive to get us the hell out of the U.N. or force those international thugs to move out of our territory.
Ron Paul say a lot of good things...but Ive made up my mind he is a flake. Did he vote no because of the UN??? Or perhaps he has other motives...I surely don’t know or care.
I have been reminded several times that not supporting Paul is a slap at the Constitution. Not supporting Paul means I don’t love my country. These people are loons beyond repair.
The Paulites and quoting the constitution are like
the Johovah Witnesses quoting the Bible.
The Paulites are no better than Al-Qaida, Marxists and any other anti American faction that does not want us to defend out country.
They don’t believe we need to defend because they believe in the Michael Moore - Rosie O’Donnel version of 9/11
Look, Paul and Kucinich both hate the Jews, but voting to get the UN to charge Ah’mad-in-a-jihad is utterly stupid and counterproductive. The UN is an evil NWO organization that wants to destroy US sovereignty, and they also hate Jews to boot. So asking the UN for help is a terrible mistake that only weakens the US position as a sovereign nation.
No spin necessary - it was the right vote. First of all, it gives the U.N. credibility. Secondly, the last thing we need to do right now is start laying the groundwork for ANOTHER war.
Predictable, or principled? When somebody actually has core convictions and principles, it’s never surprising to see where they come down on the issues.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.