December, 04 2012, 02:51pm EDT
Kucinich Calls on Congress to Vote on Return to Rule of Law
Clock Running on Legislation to Force White House to Release the Legal Justification for Drone Strikes
WASHINGTON
Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today urged fellow lawmakers to support, H. Res. 819, a Resolution of Inquiry that would compel the Administration to release to Congress documents which form the legal basis for the targeted assassination of American citizens abroad. Those documents would include memos from the White House's Office of Legal Counsel.
A Resolution of Inquiry must be considered within 14 legislative days. Unless Congress adjourns before the deadline, Kucinich will be able to call up the bill with privileged status. Kucinich introduced the legislation on November 28, 2012.
The full text of Congressman Kucinich's remarks follow.
"Before Congress adjourns, this House should vote on my Resolution of Inquiry about the U.S. use of drones.
"The vote will not be about the thousands of deaths of innocent civilians caused by drones, though that is important. It won't be about whether the drones are creating more terrorism. It won't be a vote to stop the killing of American citizens without the due process guaranteed by the Constitution.
"It won't be about whether our ongoing use of drones constitutes violations of the Constitution and violations of international law.
"The vote will, however, be about something fundamental. We will determine whether or not Congress has the power to require the Administration to release their still-secret legal justification to use drones.
"In matters of the Constitution, in matters of war, 'trust us' is neither sufficient legally, constitutionally, nor is it morally acceptable. I urge members of the House to reclaim Congress' constitutional imperative by supporting H. Res. 819, the Resolution of Inquiry demanding the White House produce its legal justification for drone strikes."
Dennis Kucinich is an American politician. A U.S. Representative from Ohio from 1997 to 2013, he was also a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president of the United States in 2004 and 2008.
LATEST NEWS
Idaho GOP Invents 'Abortion Trafficking' Crime to Block Minors From Care
"Human trafficking is a terrible crime where one person takes another person against their will," said one state Democrat. "It is very different from helping a young woman seek medical care without her parents' knowledge."
Mar 29, 2023
Reproductive rights advocates and Democratic state lawmakers in Idaho on Wednesday condemned a Republican proposal to create a new crime in the state using the invented term "abortion trafficking," which would criminalize people who help minors to obtain out-of-state abortion care.
The bill (H.B. 242) is widely expected to pass in the state Senate and easily passed in the state House earlier this month on a party-line vote, with 57 Republicans supporting the proposal and and 12 Democrats opposing it. GOP Gov. Brad Little, who has strongly supported the state's abortion ban, is expected to sign the legislation.
H.B. 242 would establish so-called "abortion trafficking" as a new crime and would restrict minors' ability to travel to get abortion care without parental consent.
Any adult who, "with the intent to conceal an abortion from the parents or guardian of a pregnant, unemancipated minor, either procures an abortion... or obtains an abortion-inducing drug" for a minor could face felony charges and up to five years in prison.
Family members of a minor who obtains an abortion across state lines—or the person who impregnated the minor—would be permitted to sue the providers who helped facilitate the procedure for a minimum of $20,000.
Idaho Senate Minority Leader Melissa Wintrow (D-19), toldThe Washington Post that the legislation "cheapens the term 'human trafficking' and that's shameful."
"Human trafficking is a terrible crime where one person takes another person against their will," Wintrow added. "It is very different from helping a young woman seek medical care without her parents' knowledge."
Last August, one of the nation's most restrictive anti-abortion laws went into effect in Idaho, two months after the right-wing majority on the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.
The law bans abortions after six weeks of pregnancy—before many people know they are pregnant—with exceptions in cases involving rape or incest or when the pregnant person's life is in danger. Exceptions to save a pregnant person's life have already resulted in medical providers refusing to provide care in cases when the patient is growing progressively sicker and their fetus has no chance of survival.
Women's March said the bill is likely "the first of many fascist, unconstitutional bills" that will seek to limit pregnant people's ability to travel for abortion care.
\u201cUPDATE: Idaho is about to become the first state to restrict interstate travel for an abortion. The GOP isn't stopping with Dobbs \u2014 now they're coming for our right to travel with the first of many fascist, unconstitutional bills.\u201d— Women's March (@Women's March) 1680106725
Mistie DelliCarpini-Tolman, the Idaho state director for Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates, told lawmakers this week that the legislation will place many vulnerable young pregnant people in harm's way.
"For young people living in abusive households, disclosing sexual activity or a pregnancy can trigger physical or emotional abuse, including direct, physical or sexual violence, or being thrown out of the home," said DelliCarpini-Tolman.
Republicans in the state are seeking to further criminalize abortion care days after the state's northernmost hospital announced it will soon close its obstetrics department, citing staffing issues that have following Idaho's abortion ban.
On Tuesday, Republicans in the state announced they would not consider a bill to expand postpartum Medicaid coverage.
"Last year, legislators said they wanted to pass policies to support the health of mothers," Hillarie Hagan, health policy associate for the advocacy group Idaho Voices for Children, told News From the States, "and now they're about to leave town without passing House Bill 201, which would've done just that."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'A Great Start': Peace Advocates Cheer Senate Repeal of Iraq War Authorization
"A larger and far more consequential challenge remains: repealing the 2001 AUMF which authorized the global war on terror," said one activist.
Mar 29, 2023
Peace campaigners cheered Wednesday's vote by the U.S. Senate to repeal the authorizations for the 1991 and 2003 invasions of Iraq, while calling on the House of Representatives to follow suit.
The Senate voted 66-30 in favor of a bill to rescind the 1991 and 2002 authorizations for the use of military force (AUMF), with 18 Republican senators crossing the aisle to support the legislation, which now heads to the House. An amendment by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) that would have empowered the president to attack Iran was defeated on Tuesday.
It is uncertain if the lower chamber's GOP leadership will take up the measure. In 2021, the Democrat-led House passed a repeal of the 2002 AUMF, with the support of 49 Republican lawmakers. The Biden administration supports the repeal.
"The people of the United States deserve elected leaders that will end our endless wars."
The more sweeping 2001 AUMF greenlighting then-President George W. Bush's global war against terrorism—which has been waged in at least eight countries at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives—remains in place and unendangered. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), the author of the 2021 repeal bill, was the only member of Congress to vote against the 2001 AUMF.
"Today, the Senate made the belated but critical decision to repeal the 2002 and 1991 AUMFs," Win Without War government relations director Eric Eikenberry said in a statement. "This appropriately comes days after the 20-year anniversary of the Iraq War—the horrific end result of Congress handing then-President Bush a blank check to wage war at the expense of the people of Iraq and the United States."
\u201c"Today\u2019s vote begins the process of accountability the war deserved long ago. We welcome this vote... and we thank @timkaine and @SenToddYoung for so doggedly pushing for this outcome."\n\nFull statement on the Senate's AUMF repeal vote from @epeikenberry: https://t.co/HTzbAJi8zF\u201d— Win Without War (@Win Without War) 1680110106
"The Trump administration amply demonstrated the risks of leaving outdated military authorization on the books," Eikenberry continued, likely referring to the January 2020 drone assassination of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani, which was carried out under the AUMF.
Former presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump both invoked the AUMF when the former launched, and the latter escalated, the U.S.-led coalition campaign against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
"We cannot gamble again by allowing the next irresponsible and short-sighted president to abuse their executive power to destroy lives around the world," Eikenberry added. "We now call on the House of Representatives... to immediately take up repeal and send it to the president's desk. The Iraq War deserves justice and accountability, and the people of the United States deserve elected leaders that will end our endless wars."
\u201cThe Senate repealing the 1991 and 2002 AUMFs for Iraq is a great start. A larger and far more consequential challenge remains: repealing the 2001 AUMF which authorized the global war on terror. https://t.co/2Oeg57xmha @CarnegieEndow @CEIPStatecraft\u201d— Matt Duss (@Matt Duss) 1680113771
Common Defense political director Naveen Shah related that "as a veteran of the War in Iraq, I saw firsthand the utter devastation the war had on ordinary Iraqis, and the ordinary troops who were sent there."
"Keeping these war authorizations open after all these years is a sad reminder of our country's mistake," Shah argued. "We need to ensure it never happens again, and that begins with this repeal and continues by requiring congressional authorization, after a full public debate, before America ever sends our troops into harm's way again."
Bridget Moix, general secretary of the Friends Committee on National Legislation, said that "Quakers know that war is not and never has been the answer. Not today. Not tomorrow. And certainly not 20 years ago."
"The 2002 Iraq AUMF, as we stated at the time, should have never been passed and signed into law," Moix continued. "A congressional repeal of the law is a vital step to help heal our country's addiction to war and end endless wars. What we can invest more in to build a safer world is peacebuilding and global cooperation."
"True peace is more than the absence of fighting. It is addressing the root causes of war and managing conflict nonviolently," she added. "As long as the U.S. can still attack and kill with impunity in Iraq, neither its people nor ours will know true peace."
Roughly 2,500 U.S. troops—over 4,000 of whom died during the invasion and occupation of Iraq—remain in the country today.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Biden Climate Approval Plummets After Willow Oil Drilling Greenlighted
"Voters strongly support transitioning to clean energy projects instead of building fossil fuel projects on public lands," according to new research published as the White House moved forward with a massive lease sale.
Mar 29, 2023
Survey data published Wednesday shows that the U.S. electorate's approval of President Joe Biden's handling of the climate crisis has declined since October.
Voters' approval fell even further after they were made aware of the incongruence between Biden's 2020 campaign trail vow to end oil and gas leasing on public lands and his administration's March 13 move to rubber-stamp ConocoPhillips' massive Willow drilling project on federally controlled territory in the Alaskan Arctic.
The decline in support has been most pronounced among Democrats, Independents, and voters under 50, according to polling conducted by Data for Progress and Fossil Free Media.
From October 21-25 and then again from March 17-21, researchers asked respondents if they approved or disapproved of how the Biden administration has addressed climate change and the environment before mentioning any specific policy or decision.
Five months ago, 82% of Democrats, 37% of Independents, and 10% of Republicans gave Biden a thumbs up on this issue. Just over a week ago, approval had decreased among Democrats and Independents, with 69% and 30% of such voters expressing support for the president's climate performance. Meanwhile, Republican support for Biden's environmental policies increased to 17% during this time period.
The drop in support was even steeper among younger voters. In October, 37% of voters 40-49, 51% of voters 30-39, and 48% of voters 18-29 said they approved of the Biden administration's handling of climate change and the environment. Those percentages have decreased across all three age groups, with just 35% of voters 40-49, 45% of voters 30-39, and 35% of voters 18-29 giving the president a passing grade on the issue earlier this month.
"If the move to approve Willow was intended to win the favor of Independents concerned about high energy prices, this research suggests it may not have landed as intended."
Notably, the aforementioned decline in support for Biden's climate performance since October among Democrats (13% drop), Independents (7% drop), and voters aged 18-29 (13% drop) doesn't take into account the president's Willow betrayal. Data for Progress and Fossil Free Media first tested for approval before introducing respondents to the president's campaign promises and news of his administration's decision to greenlight the largest oil drilling endeavor on public land in U.S. history.
Although awareness of the Willow project has increased since October when 71% of voters said they hadn't heard, seen, or read anything at all about the climate-wrecking venture, 52% of voters were still completely unaware of it when surveyed from March 17-21.
After measuring baseline support, pollsters reminded voters of Biden's campaign pledge to ban new fossil fuel leasing on public lands and informed them about his administration's recent approval of the Willow project, which seeks to extract more than 600 million barrels of crude from Alaska's North Slope over the next 30 years. Then, pollsters retested their original question.
Once this contrast was made explicit, public approval of Biden's climate performance plummeted. Net approval measured in March fell by 33 points among Democrats and 12 points among Independents. It's worth noting that in October, Biden enjoyed a net climate approval rating of 68 points among Democrats.
Young voters' disappointment was also palpable, with net approval measured in March falling by 1 point among voters 18-29, 16 points among voters 30-39, and 5 points among voters 40-49.
It's unclear why the Biden administration refused to use its authority to halt a fossil fuel project capable of spewing about 280 million metric tons of heat-trapping carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere on the same day United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres warned that the planet is reaching a "point of no return." Environmental advocacy groups have responded with lawsuits.
Biden may be enjoying higher approval ratings on environmental issues if he had blocked Conoco's drilling proposal. According to Data for Progress and Fossil Free Media, voters remain supportive of the president's original campaign promises on climate.
Researchers also asked respondents whether the federal government should prioritize the production of renewable energy or fossil energy on public lands.
By a 21-point margin, voters said they want new energy developments on public lands to be green, such as wind and solar farms—not planet-heating oil and gas drilling sites.
"This research shows that voters strongly support transitioning to clean energy projects instead of building fossil fuel projects on public lands," wrote Anika Dandekar, a senior analyst at Data for Progress.
The recent approval of the Willow project "not only undermines Biden's campaign promise to transition to a fully clean power sector by no later than 2035, but also may explain why Democrats, Independents, and voters under 50 increasingly disapprove of the Biden administration's handling of climate change and the environment," she noted.
"Younger generations, most likely to be impacted by the further degradation of the environment, are paying attention," Dandekar continued. "Furthermore, if the move to approve Willow was intended to win the favor of Independents concerned about high energy prices, this research suggests it may not have landed as intended."
"If the Biden administration wants to maintain support from these important demographics," she added, "it will need to continue taking bold actions to curb emissions and keep its promises."
Notably, the White House is facing fresh criticism on Wednesday over its decision to plow ahead with Lease Sale 259, one of the largest offshore auctions in U.S. history. Earlier this month, several green groups filed a lawsuit to challenge the sale, which offered more than 73 million acres of the Gulf of Mexico to the highest-bidding oil and gas drillers.
"President Biden's decision to once again sacrifice an enormous portion of the Gulf of Mexico for oil and gas drilling is unconscionable," Nicole Ghio, senior fossil fuels program manager at Friends of the Earth, said in a statement. "Reviving lease sales and greenlighting massive fossil fuel projects demonstrates the administration cares more about Big Oil profits than frontline communities and endangered species."
"Reviving lease sales and greenlighting massive fossil fuel projects demonstrates the administration cares more about Big Oil profits than frontline communities and endangered species."
"We will continue pushing Biden to take his long-held climate promises seriously and stop locking us into decades of dirty energy," said Ghio.
A 2021 lawsuit filed by many of the same groups led a federal judge to vacate Lease Sale 257, the nation's largest-ever offshore auction wherein more than 80 million acres of the Gulf of Mexico were offered to the fossil fuel industry.
Despite Biden's campaign pledge to curtail new fossil fuel projects on public lands and waters, his administration has approved more permits for oil and gas drilling on public lands in its first two years than the Trump administration did in 2017 and 2018.
Two weeks ago, a trio of groups filed a 30-day notice of their intent to sue the Biden administration for refusing to respond to a petition to wind down fossil fuel extraction on public lands and waters.
Signed by a coalition of more than 360 progressive advocacy organizations, the January 2022 petition submitted to Biden and Interior Secretary Deb Haaland provides a blueprint to reduce federal oil and gas production by 98% by 2035 using long-dormant provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act, Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, and the National Emergencies Act.
Research published after the petition was filed shows that wealthy countries must end oil and gas production entirely by 2034 to give the world a 50% chance of limiting global warming to 1.5°C—beyond which the climate emergency's impacts will grow increasingly deadly, particularly for the world's poor who have done the least to cause the crisis.
After the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its latest assessment report last week, Guterres demanded "a quantum leap in climate action," including a prohibition on approving and financing new coal, oil, and gas projects as well as a phaseout of existing fossil fuel production.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
SUPPORT OUR WORK.
We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100%
reader supported.
reader supported.