U.S. lawyer urges Iran to sue over nukes

[DogPoundPup]

University of Illinois law professor says he has offered to represent Iran if it decides to sue the United States over threatened nuclear program sanctions.

Iran's Press TV reported Tuesday that Francis Boyle, an international law expert, is urging Iranian leaders to sue Israel and the United States through the International Court of Justice in The Hague (OTCBB:HGUE) over their ultimatum that Iran freeze its nuclear enrichment program in a matter of weeks or face further sanctions.

If Iran decides to sue, he told the broadcaster, he would represent the country.

"My proposal was that Iran should sue these states immediately, convene an emergency hearing by the World Court, and ask the court to indicate provisional measures of protection on behalf of Iran against the United States, Israel and the EU-3 -- basically a temporary restraining order," Boyle said.

He told Press TV such a lawsuit would discourage a military attack on Iran's nuclear facilities and prevent the imposition of new sanctions by the U.N. Security Council.

(*Note, this is the full article's content...except for the comment section which of the 3, 2 are from rightwing neo-numbskulls)
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/07/22/US_lawyer_urges_Iran_to_sue_over_nukes/UPI-12411216755272/

Also read: Critics Call Iran Sanctions An Act of War
The most notable of the measures currently working its way through Congress is H. Con. Res 362 introduced in May by Ackerman.

Critics of the resolution say it’s tantamount to declaring an act of war against Iran due to the fact that many of the provisions cannot be enforced without military intervention.

H. Con. Res. 362 “demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program.”

Indeed, two weeks ago, three retired military officials urged Congress to abandon its support for H. Con Res 362 stating that the measure is “poorly conceived, poorly timed, and potentially dangerous.”

“The language demanding the President initiate an international effort "prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran," is of particular concern because despite the protestations of its sponsors, we believe that implementation of inspections of this nature could not be accomplished without a blockade or the use of force,” said the July 10 letter signed by U.S. Navy Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan, Former Assistant Secretary of Defense Lawrence Korb, and U.S. Army Lt. General Robert G. Gard, Jr., currently the chairman of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.

They added that Ackerman and his Republican co-sponsor, Congressman Mike Pence, R-Ind., had drafted the resolution in such a way that “immense military resources would be required to implement such inspections of cargo moving through the seas, on the ground, and in the air.”
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0807/S00248.htm

[DogPoundPup]

1. Realists Urge Bush to Drop Iran Precondition

Two of Washington's most prominent foreign policy graybeards praised Saturday's direct participation in multinational talks with Iran by a senior U.S. diplomat but called on the administration of President George W. Bush to drop his demands that Tehran freeze its uranium enrichment program as a precondition for broader negotiations.

Retired Gen. Brent Scowcroft, who served as national security adviser under Republican presidents Gerald Ford and George H. W. Bush, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, who held the same post under Democratic President Jimmy Carter, urged Bush to go further by offering immediate rewards to Tehran in exchange for such a freeze.

And both men warned that repeated U.S. threats to use military force against Iran were counterproductive and strengthened hard-line forces in the regime led by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. They said an actual military attack – whether by the U.S. or by Israel – would likely be disastrous for U.S. interests in the region.

"A war with Iran will produce calamities for sure," said Brzezinski, who pointed, among other things, to its likely impact on the price of oil and the likelihood that it would create yet another front to add to the two wars – Iraq and Afghanistan – in which U.S. military forces are already engaged.

" may be a little more dire , but not much," Scowcroft told IPS in a brief interview after the two men spoke at a briefing sponsored by the Center for Security and International Studies (CSIS). "It would turn the region into a cauldron of conflict, bitterness, and hatred. It would turn Islam against us."

Both men have been strongly critical of U.S. policy in the Middle East, particularly the decision to invade Iraq – although Brzezinski has been considerably more vocal than Scowcroft, who remains a close friend of Bush's father. Both leading lights of the so-called "realist" foreign-policy establishment, they are currently collaborating on a book to be published in September.
http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=13184