LibriumArcana.Games

Posted: **Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:25 pm**

Iraqi opposition groups have criticised moves towards a long-term US-Iraqi pact following the expiry of the UN mandate governing foreign troops in Iraq.

On Monday US and Iraqi leaders signed a "declaration of principles" on enduring military, political and economic ties.

Sunni Arab and Shia politicians said it would lead to what they described as "US interference for years to come".

The Iraqi parliament will have to approve any final agreement before it can come into force.

The declaration was signed separately by President George W Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki on Monday.

MPs from the Shia bloc loyal to the cleric Moqtada Sadr expressed deep reservations about the agreement.

'Collaborators'

The declaration of principles sets the framework for negotiations next year on a long-term bilateral relationship, including the presence of US troops and economic ties.

It sets a 31 July 2008 target date to formalise US-Iraq relations, allowing for the expiration of the renewable UN mandate authorising the presence of US-led multinational forces in Iraq.

The Sunni group the Association of Muslim Scholars said the Iraqi signatories of the declaration would be looked on a "collaborators with the occupier".

The bilateral moves came as at least five Iraqi civilians were killed in two separate incidents involving US patrols.

Correspondents say US investors benefiting from preferential treatment could earn huge profits from Iraq's vast oil reserves, causing widespread resentment among Iraqis.

Posted: **Wed Nov 28, 2007 9:05 pm**

Hey, remember when there was this thing called the Constitution, and it gave power over wars and the like to the Congress?

That was awesome.

We should do that again some day.

Posted: **Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:31 am**

Hmmm Okay...

Nitram this story is about the leaders of Iraq and US agreeing to talk about a Pact that would establish political, economic and military ties. A declaration of principals is basically the international version of "Hey you know what would be cool?" at a party, it's nothing special or any violation of Congress' powers. For any actual Pact, it would still have to be approved by Congress and Parliament, alot like how Congress had to approve the India nuclear power deal and India's parliament might not actually approve it.

Not much to do with the power to declare war if anything.

Posted: **Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:47 am**

I'm just going by what I've observed; that this establishes what amounts to permenant presense in a country. It's for all intents and purposes, a Treaty. Remember that whacky Constitution thing?

Article 2, Section 2 wrote: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

You want to know how I know it counts as a treaty? Here's the section of Iraqi law that requires they ratify it, as the article discusses:

Iraqi Constitution, Article 58, Fourth Section wrote:A law shall regulate the ratification of international treaties and agreements by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Council of Representatives.

Not surprising; it's based off the US Constitution with a number of changes and a parlimentary system.

So in short, yea, the Senate half of the Congress really should be on this. The only argument put forth against it comes from the 'Czar' Lute, who hairsplits over what's a Treaty and what's a treaty.

Posted: **Thu Nov 29, 2007 1:19 pm**

Okay you seem to have missed a few things.

The declaration of principles sets the framework for negotiations next year on a long-term bilateral relationship, including the presence of US troops and economic ties.

Has in this is not a treaty, this is a an agreement to get together next year to discuss maybe having a treaty of some type in the future. So... Not requiring an act of Congress, not until there is an actual treaty to debate. Ironically by the time negotiations are done, Jr won't be in office I'm betting. Fuck Jefferson opened treaty negotaitions without calling a session of Congress and getting a vote and he wrote the Constitution.

Let me repeat. It is not a treaty. It is an agreement to negotiate a treaty next bloody year.

The Iraqi parliament will have to approve any final agreement before it can come into force

So no one is stripping anyone of any powers or doing any end runs. Before any treaties (as opposed to agreements to think about treaties) are signed they'll get discussed and debated. I can understand the distrust but try to relax a bit.

LibriumArcana.Games

Iraq politicians oppose US pact

#1 Iraq politicians oppose US pact

#2

#3

#4

#5