To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
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."
\u201cThe Corker-Kaine AUMF doesn\u2019t limit President Trump\u2019s blank check for war. Instead it would:\n1. codify our existing wars in 6 countries\n2. allow the president to expand our wars\n3. allow #EndlessWar to continue without geographic constraints or time limits.\u201d— Rep. Barbara Lee (@Rep. Barbara Lee) 1523994325
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:
\u201cIf enacted, the new AUMF would cause fundamental damage to the Constitution, civil liberties, and human rights for generations to come. \n\nSign this petition to tell Congress not to support the proposed AUMF. https://t.co/JaVNKqu455\u201d— ACLU of Florida (@ACLU of Florida) 1523962801
\u201cPETITION\n\nTell the Senate: Don\u2019t Give Trump a Blank Check for War. Vote no on the Corker-Kaine AUMF\n\n(IF NON USA -\nYou can use zip 80223)\n\nhttps://t.co/8WPrE9OBFu\u201d— Freja Petersen (@Freja Petersen) 1524040725
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."
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
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."
\u201cThe Corker-Kaine AUMF doesn\u2019t limit President Trump\u2019s blank check for war. Instead it would:\n1. codify our existing wars in 6 countries\n2. allow the president to expand our wars\n3. allow #EndlessWar to continue without geographic constraints or time limits.\u201d— Rep. Barbara Lee (@Rep. Barbara Lee) 1523994325
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:
\u201cIf enacted, the new AUMF would cause fundamental damage to the Constitution, civil liberties, and human rights for generations to come. \n\nSign this petition to tell Congress not to support the proposed AUMF. https://t.co/JaVNKqu455\u201d— ACLU of Florida (@ACLU of Florida) 1523962801
\u201cPETITION\n\nTell the Senate: Don\u2019t Give Trump a Blank Check for War. Vote no on the Corker-Kaine AUMF\n\n(IF NON USA -\nYou can use zip 80223)\n\nhttps://t.co/8WPrE9OBFu\u201d— Freja Petersen (@Freja Petersen) 1524040725
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."
\u201cThe Corker-Kaine AUMF doesn\u2019t limit President Trump\u2019s blank check for war. Instead it would:\n1. codify our existing wars in 6 countries\n2. allow the president to expand our wars\n3. allow #EndlessWar to continue without geographic constraints or time limits.\u201d— Rep. Barbara Lee (@Rep. Barbara Lee) 1523994325
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:
\u201cIf enacted, the new AUMF would cause fundamental damage to the Constitution, civil liberties, and human rights for generations to come. \n\nSign this petition to tell Congress not to support the proposed AUMF. https://t.co/JaVNKqu455\u201d— ACLU of Florida (@ACLU of Florida) 1523962801
\u201cPETITION\n\nTell the Senate: Don\u2019t Give Trump a Blank Check for War. Vote no on the Corker-Kaine AUMF\n\n(IF NON USA -\nYou can use zip 80223)\n\nhttps://t.co/8WPrE9OBFu\u201d— Freja Petersen (@Freja Petersen) 1524040725
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."