There’s a bit of a whirlwind on the passing of H.R. 2956 (the so-called “Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act”) by the House of Representatives on Wednesday, July 11, 2007. The final vote tally was 223 to pass versus 201 against passing. The bill was passed to move on to the Senate mostly along party lines, with 4 Republicans supporting it and 10 Democrats voting against. Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul made no vote.

Some new Ron Paul supporters are a bit disheveled by Ron Paul’s lack of taking a stance on the law. While I am a non-voter, I do support Ron Paul and all those who ignored this powerless bill — there is no reason for Congress to vote on a bill that has no force to making any changes in Iraq. The process of voting for or against a powerless bill is just a political maneuver, one of many in the upcoming run for office for 2008.

You can read the bill in its entirety here (PDF) — it’s just 6 pages long. Some of the highlights of the bill are as follows:

A BILL To require the Secretary of Defense to commence the reduction of the number of United States Armed Forces in Iraq to a limited presence by April 1, 2008, and for other purposes.

The beginning sounds good — Congress voted to require the Secretary of Defense to commence the reduction of the number of Armed Forces in Iraq by April 1, 2008. I ask — reduction by what percentage? If this portion of the bill passed (and was signed by President Bush into law), a reduction of 10 troops would be enough to qualify the law as fulfilled. This is unacceptable.

Reading further through the bill, specifically Section 4, we see that the power of the bill is without any actual force of Congress. Here is a Congress that uses force against you and me every day in their various regulations, requirements, taxes, tariffs and anti-individual laws that it passes without question. In a bill that is titled “Redeployment from Iraq,” there is no actual redeployment being proposed. Instead, Congress is merely asking the President and the Secretary of Defense to outline a plan for Iraq. It doesn’t say that troops must be removed, it asks the Executive branch to detail who should be removed from Iraq, and who should stay. It also asks why they should stay. The deadline for the President to propose a plan in January 1st — almost 6 months away.

Section 4(a) STRATEGY REQUIRED.—Not later than January 4, 2008, the President shall transmit to the appropriate congressional committees a comprehensive United States strategy for Iraq.

Useless! No wonder Ron Paul refused to vote — what did people vote for? To ask the President nicely that he tells Congress how many troops are needed and for what?

Section 4 continues in an even more comical manner:

(3) As part of the justification required by paragraph (2), the President shall, at a minimum, address whether it is necessary for the Armed Forces to carry out the following missions:

It then lists a few missions: removal of diplomatic facilities and U.S. citizens, serving in diplomatic roles, engaging in actions to disrupt Al-Qaeda, and training of Iraqi security forces. That sounds good, doesn’t it? But it doesn’t say that the U.S. will do these things, the bill as voted for only says that the President shall address these missions. The President can say yes or no to the various missions, and the law (if passed and signed) would be followed. Again, a law with no teeth made by lawmakers with many rows of teeth when it comes to your life and your pocketbook.

The bill does not discuss the private corporate armed forces (hired by Blackwater USA and others) that are currently “serving” in Iraq. It does not provide an accurate description of what “reduction” entails — it only asks for a description of a reduction, if one is needed at all.

This bill is like a great grandparent: it has no teeth. It is worthless, and I support all the politicians who did not bother to vote, as voting for or against this bill is just a waste of time.

Here’s what Congress should do:

1. Stop all funding of the military in ALL sectors until troops are actively withdrawn from Iraq. Congress is the force behind providing funding to the military. They have the Constitutional power to fund, defund, or ignore funding entirely. They should merely ignore funding all military agencies until the unconstitutional police action is withdrawn.

2. If the President wants to fight Iraq, let Congress vote constitutionally for a Declaration of War. Let the politicians vote for or against an actual war.

3. War crimes and treason by all Executive officials should be started. There is no privilege if crimes were committed. The oath that the President takes to uphold the Constitution must be upheld — if he broke his oath, he committed a major violation of his job as President. Impeachment would be a bare minimum in this case, and an actual criminal investigation must be started immediately.

Don’t let people sway your opinion, least of all me, without reading the bill and thinking about what it actually says (or, in reality, doesn’t say). If you vote, call your Congressman and demand for a bill with teeth. Demand for a formal Declaration of War. Demand an investigation into all who violated their Constitutional oath.

Related posts:

1. When the Neo-Cons hate Ron Paul (War on Iraq)
2. Ron Paul: fighting a war in Iran
3. Why Ron Paul should be President: Executive Order July 17, 2007
4. How can an anti-voting anarcho-capitalist support Ron Paul?
5. John Stossel interviews Ron Paul
6. Ron Paul for President Open Source Flyers and Banners
7. Ron Paul: I endorse him, but I won’t vote for him
8. Best Ron Paul photo/article ever
9. An Anarcho-capitalist on Ron Paul, Part 1: He’s not anti-war
10. A lesson from Ron Paul: Get mad now, don’t back down.