HR 4156 (Dis) Orderly and (Ir)responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act, 2008

The House passed HR 4156 today on a 218 to 203 vote. Voting for the bill are the usual Virginia suspects, Scott, Boucher and Moran. A look at the text of the act reveals what kind of mischief our dear esteemed lawgivers have been up to. Proceed at your own risk, you have been warned.

Take Title I, Sec 104. This section prohibits the use of the funds appropriated in the act to deploy units to Iraq who are not certified at least 15 days in advance of deployment to be fully mission capable in the DOD Defense Readiness Reporting System.


What precisely does that mean for units who will deploy to meet up with the equipment in Iraq? Will they be non-certifiable because they will not be mission ready until they marry with equipment already in country?

Let's look at that at least 15 days in advance part. If I were trying to live with this regulation I would certify every unit of the armed forces on any day they were fully mission capable, even if they were not going to deploy soon. The certification does not expire. Two years ahead is as good as 15 days. They just have to be fully mission capable on the day they are certified.

Take title I, Sec 105. This calls for the planning of an orderly redeployment to be finished by 12/15/2008 regardless of the military situation on the ground.

It also assigns approved missions for a limited remaining presence after the redeployment is completed.

One of these missions is limited training of the Iraqi Security forces. What is limited training. Is that getting the security forces almost but not quite trained. Do we deploy the GAO to interrogate each trainee to determine if they have only have limited training?

Another approved mission is to engage in targeted counterterrorism operations against al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda affiliated groups, and other terrorist organizations in Iraq. This will also require the deployment of battalions of attorneys. Every time a mission is planned the attorneys will be needed to certify that the targets have displayed their al-Qaeda or al-Qaeda affiliation identification cards in a proper manner and with informed consent.

Even more absurd is the assigned mission to protect American citizens. Isn't that ultimately what the armed forces in Iraq is doing now. Isn't that the purpose of their deployment now? Are there any members of the Armed Forces in Iraq now who do not have that mission?

If I can pick apart this monstrosity of legislation, imagine what talented lawyers would do to it. Ultimately this is disorderly and irresponsible trash masquerading as an appropriations bill.

Read More. . . .

Feingold, Reid, Leahy, Kerry et al attempt to defund the War, Webb votes No.

The Senate considered an amendment to the Defense Appropriations Act for 2008 submitted by Senator Feingold which would limit the use of funds appropriated to the Armed Forces in Iraq. The clerk of the Senate reports this amendment failed on a 28 to 68 vote with 4 not voting, Senator Webb voting with the majority, Senator Warner not voting.

Although an attempt to defund the war, this amendment if adopted would have created lots of mischief. Let's examine.

Here is the text of the Feingold amendment.

Sec. 8107. (a) Use of Funds.--No funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after June 30, 2008.

(b) Exceptions.--The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not apply to the obligation or expenditure of funds for the following, as authorized by law:

(1) To conduct operations against al Qaeda and affiliated international terrorist organizations.

(2) To provide security for United States Government personnel and infrastructure.

(3) To provide training to members of the Iraqi Security Forces.

(4) To provide training, equipment, or other materiel to members of the United States Armed Forces to ensure, maintain, or improve their safety and security.

First, please not that the restrictions proposed by the amendment would become effective only on June 30, 2008. Since the appropriation bill itself expires on September 30, 2008, the restrictions would be effective only for 90 days of the fiscal year.

Paragraph (1) limits funding to operations against al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist organizations. This is a lawyer's dream and a soldier's nightmare. Each operation would have to be vetted to be sure it was against al Qaeda. Then the intelligence that said the target was al Qaeda would have to be vetted to see if it was substantial enough. If not exactly an operation against al Qaeda, the "affiliated terrorist organization" would have to be vetted for degree of affiliation like a written affiliation agreement, jointly issued membership cards, press statements claiming affiliation, or a check of a listing on al Qaeda's web site for officially affiliated groups.

Paragraph (2) limits funding to "provide security for United States Government personnel and infrastructure." That definition would exclude using the funds for food, uniforms, maintenance, equipment, supplies or repair parts. In effect the limiting the funds this way would not provide security at all.

Similarly paragraph (3) allowing funds for training of the Iraqi Security Forces would also exclude anything but training such as supplies, equipment, food, uniforms, or repairs. Since security forces is undefined it might or might not include Sunni militias currently fight al Qaeda, peshmerga regular or irregular forces, local police, and others.

The final paragraph to provide training, equipment, or other materiel to members of the United States Armed Forces to ensure, maintain, or improve their safety and security would also exclude food, clothing, equipment, fuel and supplies, except for maybe items like safety goggles, ear plugs and gloves.

Bottom line: Although couched in terms of limiting the mission to specifics, it would end all missions even those listed as to be continued. Another badly crafted proposal from the world's greatest deliberative body. Senator Webb should be commended for his vote against.

Read More. . . .

Unlimited Power, Unlimited Tyranny

Does Congress truly have the (unlimited) power to provide for the general welfare?

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States declares:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Often attention to this section focuses on the part about provide for the common defense, or general welfare. It is the source of much mischief on the part of our congressional representatives. A careful reading however shows that providing for the common defense or providing for the general welfare are not powers granted by this section. What is granted is the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises and the power to pay the debts. Consequently the people (us) also gave the Congress the power to:

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union,...

If the tax clause cited granted the power to provide for the common defense, the subsequent clause to provide and maintain a navy or to support the army would not have been necessary.

That the following powers related to the military were specifically enumerated argues that those powers are not granted by the tax clause. And if those powers are not granted by the tax clause, neither is any power to provide for the general welfare.

And what has the current congress done with this power to provide for the general welfare that I posit it does not have? Let me give you an example or three from the recent Senate Appropriations Committee report on appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and related agencies for Fiscal Year 2008.

At the initiative of Senators Reed and Whitehouse appropriated $250,000 to the Samaritans of Providence Rhode Island to enhance a suicide hotline.

At the request of Senator Spector appropriated $100,000 to the Corporate Alliance for Drug Education of Philadelphia for mental health programs.

As requested by Senator Lautenburg appropriated $750,000 for the mental health initiative of Essex County New Jersey.

All of the above no doubt for the general welfare, under the (assumed) power granted in Section 8. As a person of the federalist persuasion I object. As a taxpayer of whatever persuasion I believe you should object. Government unrestrained is tyranny. This is government unrestrained. Read More. . . .