The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: war powers resolution
‘Historic’ Senate Resolution Withdraws Support For War In Yemen

‘Historic’ Senate Resolution Withdraws Support For War In Yemen

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

In a major step toward ending U.S. complicity in the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, the Senate on Wednesday passed a War Powers resolution to cut off American military support for the Saudi-led coalition’s assault on Yemen.

The final vote count was 54-46.

“This is historic. For the first time in 45 years, Congress is one step closer to withdrawing U.S. forces from an unauthorized war,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the lead sponsor of the resolution, declared following the vote. “We must end the war in Yemen.”

Kate Gould, legislative director for Middle East policy at the Friends Committee on National Legislation, applauded the grassroots activists who have been working tirelessly to end America’s disastrous role in Yemen.

“The Senate has now taken a decisive step in ending the American facilitation of the Yemen war and the world’s largest humanitarian crises,” Gould said. “Millions of grassroots activists, who helped make this vote a reality, want their lawmakers to end this unconscionable war.”

Passage of the resolution comes as the Saudis continue to launch deadly airstrikes in Yemen with U.S. backing, worsening a crisis that has already resulted in mass suffering and tens of thousands of deaths. Earlier this week, dozens of civilians—including women and young children—were killed by Saudi airstrikes in Yemen’s Kushar district.

According to the United Nations, 14 million Yemenis could soon be on the brink of starvation if the bombing continues. Save the Children, a London-based human rights organization, estimated in a report last November that 85,000 Yemenis under the age of five have starved to death since the Saudi-led coalition began bombing the country.

 

“The fact is that the United States, with little media attention, has been Saudi Arabia’s partner in this horrific war. We have been providing the bombs the Saudi-led coalition is using, refueling their planes before they drop those bombs and assisting with intelligence,” Sanders said during a speech on the Senate floor ahead of the vote. “The bottom line is the United States should not be supporting a catastrophic war led by a despotic regime with a dangerous and irresponsible foreign policy.”

“This Senate vote moves us one step closer to ending U.S. support for the catastrophic war in Yemen, a war that makes America complicit in the worst humanitarian crisis in the world,” Paul Kawika Martin, senior director for policy and political affairs at Peace Action, said in a statement.

In addition to putting an end to America’s role in the slaughter of Yemeni civilians, supporters said the resolution also reasserst Congress’ constitutional authority over war.

“Congressional authority over war was designed to avoid the type of situation that’s been unfolding in Yemen, where unauthorized U.S. military support began without public debate or scrutiny,” Martin said. “The Senate’s vote to end the U.S. role in Yemen is also a vote to re-democratize our nation’s foreign policy.”

The Yemen War Powers resolution will now head back to the House of Representatives, the final roadblock before the measure reaches President Donald Trump’s desk.

In a statement before Wednesday’s vote, the White House said it “strongly opposes” the resolution and suggested Trump will veto the measure if it passes the House. A two-thirds majority vote by both chambers of Congress would be needed to override a possible Trump veto.

Senate Skeptical of Obama War Powers Claim

The U.S. Senate grilled State Department legal advisor Harold Koh on Tuesday as he defended the Obama administration’s claim that the War Powers Resolution, passed in the wake of Vietnam in 1973 to prevent extended overseas military action without Congressional approval, does not apply to the Libya incursion.

The Act says that within 60 or 90 days after informing Congress of hostilities, military action must cease without the go-ahead from lawmakers.

“From the outset, we noted that the situation in Libya does not constitute a war,” Mr. Koh said, calling the phrase “hostilities” an “ambiguous word of art” that did not likely apply in Libya.

Indiana Republican Senator Dick Lugar, an Obama ally who worked with him on nuclear issues when they were both senators and who led efforts to corral GOP votes for renewal of the START treaty with Russia last winter, was critical.

“Presidents should not be able to avoid constitutional responsibilities merely because engaging the people’s representative is inconvenient or uncertain,” he said.

Virginia Senator Jim Webb, whom Obama campaigned for in 2006 and who returned the favor in the fall of 2008, when Obama won his state, was perhaps the most outspoken, despite being a member of the president’s party.

“When you have an operation that goes on for months, costs billions of dollars, where the United States is providing two-thirds of the troops, even under the NATO fig leaf, where they’re dropping bombs that are killing people, where you’re paying your troops offshore combat pay and there are areas of prospective escalation — something I’ve been trying to get a clear answer from with this administration for several weeks now, and that is the possibility of a ground presence in some form or another, once the Qaddafi regime expires — I would say that’s hostilities,” he said. [The New York Times]

NYT Editorial Board: War Powers Resolution Applies to Libya Operation

President Obama’s legal team has been making the case over the past few days that the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which prohibits military operations longer than 60 or 90 days on foreign soil without congressional approval, does not apply to the United States’ continued involvement in Libya because of the logistical, tangential nature of our sustained involvement there. John Boehner, much of the Congressional GOP and some liberal Democrats agree, and The New York Times joined them yesterday:

It would be hugely costly — for this country’s credibility, for the future of NATO and for the people of Libya — if Congress were to force President Obama to abandon military operations over Libya. However, Mr. Obama cannot evade his responsibility, under the War Powers Act, to seek Congressional approval to continue the operation.

The White House’s argument for not doing so borders on sophistry — that “U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve the presence of U.S. ground troops,” and thus are not the sort of “hostilities” covered by the act. This country’s involvement in the air campaign is undeniably limited. Since the United States handed off command to the Europeans in early April, the Pentagon has provided refueling and surveillance for NATO planes, hit air defenses and sent in armed, remotely piloted drones.

But the 1973 act does not apply solely to boots-on-the-ground, full-out shooting wars. It says that 60 or 90 days after notifying Congress of the introduction of armed forces “into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated,” the president must receive Congressional authorization or terminate the mission. No word games can get him off the hook. Though pressure from the left seems likely to continue to build on this issue, it seems unlikely the president would risk Congress refuting continued involvement in the war-torn country, especially since a fractious coalition of Tea Partiers and anti-war Democrats might defeat the motion. [NYT]

Bipartisan Group of Congressmen Sue Obama Over Libya Incursion

The Obama administration’s intervention in Libya to aid rebels seeking to oust strongman Muammar Gaddafi has, since its inception, had critics on the anti-war Democratic left, but also on the right, where some GOP lawmakers are skeptical of what they say is a violation of the War Powers Resolution, the 1973 law intended in the wake of Vietnam to limit the president’s ability to involve the U.S. military on foreign soil for an extended basis.

Unable to block the president legislatively, they are now seeking an injunction from the courts:

The lead plaintiffs, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., filed the lawsuit at U.S. District Court in Washington on Wednesday afternoon, as the White House prepared to deliver a report to Congress to address a June 3 House resolution calling for Obama to answer what his ultimate goals are in Libya and why he hadn’t sought congressional authorization for U.S. troop involvement.

In addition to Kucinich and Jones, the plaintiffs are Democratic Reps. Michael Capuano of Massachusetts and John Conyers of Michigan; and Republican Reps. Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland, Dan Burton of Indiana, Howard Coble of North Carolina, John Duncan of Tennessee, Tim Johnson of Illinois, and Ron Paul of Texas.

This comes in the wake of Republican Speaker John Boehner’s call for a legal explanation of the administration’s continued military presence in Libya after the 60 or 90 day period prescribed by the War Powers Resolution. Of course, Mr. Boehner voted to repeal the law in 1995, arguing it infringed on executive authority. His insistence on the president justifying his actions now is probably indicative of the Tea Party movement and its relatively isolationist views gaining steam in the GOP.

In defense of the ongoing action in Libya, Obama administration lawyers told Congress today that since U.S. forces are not engaging directly and individually in hostilities, but rather are providing logistical and other support to a NATO operation, the Resolution does not apply. [National Journal] [The New York Times]