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."
Comment
Permalink
EmailThis blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.
About Political Intelligence
News from the Washington Bureau
It seems that Constitutional Law scholar has made a slight mistake here. The Constitution only authorizes agreements between countries called "treaties", and requires that they be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate before taking affect. The president has no Constitutional authority to make a binding agreement with another country on his or her own. Neither is Congress authorized to grant such authority to the President. The US Code does not grant any authority to the Executive Branch to make such an agreement.
Existing "Status of Forces" agreements which the US has with other countries are authorized by a treaty signed by the President and ratified by (over) 2/3 of the Senate. The NATO Treaty authorizes such agreements with NATO countries. A treaty with Japan authorizes our SOFA with Japan. The same with other countries.
The US has no such treaty with Iraq. Thus there is NO authorization for ANY type of Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq. Thus the President can not Constitutionally make even a "standard SOFA agreement" with Iraq without it being a treaty or first making and ratifying a treaty -- which would require 2/3 approval by the Senate.
What do expect from the Bush Administration? ---- Constitution! Constitution!!! We don't need no STINKIN CONSTITUTION. Or course the Agreement requires Constitutional approval of the Senate, its plain as day. But is anyone shocked or surprised that the Bushies think not? I'm not shocked that the Bushies think not, I'm just shocked and surprised that the American people let the Bushies get away with eight years of continually crapping on the Constitution, and that most Americans, despite the election results, feel that bygones should be bygones when it comes to holding the Bushies responsible for their repeated disregard of the Constitution. SHAME