May, 24 2018, 12:00am EDT
U.S. House Makes Clear That There is No Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iran
 A bipartisan amendment introduced by Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) and cosponsored by Reps. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Ro Khanna (D-CA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Jim McGovern (D-MA) and Walter Jones (R-NC) passed the U.S. House as part of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019
WASHINGTON
On Tuesday night, the House unanimously passed an amendment making clear Congress's position that no law exists which gives the President power to launch a military strike against Iran. Today, that amendment passed the U.S. House as part of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019.
"The unanimous passage of this bipartisan amendment is a strong and timely counter to the Trump administration's withdrawal from the Iran deal and its increasingly hostile rhetoric," Rep. Ellison said. "This amendment sends a powerful message that the American people and Members of Congress do not want a war with Iran. Today, Congress acted to reclaim its authority over the use of military force."
"I am pleased with the inclusion of this amendment, which clarifies that the President does not have the authority to go to war with Iran," said Congresswoman Lee. "Just weeks after President Trump shamefully pulled out of the Iran Deal, it is more important than ever to ensure diplomacy with Iran and in the region. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important amendment and will do everything in my power to ensure we do not go to war with Iran."
"The War Powers Act and Constitution is clear that our country's military action must first always be authorized by Congress. A war with Iran would be unconstitutional and costly. The unanimous passage of Rep. Ellison's amendment sends a strong message to Secretary Pompeo, National Security Advisor Bolton, and the Trump administration that Congress has the power to decide issues of war and peace," said Rep. Khanna.
"This amendment's historic passage affirms the fact that the American people do not want to go to war with Iran. Following the President's misguided withdrawal from the JCPOA, the House of Representatives sent a clear message by passing this amendment unanimously: unauthorized war with Iran is not an option. The President must listen to the American people and return to diplomacy as the primary solution to Iran's nuclear ambitions," said Rep. Schakowsky.
"Congress is sending a clear message that President Trump does not have the authority to go to war with Iran," Rep. McGovern said. "With President Trump's reckless violation of the Iran Deal and failure to get Congressional approval for military strikes on Syria, there's never been a more important time for Congress to reassert its authority. It's long past time to end the White House's blank check on war and the passage of this amendment is a strong start."
Rep. Keith Ellison has represented the Fifth Congressional District of Minnesota in the U.S. House of Representatives since taking office on January 4, 2007. The Fifth Congressional District is the most vibrant and diverse district in Minnesota with a rich history and traditions. The Fifth District includes the City of Minneapolis and the surrounding suburbs.
LATEST NEWS
'Disturbing': Intel Chair Used Schumer Protests to Push Warrantless Spying
"If any lawmakers were still on the fence and waiting for a smoking gun, THIS IS IT," said one advocate of reforming Section 702.
Mar 12, 2024
Privacy advocates issued fresh calls for changes to a historically abused U.S. spying program on Tuesday after Wiredreported that a top Republican congressman privately tried using peaceful protests as proof of the need to block long-demanded reforms.
"If you care about the First Amendment, please stop everything and read this Wired article," Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center for Justice's Liberty & National Security Program, said on social media, sharing the piece.
Wired's Dell Cameron obtained a pair of presentation slides and spoke with multiple GOP staffers who attended a December 11 meeting with Rep. Mike Turner, the Ohio Republican who chairs the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI).
"This is ice in the heart of our democracy."
The meeting was about competing legislation to reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which allows warrantless surveillance targeting noncitizens located outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information, but also sweeps up Americans' data—and has been misused, particularly by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. One of the bills would require the FBI to get a warrant before accessing U.S. citizens' communications.
Turner—who opposes the bill with that and other reforms—reportedly displayed the slides about 15 minutes into the meeting, which latest over an hour. The first shows a photo of opponents of Israel's genocidal U.S.-backed war on the Gaza Strip protesting outside the Brooklyn residence of Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). It does not note that the October 13 action was organized by Jewish Voice for Peace.
The second slide features a social media post from Washington Free Beacon staff writer Matthew Foldi that contains misinformation suggesting Hamas—which governs Gaza and is designated as a terrorist group by the U.S. government—was tied to a November demonstration at the Democratic leader's residence. The slides do not make clear that they were different events.
"At the outset of the presentation, he's running through slides, making his case for why 702 reauthorization is needed," one senior Republican aide told Wired about Turner's presentation. "Then he throws up that photo. The framing was: 'Here are protesters outside of Chuck Schumer's house. We need to be able to use 702 to query these people.'"
As Cameron detailed:
Jeff Naft, the HPSCI spokesperson, says the purpose of the slides was to illustrate that, even if the protesters did have ties to Hamas, they would "not be subject to surveillance" under the 702 program. "702 is not used to target protestors," he says. "702 is used on foreign terrorist organizations, like Hamas. Chairman Turner's presentation was a distinction exercise to explain the difference between a U.S. person and Hamas."
Wired's sources, who are not authorized to discuss closed-door briefings and requested anonymity to do so, describe this as a conflation of two separate issues—a tactic, they say, that has become commonplace in the debate over the program's future. "Yes, it's true, you cannot 'target' protesters under 702," one aide, a legislative director for a Republican lawmaker, says. "But that doesn't mean the FBI doesn't still have the power to access those emails or listen to their calls if it wants."
In response to Wired's reporting, Goitein—who was quoted in the piece—said on social media that "if any lawmakers were still on the fence and waiting for a smoking gun, THIS IS IT. Turner has made the stakes crystal clear. A vote to reauthorize Section 702 without a warrant requirement is a vote to allow the FBI to keep tabs on protesters exercising [First Amendment] rights."
"HPSCI leaders are reportedly trying to persuade congressional leaders to slip a Section 702 reauthorization into one of the upcoming funding bills," she pointed out. "Lawmakers must be given the opportunity to vote on Section 702 reforms, including a warrant requirement and other critical protections for Americans' civil liberties. Our First Amendment rights depend on it."
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) abruptly delayed action on Section 702 last month after Turner announced that the HPSCI had provided members of Congress with "information concerning a serious national security threat," which news outlets reported was that Russia has made alarming progress on a space-based nuclear weapon designed to target U.S. satellites. Critics called it a ploy by the chair to force through the spying program and demanded his immediate resignation.
Among the groups that pressured Turner to step down last month was Demand Progress, a longtime supporter of Section 702 reforms whose policy director, Sean Vitka, was also quoted in Wired's piece and issued a statement about the "disturbing" revelations.
"This is ice in the heart of our democracy," Vitka said. "Americans' right to protest is sacred, and all the more critical given the political volatility 2024 is certain to produce. As intelligence agencies and congressional intelligence committees mislead the public about what's at stake in this fight for privacy, Chairman Turner has been secretly selling his colleagues on backdoor searches of Americans as a way to help the FBI spy on protesters without so much as a court order."
Calling for "a forceful response" from Schumer, Johnson, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), he argued that "Congress must stop letting the House Intelligence Committee dictate its agenda by secretly vetoing any meaningful reform. In the coming weeks, Congress has the opportunity to enact meaningful privacy protections that would protect protesters and all people in the United States from warrantless surveillance, specifically by closing the backdoor search and data broker loopholes."
Jeramie Scott, senior counsel and director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, also weighed in on the reporting.
"Americans exercising their constitutional right to protest have a right to be free from warrantless surveillance. There should be no suggestion that foreign intelligence authorities can be used to target protestors; that would be counter to our core American values," Scott said. "This discussion is one more example of why Congress must pass a warrant requirement to ensure that these searches are not subject to abuse."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Columbia Sued Over 'Retaliatory' Suspension of Pro-Palestine Student Groups
"Universities should be havens for robust debate, discussion, and learning—not sites of censorship where administrators, donors, and politicians squash political discourse they don't approve of," said the head of the NYCLU.
Mar 12, 2024
The New York Civil Liberties Union and Palestine Legal on Tuesday filed a lawsuit on behalf of members of two pro-Palestine student groups at Columbia University which avocates say were illegally suspended for engaging in peaceful protests and other events protected under the First Amendment.
The suit—filed on behalf of the Columbia chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP)—seeks the groups' reinstatement. Under pressure from people including wealthy pro-Israel donors, Columbia officials unilaterally
suspended the school's JVP and SJP chapters in November, claiming the groups repeatedly held "unauthorized" events including protests and teach-ins since October 7, when Hamas-led attacks on Israel prompted genocidal retaliation against the people of Gaza.
"Universities should be havens for robust debate, discussion, and learning—not sites of censorship where administrators, donors, and politicians squash political discourse they don't approve of," NYCLU executive director Donna Lieberman said in a statement.
"These student groups were peacefully speaking out on a critical global conflict, only to have Columbia University ignore their own longstanding, existing rules and abruptly suspend the organizations," Lieberman added. "That's retaliatory, it's targeted, and it flies in the face of the free speech principles that institutes of higher learning should be defending. Students protesting at private colleges still have the right to fair, equal treatment—and we are ready to fight that battle in court."
Maryam Alwan, an organizer with Columbia's SJP chapter, said that "Ivy League institutions should not attract students who value justice and equality if they do not want to be held accountable for the ideals that they claim to uphold."
"As a Palestinian American student, I should have the same right to speak out on my campus as everyone else—and no amount of targeted policy changes or illegitimate suspensions will prevent us from advocating for the Palestinian people," Alwan added.
Cameron Jones, a JVP organizer at the school, argued that "Columbia must protect all Jewish students and voices, not just those adhering to a specific political belief."
"The university's decision to suspend a Jewish group sets a concerning precedent for safeguarding free speech on college campuses," Jones added. "It not only took away our rights as a club, but told us that our university does not support or respect anti-Zionist Jews or their beliefs."
Palestine Legal staff attorney Radhika Sainath noted that "for decades, Columbia students have been at the forefront of speaking out against segregation, war, and apartheid and SJP and JVP sit squarely in this tradition."
"It is precisely because these principled students pose a threat to the status quo that they are being targeted for McCarthyist censorship, but the law does not allow it," Sainath asserted. "Universities must abide by their own rules and may not punish student groups speaking out for Palestinian rights in the moment when they are most essential—even if donors and lobby groups complain."
"For decades, Columbia students have been at the forefront of speaking out against segregation, war, and apartheid and SJP and JVP sit squarely in this tradition."
The Columbia suspensions came amid a nationwide campus crackdown on criticizing Israel or advocating for Palestinian rights. Some students have fought back. In November, the University of Florida SJP chapter sued state education officials and Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis over their move to deactivate the group over its support for Palestinians' legally enshrined right to resist Israeli occupation, apartheid, and other crimes.
Conversely, five Jewish students and two organizations last month sued Columbia and Barnard College alleging "particularly severe and pervasive" campus antisemitism, while a Jewish student at Columbia's School of Social Work filed a separate discrimination lawsuit last month.
There has been a dramatic increase in reports acts of both antisemitism and Islamophbia on U.S. campuses and in wider society since October 7.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Jewish Progressives Stage Sit-In at Hakeem Jeffries' Office to Protest AIPAC Influence
"Our Jewish communities are rising up to say, 'Never again is now,'" said organizers.
Mar 12, 2024
Sharpening their focus on the influence that pro-Israel lobbyists have had for decades on U.S. policy regarding Palestinians, Jewish progressives on Tuesday held a sit-in at the Capitol Hill office of U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, one of the largest recipients of campaign funds from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
The protesters, who are members of Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) Action, prominently displayed a sign reading, "AIPAC gave $829,835 to Hakeem Jeffries, who opposes cease-fire," before proceeding to the New York Democrat's office.
The sign referred to AIPAC's contributions to Jeffries throughout his career.
"Our Jewish communities are rising up to say, 'Never again is now,'" said JVP Action. "We refuse to be bystanders as the Israeli government wages a genocidal campaign in our name and funding by U.S. tax dollars."
At the sit-in, the organizers held signs saying, "AIPAC funds genocide" and, "Jeffries: Reject AIPAC."
Israel has killed at least 31,184 Palestinians since it began its U.S.-backed bombardment of Gaza in October, and at least 25 people have died of starvation due to Israel's blockade on nearly all humanitarian aid. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East said Tuesday that more children have been killed in Gaza in the last four months than the number of children killed worldwide in wars over the last four years.
JVP Action is among several rights groups that announced a new coalition, Reject AIPAC, on Monday. AIPAC and its political action committee are planning to spend $100 million this election year to unseat lawmakers it views as insufficiently supportive of Israel.
As JVP Action noted Tuesday, while Democratic lawmakers who continue to back Israel's assault on Gaza may retain the support of AIPAC, they are out of step with Democratic voters, 77% of whom are demanding the U.S. call for a cease-fire in Gaza.
"If members of Congress vote to send Israel more bombs and weapons now, it's because AIPAC demands it," Justice Democrats, another member of the coalition, said Monday. "Reject AIPAC because Palestinian lives should matter more to our leaders than campaign checks."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular



