Posted by The Crux |
Once again, the Bush Administration's creative labeling is confusing me. The Washington Post reported:
"The United States has decided to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, the country's 125,000-strong elite military branch, as a "specially designated global terrorist," according to U.S. officials, a move that allows Washington to target the group's business operations and finances.... The decision follows congressional pressure on the administration to toughen its stance against Tehran."
By labeling and treating another nation's military as a "terrorist" organization, isn't the President essentially declaring war on Iran? Doesn't Congress have the constitutional power to declare war?
Another labeling issue confuses me: WaPo refers to the U.S.'s toughening its stance not against the Iranian government but against "Tehran" (Iran's capital city). WaPo did this on June 21 (same writer), when unquestioningly stating as fact that "Tehran" was arming insurgents in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Two months earlier, Joint Chiefs chairman General Peter Pace said that tracing materials in roadside bombs that had gone off in Iraq back to Iran did not necessarily mean that the Iranian government was arming our enemies (WaPo, February 13, different writer).
I'd like to know, once and for all, whether the Iranian government (as opposed to some people who live in Iran), is against us -- but the media isn't making clear distinctions.
Remember, 15 of the 19 terrorists involved in the 9/11 flights were from Saudi Arabia: yet, we didn't bomb that country. Can you see why I'm confused?
Blogger reactions are mixed and interesting (see below)
Jules Crittenden said "It’s a start. What’s really needed is an Iran-Gets-The-Crap-Bombed-Out-Of-Its-Nuke-and-Terror Facilities Amendment."
Moderate Voice explains: "What this action does is ups the ante by making it clear that Iran faces some consequences and that those who help it may face them indirectly as well."
Ed at Captains Quarters finds the new labeling strategy brilliant but warns of risks:
"Under the Geneva Convention, the IRG fits the definition of a legitimate military force. They wear uniforms, and answer to legitimate government authority. While the Quds force undeniably works outside of those boundaries to perpetuate terrorism, the IRG as a whole has more plausible deniability.
"What happens when we start labeling uniformed military as terrorist organizations? Do we inadvertently create an equation between terrorists and military? Do we risk having our own military getting the same label from countries opposed to our efforts in Iraq, for instance?"
Gun Toting Liberal has a different view:
"A hearty “congratulations” goes out to President Bush, whose “legacy” is destined to one day become credited as the man who single-handedly started WW-III after mounting a possible “bloodless” (domestically speaking) coup to acquire his “power” (last part, arguable).
"Now, it appears the President has found a “slick” way to declare war on Iran by abusing the abusive Patriot Act while bypassing Congressional permission to wage war on Iran by labeling their “elite” military branch (125,000 man Republican Guard) as a “terr’ist organ-eye-zation."
Firedoglake reminds us of the Bush Administration's history of making highly questionable statements:
"There may once have been some useful role for such designations when used by a more responsible and less belligerent US Administration, but it’s hard to argue that this name calling and the provocation it carries is a good weapon to leave in the arsenal of one of the most war-mongering and irresponsible Administrations in our history. The Bush/Cheney/Rice team has an unfortunately history of applying the designation to inconvenient groups that simply don’t fit its simplistic good versus evil view of the world."
Related BN-Politics Posts:
* Iran is the New Iraq, and Lieberman Wants to Bomb it
Comments