Satterfield: 'Articles of US-Iraqi pact don't require congress consent'

[maddezmom]

Posted : Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:42:02 GMT
Baghdad - A senior advisor, David Satterfield, to the US Secretary of State said Tuesday that the US-Iraqi long-term security agreement will include articles that do not require the approval of congress. "The treaty will be executive, legal and international between the two sides," Satterfield told reporters in Baghdad.

The pact is not the first to be signed between the US and another sovereign country, said the US official. He added that the importance of such treaty is not symbolic, but significant.

Satterfield said that the US would stress the sovereignty of Iraq and that the country is party to all the negotiations based on national decisions.

Meanwhile, the US congress has expressed concern that signing such an agreement will lock any coming administration in a permanent military presence in Iraq. Members of the congress have repeatedly stressed that the pact must be approved by congress before implementation. With its UN mandate in Iraq set to expire in December, the US government has been involved since March in lengthy negotiations with Iraq over a long-term treaty.

Two agreements are being negotiated. One, known as the strategic framework agreement, would lay out the basis for long-term bilateral relations in the political, economic and security areas.

more:http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/211395,articles-of-us-iraqi-pact-dont-require-congress-consent.html

[jimshoes]

1. Oh bullshit

This isn't georgies personal military or country or treasury. Fuck him.

[redqueen]

2. Well the US had no problem at all ditching treaties it signed

with Native Americans. And hasn't bush been rather nonchalant about treaties in general?

[katmondoo]

3. Bush has shown the way on how to reverse this

Declare the treaty null and void and start removing the troops. Is Iraq going to sue us for not occupying them. BS is just what it is.

[prairierose]

4. All I could think with the first quote was...Nope, that is not the ...

way treaties work according to the Constitution. How many times will these guys throw out the Constitution and the corp media just sits there saying...ok.what lies do you want us to tell next? Oh, I forgot, this story isn't even being covered by the corporate media.

[maddezmom]

6. a look back from April 10:

NO Congress approval for Iraq troop deal: official
Edited on Thu Apr-10-08 10:04 AM by maddezmom
Source: AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A senior State Department official Thursday ruled out fresh demands from top Democrats for any deal with Iraq on future US troop operations to be submitted to Congress for approval.


David Satterfield, US coordinator for Iraq, testified to a Senate committee after top Democrats, including White House hopeful Hillary Clinton, expressed fears the proposed deal would tie the hands of the next president.

Iraq and the United States are set to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) to legitimize US operations in Iraq beyond the end of the year, when the United Nations resolution governing their presence expires.

"In keeping with past practice, our intent is to conclude the SOFA as an executive agreement, rather than a treaty subject to Senate approval," Satterfield said in prepared testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations panel.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080410/pl_afp/usiraqpolit... ;_


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

you can watch the hearing live here:
http://www.senate.gov/~foreign /


Draft U.S. Iraq SOFA open-ended


Published: April 9, 2008 at 6:36 PM
WASHINGTON, April 9 (UPI) -- A draft version of the status of forces agreement between the United States and Iraq suggests the U.S. troop commitment there is open-ended.

A draft copy of the agreement obtained by The Guardian dated March 7 and marked "secret" authorizes U.S. military forces to "conduct military operations in Iraq and to detain individuals when necessary for imperative reasons of security." The document does not mention a time frame or expiration of the agreement.

Some critics say the draft agreement does little to impose limits on troop numbers, weapons used or U.S. legal authority over Iraqi citizens, but U.S. officials are quick to point out the agreement is no different than similar agreements with the 80 other countries where U.S. forces are based.

U.S. Democratic leaders said the document goes way beyond other status of forces agreements and reads more like a treaty, which would require congressional approval. Speaking before lawmakers Tuesday, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker said the agreement will not go before Congress, however.

more:http://www.upi.com/International_Security/Emerging_Thre...



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3262578&mesg_id=3262578

[sinkingfeeling]

5. How are you a sovereign country, if another country has 50 bases on your terrority and controls your

airspace?

[maddezmom]

7. Talks to keep U.S. troops in Iraq provoke ire by leaders in both countries

Talks to keep U.S. troops in Iraq provoke ire By Howard LaFranchi
Tue Jun 10, 4:00 AM ET



Washington - An agreement the United States is negotiating with Iraq on the conditions for the long-term stationing of American forces there is under fire from national legislative leaders in both countries.

At the same time, an accord that would permit the US to keep soldiers on Iraqi soil for years to come – the same kind of agreement that governs the US military presence in South Korea, Japan, and Germany – faces criticism from some of Iraq's neighbors, especially Iran.

Some Iraqi parliamentarians fear the proposed agreement would keep Iraq an occupied country and a venue for the US to fight its battles with Al Qaeda and Iran. Some in the US Congress worry a deal could tie the hands of the next president on Iraq policy. Both groups say the executive branches of the two countries are too tight-lipped about a negotiating process that was supposed to be transparent.

"Any

we have about this agreement have come through the media, but what we have learned tells us this agreement is totally unfair to the Iraqi people," says Khalaf al-Alayyan, a Sunni sheikh and parliamentarian leader of the Iraqi National Dialogue Council, a party favoring a US withdrawal. "Whoever has a chance to look at it would realize Iraq would not just be an occupied country, but as if it were part of the United States."

In a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, four senior members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week accused the Bush administration of reneging on its promise of transparency with the Congress on the negotiating process. The bipartisan letter said the administration had committed to consulting closely with Congress "throughout the entire process" but that "scant detail" has been forthcoming so far.

more:http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20080610/ts_csm/airaqupdate;_ylt=AiKyW0Zt_0KLNtf6sSySGfms0NUE

[Turner Ashby]

8. I have to agree with Redqueen (?)

We can treat this like our many treaties with the native Americans. Pretty worthless, if it was not "worth" going to Congress over and the American people. Congress represents the American people, the President only executes their will.

[maddezmom]

11. Text of the Letter from Biden's website

Senators Express Concern about Lack of Consultation with Congress on Long-Term Agreements with Iraq
June 6, 2008

Washington, DC – Four senior members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE), Richard G. Lugar (R-IN), John F. Kerry (D-MA), and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates regarding the negotiation of any long-term agreements with the Iraqi government.

The full text of the letter is below:

June 4, 2008

The Honorable Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of State
Washington, DC

The Honorable Robert M. Gates
Secretary of Defense
Washington, DC

Dear Secretary Rice and Secretary Gates:

We write regarding the two agreements that the Administration is negotiating with Iraq. The Committee held a hearing on these two agreements on April 10, during which Administration witnesses told the Committee that the Executive Branch would consult closely with Congress “throughout the entire process.”

Thus far, the Administration has not followed through on this commitment. Members submitted questions following the April hearing, many of which remain unanswered. During a May 21st briefing of staff -- the first since the April hearing -- Administration officials indicated that the negotiations have been progressing, but that Iraq has proposed significant changes to the form of the agreements. Administration officials also indicated that Iraq may be reluctant to grant some of the authorities the United States now has by virtue of the U.N. Security Council Resolution, which are required for U.S. operations. The hearing and staff briefings have provided scant detail on what these agreements will contain, despite clear bipartisan expressions at the hearing that our Committee and the Congress as a whole expected the Administration to be fully transparent about its intentions and the progress of deliberations.

The Administration is attempting to conclude a long-term agreement that will provide a “security arrangement” to a strategically important country in which 140,000 U.S. troops and tens of thousands of civilian contractors currently are stationed. Even under many withdrawal scenarios, we may have a substantial number of troops in Iraq for an extended period of time. Our troops will continue to face an extraordinarily complex environment that could include contingencies ranging from ethnic strife and internal territorial disputes to terrorist attacks, foreign incursions, or even coup attempts. Regardless of election outcomes in November, the Congress will be responsible for supporting our troops and diplomats and the missions to which they will be committed under such agreements. The Constitutional and legal implications of these potentially sweeping arrangements remain an issue of deep concern to many in Congress. Even without the appeals expressed at our April hearing, it should be apparent to the Administration that Congress requires much more detailed consultations than have been forthcoming thus far.

more:http://biden.senate.gov/press/press_releases/release/?id=C3AD16DD-697E-4FED-96C9-2A177EE3F206

[Boo Boo]

9. Nope.

If it ain't ratified by Congress, we the people are not bound by it. Satterfield's weasel words, "executive, legal, and international," are silly. Of course it's executive. Of course it's international. Legal? OK, but only in as much as it is not illegal for the President to sign treaties. But, if it's not ratified by Congress then it is not the "the supreme law of the United States," and the next President won't be bound by it any more than he wants to be, and neither will anybody else.

After all, if he's right, then why did Bush bother to hound Congress to give him fast track authority to cut trade deals? Doesn't he already have that "executive, legal, and international" authority? And how is it that Bush was able to simply "un-sign" existing treaties that hadn't been ratified? Couldn't the next President do the same thing?

Bush is an ass hat.

[Igel]

14. The next president will be bound by it, as he will be by

the dozens of parallel agreements with other countries, crafted by dem and repub presidents and not ratified by dem- and repub-controlled Congresses. 80-some, IIRC.

Why?

Because to say that without Senate ratification they're void will lead to two things. (a) unilateral abrogation of the agreements by those with whom we've signed them in the past, not according to the terms of the agreements, and (b) a whole-sale opening up of renegotiations for bases and facilities that are under long-term agreement. I'm not sure Obama really wants to do that--on the one hand, his State Dept. would be tied down for months with the process, or he'd see the largest pull-back of military assets worldwide, under conditions that would paint him and dems as not only weak on defense, but anti-defense, for a generation.

In the past, both the US and other countries have come to dislike the arrangements; they can be renegotiated when both sides want, or suspended (per the terms of the agreement). Both sides have regarded the terms as binding.

In the case of the Iraqi-US SOFA, one of the terms that's controversial is the advance time needed for abrogating the agreement. *'s team is arguing for 2 years, the Iraqis for 6 months. IMO, 6 months is about minimum.

[bemildred]

10. Has this guy been studying with Yoo? nt

[BobTheSubgenius]

12. You can call it a balloon bouquet.

"......our intent is to conclude the SOFA as an executive agreement, rather than a treaty subject to Senate approval...."

Doesn't make it so.

[yurbud]

13. the Bushies are building a Potemkin village that only fools themselves

Even if they get Iraqis to sign this abusive treaty or even pass the Hydrocarbon Law, it won't matter if the Iraqi people don't like it and chase us out.

The US military has figured this out, the Iraqis have figured it out, and even the majority of the American people have.