Skepticism about pact on US troops in Iraq

By Jenny Paul, Globe correspondent

WASHINGTON -- Passage of the proposed US-Iraq security pact could violate the constitutions of both countries, specialists told a congressional panel today.

They instead pressed for an extension of the United Nations mandate authorizing US troops in Iraq, which expires Dec. 31.

American constitutional law scholar Oona Hathaway said she believes that the Constitution requires Congress to also approve the agreement. The Bush administration has labeled the pact a status of forces agreement, which can be implemented without congressional approval.

But Hathaway, said the Iraqi-US pact is much more comprehensive than previous agreements because it includes provisions that grant authority to US troops to engage in military operations and that specify timetables for military withdrawal.

"These are unprecedented in a standard status of forces agreement, have never been part of a standard SOFA agreement and extend in my view far beyond what the president can do without obtaining congressional approval," said Hathaway, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley's School of Law.

The hearing was held by the House Foreign Affairs Committee's subcommittee on international organizations, human rights, and oversight. Its chairman is William Delahunt of Massachusetts, who said in an opening statement that he has "serious reservations" about the pact.

The security pact, which passed the Iraqi Cabinet on Monday, and was signed by the United States and Iraq the next day, requires US troops to leave Iraq by the end of 2011. The agreement must pass Iraq's Parliament before it takes effect.

Iraqi lawmakers are debating the number of votes needed to pass the agreement. Most of the ruling parties argue that current law requires only a simple majority to pass the pact, while those who oppose the pact say a provision in the Iraqi constitution calls for support from two-thirds of the 275-member parliament, Raed Jarrar, an Iraqi architect who is a consultant to the American Friends Service Committee, told the subcommittee. They introduced a bill Monday that would set a two-thirds standards for approval of agreements like the security pact.

"No one has ever proposed to have a simple majority for this type of agreement," Jarrar said. "Many people think that the new argument of just requiring a simple majority is politically motivated."