

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Saying she has "grave concerns" about the bill introduced by Sens. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) on Tuesday warned it "would continue all current military operations, allow any president to unilaterally expand our wars, and effectively consent to endless war by omitting any sunset date or geographic constraints for our ongoing operations." (Image: ACLU)
Joining others who have already made their opposition clear, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.)--who in 2001 was the sole member of Congress to vote against the original Authorization for Use of Military Force in the wake of the the 9/11 attacks--is raising her voice once more against a bi-partisan proposal introduced this week that she says would only strengthen, not curb, the "blank check for war" that Congress has bestowed on the president.
Saying she has "grave concerns" about the bill introduced by Sens. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Lee on Tuesday warned it "would continue all current military operations, allow any president to unilaterally expand our wars, and effectively consent to endless war by omitting any sunset date or geographic constraints for our ongoing operations."
Read the text of the bill--officially titled "The Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2018"--here (pdf).
According to Lee, the legislation actually "further limits Congress's role in warmaking by requiring a veto-proof majority to block military action from the president."
Not alone in her opposition, Amnesty International on Tuesday also came out strongly against the Corker-Kaine bill.
"Since 2001, the U.S. has been operating as if the world is a permanent battlefield, at the costs of thousands of lives, including large numbers of civilians," the group declared. "Despite this, President Trump has reportedly expanded authority for air strikes outside of war zones, and expressed shockingly callous disregard for civilian casualties. The last thing President Trump needs is a renewed open-ended authorization that gives him a blank check to perpetuate endless war, which is exactly what this proposed bill represents."
In addition to groups calling on constituents to demand their elected representatives oppose the bill, both the ACLU and Win Without War are floating petitions they intend to present to Congress:
Not only must the new AUMF be rejected, Amnesty said, but the existing authorizations--the first from 2001 and then a second one passed in 2002--must also be repealed.
The "seemingly limitless interpretation" of those AUMFs, the group said "has led to a widespread violation of human rights, from indefinite detention and torture to unlawful drone strikes. If Congress does not get this right, it will repeat the mistakes of the original authorization and bear responsibility for further abuses."
And as Lee concluded, "Over the last sixteen years, we have witnessed the consequences of unfettered executive power in matters of war. Instead of further endorsing perpetual war, we need to insist on an AUMF that is narrow, clearly defined, and respects Congress's constitutional duty to debate and authorize military action."
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. US voters have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. If you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
Joining others who have already made their opposition clear, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.)--who in 2001 was the sole member of Congress to vote against the original Authorization for Use of Military Force in the wake of the the 9/11 attacks--is raising her voice once more against a bi-partisan proposal introduced this week that she says would only strengthen, not curb, the "blank check for war" that Congress has bestowed on the president.
Saying she has "grave concerns" about the bill introduced by Sens. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Lee on Tuesday warned it "would continue all current military operations, allow any president to unilaterally expand our wars, and effectively consent to endless war by omitting any sunset date or geographic constraints for our ongoing operations."
Read the text of the bill--officially titled "The Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2018"--here (pdf).
According to Lee, the legislation actually "further limits Congress's role in warmaking by requiring a veto-proof majority to block military action from the president."
Not alone in her opposition, Amnesty International on Tuesday also came out strongly against the Corker-Kaine bill.
"Since 2001, the U.S. has been operating as if the world is a permanent battlefield, at the costs of thousands of lives, including large numbers of civilians," the group declared. "Despite this, President Trump has reportedly expanded authority for air strikes outside of war zones, and expressed shockingly callous disregard for civilian casualties. The last thing President Trump needs is a renewed open-ended authorization that gives him a blank check to perpetuate endless war, which is exactly what this proposed bill represents."
In addition to groups calling on constituents to demand their elected representatives oppose the bill, both the ACLU and Win Without War are floating petitions they intend to present to Congress:
Not only must the new AUMF be rejected, Amnesty said, but the existing authorizations--the first from 2001 and then a second one passed in 2002--must also be repealed.
The "seemingly limitless interpretation" of those AUMFs, the group said "has led to a widespread violation of human rights, from indefinite detention and torture to unlawful drone strikes. If Congress does not get this right, it will repeat the mistakes of the original authorization and bear responsibility for further abuses."
And as Lee concluded, "Over the last sixteen years, we have witnessed the consequences of unfettered executive power in matters of war. Instead of further endorsing perpetual war, we need to insist on an AUMF that is narrow, clearly defined, and respects Congress's constitutional duty to debate and authorize military action."
Joining others who have already made their opposition clear, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.)--who in 2001 was the sole member of Congress to vote against the original Authorization for Use of Military Force in the wake of the the 9/11 attacks--is raising her voice once more against a bi-partisan proposal introduced this week that she says would only strengthen, not curb, the "blank check for war" that Congress has bestowed on the president.
Saying she has "grave concerns" about the bill introduced by Sens. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Lee on Tuesday warned it "would continue all current military operations, allow any president to unilaterally expand our wars, and effectively consent to endless war by omitting any sunset date or geographic constraints for our ongoing operations."
Read the text of the bill--officially titled "The Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2018"--here (pdf).
According to Lee, the legislation actually "further limits Congress's role in warmaking by requiring a veto-proof majority to block military action from the president."
Not alone in her opposition, Amnesty International on Tuesday also came out strongly against the Corker-Kaine bill.
"Since 2001, the U.S. has been operating as if the world is a permanent battlefield, at the costs of thousands of lives, including large numbers of civilians," the group declared. "Despite this, President Trump has reportedly expanded authority for air strikes outside of war zones, and expressed shockingly callous disregard for civilian casualties. The last thing President Trump needs is a renewed open-ended authorization that gives him a blank check to perpetuate endless war, which is exactly what this proposed bill represents."
In addition to groups calling on constituents to demand their elected representatives oppose the bill, both the ACLU and Win Without War are floating petitions they intend to present to Congress:
Not only must the new AUMF be rejected, Amnesty said, but the existing authorizations--the first from 2001 and then a second one passed in 2002--must also be repealed.
The "seemingly limitless interpretation" of those AUMFs, the group said "has led to a widespread violation of human rights, from indefinite detention and torture to unlawful drone strikes. If Congress does not get this right, it will repeat the mistakes of the original authorization and bear responsibility for further abuses."
And as Lee concluded, "Over the last sixteen years, we have witnessed the consequences of unfettered executive power in matters of war. Instead of further endorsing perpetual war, we need to insist on an AUMF that is narrow, clearly defined, and respects Congress's constitutional duty to debate and authorize military action."