May, 26 2011, 03:58pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Dallas Jamison, Senior Communications Director; cell- 720.333.1494; djamison@constitutionproject.org
Constitution Project Dismayed by House Action on National Defense Authorization Act
Today, the House of Representatives passed its version of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act ("NDAA"). The bill includes harmful provisions that continue the ban on the use of traditional federal courts to try the remaining Guantanamo detainees (Section 1039), and extends those restrictions to encompass all non-citizen terrorism suspects, thereby requiring military commission trial of all foreign terrorism suspects.
WASHINGTON
Today, the House of Representatives passed its version of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act ("NDAA"). The bill includes harmful provisions that continue the ban on the use of traditional federal courts to try the remaining Guantanamo detainees (Section 1039), and extends those restrictions to encompass all non-citizen terrorism suspects, thereby requiring military commission trial of all foreign terrorism suspects. (Buchanan Amendment). The Constitution Project (TCP) is also deeply concerned by the inclusion of Section 1034, which "affirms that the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces," but was never the subject of independent hearings or a full public debate.
The following can be attributed to TCP Counsel Mason C. Clutter: "The Constitution Project is extremely disappointed in the House's refusal to reverse the harmful restrictions on the use of America's criminal justice system to try Guantanamo detainees. The distrust that the House has shown of our courts is alarming and unfounded. Members of Congress continue to strip the United States of one of its most valuable tools in the fight against terrorism-federal courts. We urge the Senate to thoroughly evaluate these troubling provisions and work to untie the President's hands to better protect the security of the United States.
We are also dismayed by the House's failure to heed the advice of our bipartisan War Powers Committee regarding Section 1034. Section 1034 was passed without full consideration of whether or not any new authorization for the use of force is warranted. We urge the Senate to recognize this failure and to stand up and require full deliberation of the need for and proper scope of such a provision."
Last week, members of TCP's bipartisan War Powers Committee sent a letter to the House calling on Congress to "act to closely examine whether or not Section 1034 is appropriate."In its 2005 report entitled Deciding to Use Force Abroad: War Powers in a System of Checks and Balances , The Constitution Project's War Powers Committee recommended improvements to war powers decision-making designed to restore the proper roles of all three branches of government. Ms. Clutter and members of the War Powers Committee are available for comment.
The Constitution Project is a politically independent think tank established in 1997 to promote and defend constitutional safeguards. More information about the Constitution Project is available at https://constitutionproject.org/.
LATEST NEWS
Experts Worldwide Agree: US-Israel Attack on Iran a Clear Violation of International Law
"Before more children are burned alive or buried under rubble, this lawless war must end."
Mar 03, 2026
Experts on international law throughout the world have concluded that the unprovoked US-Israeli attack on Iran that began on Saturday is illegal.
Adil Ahmad Haque, a Rutgers Law School professor, wrote an analysis for Just Security published on Monday that called the attacks by the US and Israel a "manifest violation of the United Nations Charter," which "prohibits the use of force against another State unless that use of force is authorized by the UN Security Council or is a necessary and proportionate act of individual or collective self-defense in response to an armed attack."
Haque also argued that Iran, in responding to the attacks, violated the UN Charter by launching drone strikes against US allies throughout the Middle East, even though none of those nations had taken part in the US-Israeli operations.
"The United States, Israel, and Iran, have each violated international law," Haque concluded. "Hundreds of civilians have paid the price. Before more children are burned alive or buried under rubble, this lawless war must end."
Marko Milanovic, a University of Reading School of Law professor, wrote at the blog of the European Journal of International Law that the US-Israeli strikes are "manifestly illegal" and "as plain a violation of the prohibition on the use of force in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter as one could possibly have."
Milanovic also said that, leaving legality aside, the war would likely create a humanitarian disaster.
"Maybe, maybe, something good will come out of this... although I very much doubt it," he wrote. "It is far more likely that many innocent people are about to die, in Iran and possibly in Israel, and that their deaths will be for nothing."
The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) condemned the attacks on Iran as illegal under international law and dismissed any claims by US and Israel that they were necessary to liberate Iranians from a tyrannical government.
"Claims that launching an unprovoked and illegal attack is about defending human rights ring hollow," CIEL wrote, "when military strikes have already killed hundreds of civilians and intensified suffering as violence escalates—particularly when those same human rights are flagrantly violated by the US and by Israel, both domestically and abroad. Bombs do not yield peace, democracy, climate justice, or human rights."
Amnesty International secretary general Agnès Callamard described the US-Israeli attack as "a grave threat to multilateralism and to the integrity of the international legal order."
Callamard also said the international community needed "to intensify diplomatic efforts to prevent further military escalation to avert additional civilian harm, and halt any further crimes under international law against populations who have already endured decades of repression."
Human rights organization DAWN demanded that the UN General Assembly call an emergency session to declare the Iran attack a violation of the UN Charter.
Omar Shakir, executive director of DAWN, said that the war is also illegal under the US Constitution, which states that the US Congress has the power to declare war.
"This war is patently illegal," Shakir said, "and it must be stopped."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Corbyn Accuses Starmer Government of ‘Echoing Tony Blair’s Obedience to Washington’
"Blair dragged the UK into an illegal war that triggered a spiral of hatred, conflict, and misery," Corbyn said. "Twenty-three years later, another Labour prime minister is doing his best to follow in Blair’s footsteps."
Mar 03, 2026
As UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer allows British bases to be used as part of the US-Israeli war against Iran, the former leader of his Labour Party says he's making the same mistake that another Labour PM made 23 years ago.
Jeremy Corbyn, the socialist member of Parliament who led Labour from 2015 to 2020, said on Tuesday that Starmer was "echoing Tony Blair’s obedience to Washington", referring to the then-prime minister's decision in 2003 to join US President George W. Bush's war in Iraq.
"Ignoring the wisdom of ordinary people who could see the catastrophe ahead, Blair dragged the UK into an illegal war that triggered a spiral of hatred, conflict, and misery. More than a million Iraqi men, women, and children paid the price." Corbyn wrote in a Tuesday piece for the democratic socialist publicationTribune.
Infamously pledging to Bush, "I will be with you, whatever," Blair helped to promote the false claims that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. And despite a lack of support from the United Nations, he joined Bush's "coalition of the willing," committing 46,000 British troops to the war.
"This was the last time a Labour prime minister blindly backed the wishes of the US and its warmongering president," Corbyn said. "Twenty-three years later, another Labour prime minister is doing his best to follow in Blair’s footsteps and drag us into a catastrophic, illegal war."
Unlike Bush, US President Donald Trump has not yet put boots on the ground in Iran, instead waging a destructive campaign of aerial bombings and missile strikes that have taken out the nation's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and other senior Iranian officials.
As of Monday, the Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA), a US-based monitor of human rights in Iran, reported that at least 742 civilians had been killed since Saturday by US and Israeli attacks, with nearly 1,000 injured and more than 600 deaths still under review.
While Starmer has stressed that the UK "had no role" in launching the war, he has lent credence to the questionable case the US and Israel have made to justify it, including emphasizing that Iran "must never have nuclear weapons."
Iran has always contended its nuclear program was not for military purposes, and it had no desire to produce a nuclear weapon. Prior to Saturday’s strikes, reports indicated that Iranian negotiators had offered to give up the nation's entire stockpile of enriched uranium.
And though he has accused Iran of launching "indiscriminate strikes" across the Gulf, Starmer has been reticent to criticize similar actions by the US and Israel, which have had vastly larger death tolls, including the bombing of a girls' school that reportedly killed 165 people, most of them girls between ages 7 and 12, and attacks on several hospitals.
One day after the first strikes were conducted, and following mounting pressure from Trump, Starmer announced that he'd given the US approval for "specific, limited defensive" use of three Royal Air Force (RAF) bases—Fairford in England, Akrotiri in Cyprus, and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean—in order to destroy Iran's missiles "at source" after a drone hit Akrotiri, causing minimal damage.
However, Starmer continued to claim that the UK had learned the "mistakes of Iraq," and "will not join offensive action now."
Corbyn said that Starmer's insistence that bases would only be used "defensively" was merely "meaningless vocabulary that reveals Starmer’s contempt for the intelligence of the British people."
In Parliament on Monday, Starmer said that "the use of the bases is to allow the US to use its ability to take out the ability of Iran to launch the attacks in the first place."
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Monday used similar reasoning to justify launching the war, explaining that Iran was likely to retaliate against a planned Israeli attack and that it therefore posed an "imminent threat" to US personnel even though that threat was contingent on Israel attacking first.
Corbyn described the idea of a "preemptive strike" as a contradiction in terms. "Under this convoluted reasoning," he said, "almost any attack on anybody can be classified as a defensive measure. Starmer’s words are Newspeak—and cannot shield his government from complicity in the devastation ahead."
Like in the United States, the British public has expressed low support for American and Israeli actions against Iran. According to a YouGov poll published on Monday, 49% disapprove of US military action, compared to 28% who support it. Fewer than 1 in 5 Labour voters said they supported it.
Voters also said they oppose their government's involvement. Compared with just 32% of Brits who said they supported letting the US use British bases, 50% said they opposed it.
"For too long, Britain has blindly followed the US as it indulges in disastrous imperial fantasies," Corbyn said, noting the UK's continued support for Israel over two years of US-sponsored genocide in Gaza.
Corbyn is now an independent MP who co-founded a new political party after being thrown out of Labour in 2020 over dubious accusations of antisemitism, which he has alleged stem from his strong criticism of Israel.
"It’s time to forge a different path. Now is not the time to try to rescue a ‘special relationship’ characterised by impunity, genocide, and war," he said. "Now is the time to forge an independent foreign policy based on international law and peace."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'It's Not What F*cking Happens to Them—It Happens to Us': Graham Platner Emerges as Potent Anti-War Voice
"It is the American people who are asked to make the sacrifice," said the Senate candidate. "It is never those in power. It is never those with wealth. It is always asked of us."
Mar 03, 2026
As the death toll in the US and Israel's assault on Iran rose to nearly 800 on Tuesday and lawmakers from both sides of the aisle pushed for the passage of a war powers resolution to stop President Donald Trump's "horrific war of choice," US Senate candidate Graham Platner, a Democrat from Maine and a combat veteran, is speaking out loudly against another war of choice by the United States.
In a new video posted on social media, Platner noted that his 2026 rival, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), recently said the US should attack Iran only "as a last resort"—something that did not come to pass, according to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who admitted Monday that the US and Israel waged war due to an "imminent threat" posed by the fact that Israel was planning an attack that Iran was likely to retaliate against.
Platner said Rubio's comments pointed to "quite possibly the most ridiculous excuse for starting a war" and warned that the situation is "spiraling out of control" before emphasizing that Collins "has the power to stop this."
Collins has been named as a potential Republican "yes" vote for the War Powers Resolution that Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) has said he'll bring to the Senate floor this week.
"Sen. Collins, I'm just going to ask you straight up," said Platner. "You voted to send me to Iraq. Did you not learn anything from that experience? You need to stand up. The American people do not want this war."
Polling out Sunday showed that just 25% of Americans support the US attack on Iran, and Platner's comments to Collins were just his latest in which he tied Trump's war to the unpopular wars in which Platner himself fought and lost numerous friends.
"They are willing to sacrifice the lives of young American men and women and the lives of Iranian civilians simply to protect their political interests," Platner said at a campaign event in Brewer, Maine on Monday, accusing Trump of waging war partially to distract the public from the Epstein files.
"I cannot think of a more reprehensible act," he said. "I cannot think of a more unpatriotic act, of a more un-American act, than to send our sons and daughters off to die, to kill, to bring immense violence to innocent civilians abroad simply because you're afraid you might lose the midterms. It is disgusting."
Thank you to all who joined us in Brewer yesterday to fight to stop this senseless war.
Full remarks and video below.
*********
First, I want to say thank you to Food and Medicine for having me. The work of Food and Medicine, the Eastern Maine Labor Council, quite frankly,… pic.twitter.com/mi3BqmyuGl
— Graham Platner for Senate (@grahamformaine) March 2, 2026
He continued:
It is the American people who are asked to make the sacrifice. It is American families who have to bury their dead sons and daughters. It is American friends who have to watch their best friends come home from a war and struggle for years with physical and mental trauma.
That is who bears the brunt of all of this. It is never those in power. It is never those with wealth. It is always asked of us. And that is why we need to only wage war when the American people know it is actually in their best interest. And if it isn't, we do not do it. This war needs to end. And it needs to end now.
[...]
Watching people who do not know the realities of war, watching people who know nothing of the horror that comes with this kind of violence, people who could not even imagine what it feels like in the pit of your stomach when you hear that one of your friends has been killed; or watching one of your best friends be ripped apart by explosives; watching people who have no idea what any of this looks like or feels like celebrate this, disgusts me. And then watching them turn around and tell us that these sacrifices are just "what happens." We just need to be prepared for more casualties, because that's "what happens." It's not what fucking "happens" to them. It's what "happens" to us.
Platner emphasized that the ongoing assault on Iran "is only possible because we have had a Congress that for decades has abdicated its responsibility, its constitutional responsibility, in making war," and demanded that the 2001 Authorization of Use of Military Force be repealed and that Congress go further than the War Powers Resolutions that have been proposed to to rein in Trump's attacks in the Middle East as well as Latin America.
"We need a truly reformed War Powers Act, where we really pull the power back," said Platner. "We need to know why military force is used right off the bat. And it needs to be approved by Congress right off the bat. The Constitution is clear about who is supposed to have the power of waging war in this country. It is the body that is most representative of the American people because it is the American people who have to bear the brunt of combat."
He closed his remarks with a moment of silence for the American service members and hundreds of Iranians who have been killed in Iran in recent days.
"Working people in this country, working people in Iran, working people around the world have everything in common with each other," said Platner. "All of our needs are exactly the same. And we are used as pawns in the games of the powerful and the wealthy."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular