< Back to Front Page Text size +

Skepticism about pact on US troops in Iraq

Posted by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor November 19, 2008 04:49 PM

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."

  • CommentComment
  • EmailEmail
.

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.

Posted by doug foxvog November 20, 08 09:52 AM
.

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

Posted by remembermadison November 20, 08 10:56 AM
add your comment *(If you put a URL in your comment, it must be relevant )
Required
Required (will not be published)

This blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.

About Political Intelligence

Reports from Boston Globe reporters and editors about the Obama administration, the Massachusetts congressional delegation, and other national political happenings.

News from the Washington Bureau

Mass. keeps an eye on US bill’s funding ban

Massachusetts officials are closely monitoring an abortion funding ban in the sweeping health care legislation before Congress to make sure that it does not restrict women’s access to abortion coverage in the state. (Globe Staff, 11/10/09)

Survey raises new doubts on military’s ‘don’t ask’ policy

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration received more research yesterday to help make its case for allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the armed forces. (Globe Staff, 11/10/09)

Lieberman’s threat of filibuster looms large

When a recent conversation among Senate centrists turned to insurance company antitrust concerns, Joe Lieberman boasted of his bona fides: As Connecticut attorney general in the 1980s, he sued the industry. (Globe Correspondent, 11/9/09)

Health care headache for House Democrats

WASHINGTON - Democratic House leaders scrambled to round up enough support yesterday for their sweeping health care overhaul, getting last-minute help from White House advisers on the eve of a historic vote scheduled for today. (Globe Staff, 11/7/09)

Patrick wraps up two-day visit to Washington

WASHINGTON - Governor Deval Patrick swept through Washington yesterday, wrapping up a two-day tour to advance the state’s interests in health care, economic development, and transportation - a trip that also let him showcase his access to the city’s most powerful Democrats, including President Obama. (Globe Staff, 11/5/09)

Health care opponents intensify late attack

WASHINGTON - The sweeping health care overhaul package before Congress is under an 11th-hour attack over a pair of emotional issues, abortion and immigration, that are complicating Democrats’ efforts to piece together the coalition they need to pass the bill. (Globe Staff, 11/6/09)

Public’s opinions of health care overhaul efforts have familiar ring

Americans’ opinion of the health care proposals now before Congress is eerily similar to public sentiment about the Clinton health reform initiatives in 1994, according to an analysis published online yesterday in The New England Journal of Medicine - and that may not bode well for Democrats. (Globe Staff, 11/5/09)

Moderate Democrats fear shift to GOP

Democratic moderates who will determine the fate of much of President Obama’s domestic agenda heard an early warning from this week’s off-year elections: Congress had better do something about the economy, or sitting lawmakers will lose their jobs in 2010. (Globe Staff, 11/5/09)

Frank reconsiders legislation after worry raised on loopholes

House Financial Services Committee chairman Barney Frank, under fire from some fellow Democrats and consumer groups for carving out what they call loopholes in legislation designed to prevent another economic meltdown, said in a letter released last night that “there may be a problem here’’ and that he wants to reconsider. (Globe Staff, 11/5/09)

BU professor turned Pakistan envoy draws flak

Professor Husain Haqqani, who took a leave of absence from Boston University to become Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States last year, is one of the most influential figures in his nation’s government. But in recent weeks, Haqqani has been fighting for his political survival, accused of something that can tank a government career in Pakistan: being too “pro-American.’’ (Globe Staff, 11/4/09)
archives