Defense News: Schumer & Pelosi have 9 days to end the Yemen war

Defense News says Schumer & Pelosi have 9 days to end the Yemen war in 2019.
Share this post at Daily Kos

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Defense News reports that Congressional leaders hope to draft a compromise House-Senate conference report on the National Defense Authorization Act [“NDAA”], the bill that funds the Pentagon and its contractors, by September 19. That would imply that there’s at most 9 days left to convince the Democratic Congressional leadership to make ending U.S. participation in the Saudi war in Yemen a top priority in House-Senate negotiations. The House voted to prohibit further U.S. participation in the war when it passed the Smith-Khanna-Schiff-Jayapal amendment to the NDAA. The Senate hasn’t yet voted on this amendment, because Mitch McConnell hasn’t yet allowed it to do so. 

Because the NDAA funds the Pentagon and its contractors like Boeing, Raytheon, and Lockheed Martin, it is uniquely perceived in Washington as a “must pass,” “veto proof” bill. Congress already voted to prohibit U.S. unconstitutional participation in the Saudi war in Yemen when it passed the Bernie Sanders-Mike Lee-Chris Murphy Yemen War Powers Resolution, but Trump vetoed that bill. Congress already voted to stop arming the Saudi war in Yemen when it passed resolutions of disapproval against Trump’s Saudi-UAE arms deals, but Trump vetoed those as well. What’s different about the NDAA is that it’s very hard for Trump to veto, because if Trump vetoed the bill then the Pentagon would not get our tax dollars until Congress and Trump came to agreement. Unless Trump has stopped caring about keeping our tax dollars flowing to Boeing, Raytheon, and Lockheed Martin – who believes that? - it’s very unlikely that Trump will veto the bill, even if Congress uses the bill to end the Yemen war. It’s very unlikely that Trump will want to go on TV and explain to Americans that he had to veto the bill that “funds the troops” because he insists on continuing to unconstitutionally help the Saudi regime starve Yemeni children to death. 

As the Washington Post reported, a bipartisan group of Senators and Representatives including Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Adam Schiff, Mark Pocan, and Matt Gaetz is urging Congressional leaders to include the Smith-Khanna amendment in the version of the NDAA it sends to Trump. “Now we must use Congress’s power of the purse to block every nickel of taxpayer money from going to assist the Saudi dictatorship as it bombs and starves civilians in Yemen,” Sanders said.

Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed formally heads the Senate Democratic side of the negotiations, because he is the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Reed has promised activists in Rhode Island that he will make ending the Saudi war in Yemen a top priority in the negotiations. But so far, Majority Leader Schumer and Speaker Pelosi have no made public commitment like Jack Reed has to prioritize ending the Yemen war on NDAA. 

This is why we need to pull out the stops in the next 9 days to pin down Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi on making public commitments like the one Jack Reed made. Some people may try to tell you that you have no say in this if you don’t live in New York or San Francisco. But Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi are now acting in their capacity as leaders of all Democrats in America, so it must be the case that we all have a say. 

Their phone numbers are below. When you reach a staffer or leave a message, you can say something like: 

”I urge you to make a public commitment like the one Jack Reed made to prioritize ending the Saudi war in Yemen on NDAA.” 

Please report your phone calls to Schumer and Pelosi in the comments below this post at Daily Kos to inspire others to call. And if you get or find a commitment from Schumer or Pelosi to make ending the Yemen war a priority on NDAA like the one Jack Reed made, please note that in CAPS.

Chuck Schumer: 

DC: (202) 224-6542

Albany: (518) 431-4070

Binghamton: (607) 772-6792

Buffalo: (716) 846-4111

NYC: (212) 486-4430

Rochester: (585) 263-5866

Syracuse: (315) 423-5471

Nancy Pelosi:

DC: (202) 225-4965

San Francisco: (415) 556-4862

Thanks for all you do to help U.S. foreign policy become more just,

Robert Naiman
Just Foreign Policy



If you think our work is important, please make a donation to support it.http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate

© 2019 Just Foreign Policy

Jack Reed's other excuse for starving Yemeni children

Use the Demand Progress number to tell Jack Reed to end the Yemen war:

202-899-8938

Report your call & share this post.

Yesterday I responded to one of Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed’s excuses for continuing to enable the starvation of Yemeni children by the Saudi regime: there’s no point in trying to cut off U.S. participation in Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen in the National Defense Authorization Act, Jack Reed claims, because Trump might veto the bill. I noted that it is extremely unlikely that Trump will veto the NDAA because the NDAA “funds the troops,” and it would be extremely bad press for Trump to veto the bill that “funds the troops” over a stubborn desire to keep helping the Saudi regime starve Yemeni children to death. I also noted that even if Trump did veto the NDAA, the Earth would not stop spinning on its axis. It would just be another round in the negotiation between Congress and Trump over the provisions of the bill. At the end of the day, Congress is going to fund the Pentagon and its contractors in a bill that Trump will sign. Who believes that Congress and Trump won’t eventually come to an agreement so that Boeing, Raytheon, and Lockheed Martin can keep gorging themselves on our tax dollars? Be serious. 

Today we will consider another Jack Reed excuse for not doing his job: “Now that the UAE is pulling out of the war, the Saudis will have to end the war anyway.”  

It is certainly true that even if Congress does nothing, the war will eventually end. Wars don’t go on forever. Its war in Yemen is costing the Saudi regime money and it’s costing the Saudi regime business deals. In a wide swath of humanity, its war and blockade in Yemen have made the Saudi regime politically radioactive. 

But this sort of “therapeutic nihilism” is not how Members of the United States Congress, whose salaries we pay with our tax dollars, are supposed to view their Constitutional responsibilities. The NDAA is a unique opportunity to end the war. The next such opportunity will come roughly twelve months from now. Twelve months is a long time to continue enabling the Saudi regime to starve Yemeni children to death. 

The UAE isn’t pulling out of the war because they recently had a spiritual conversion experience. They’re pulling out of the war because of international pressure. “Power concedes nothing without a demand.” The Emiratis are tired of being blamed for helping enable the Saudi bombing and blockade. The Emiratis care more than the Saudi regime does about their international reputation. If you’re watching Serena Williams play tennis in the U.S. Open, you may have noticed the words “Emirates Airlines” over her shoulder as she prepares to serve. Emirates Airlines is wholly owned by the UAE government. Every time you see those words, you’re watching an ad for the UAE government, like the swoosh on Serena Williams’ jersey is an advertisement for Nike. A government spending money to advertise itself in the U.S. Open is a government that cares more about its international reputation than the Saudi regime does. 

Every movement in the Trump Administration’s involvement in the Saudi war on Yemen came about as a result of Congressional pressure. The Trump Administration “voluntarily” stopped refueling Saudi warplanes bombing Yemen just before the Senate voted to prohibit it. Now the Trump Administration is talking about opening talks with the Houthis to end the war. Why is this happening now? Because Congress is poised to end the war if it includes the House-passed Smith-Khanna-Schiff-Jayapal amendment in the NDAA that is sent to Trump. 

Have you ever helped organize a union? I helped organize three of them. Here’s a pattern: when the boss thinks the union is on the cusp of organizing a majority of the workers, Mr. Mean may suddenly become Mr. Nice. You guys don’t need a union. We can solve all our problems by Working Together. The boss is trying to pick off enough swing voters to defeat the union organizing drive. If the union organizing drive is defeated, Mr. Mean will soon return. 

This is what will happen if Congress passes up its unique opportunity to end the Yemen war on NDAA. The Trump Administration will lose interest in ending the war through diplomacy. The war will drag on for another year. And the Saudi regime will starve more Yemeni children to death. 

Call Jack Reed now at 202-899-8938. This phone number, set up by Demand Progress, connects you first to Jack Reed’s DC office, then to his two Rhode Island offices in succession, finally to the office of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Of course you can stop whenever you want. A script is suggested that you can follow. Here’s what I said when I made my calls:

“I’m calling to urge that Senator Reed ensure that the NDAA that is sent to Trump includes the Smith-Khanna-Schiff amendment to end U.S. participation in the Saudi war in Yemen that passed the House.” 

Only one of the four people I talked to asked for my “address in Rhode Island.” I cheerfully gave my address in Illinois. The staffer accepted it without complaint. 

A good thing about using the Demand Progress number — 202-899-8938 - is that it allows Demand Progress to say that X number of people have called Reed and told him to end the war on NDAA. The last I heard, Reed’s office was getting fifty calls a day. Let’s try to get that up to a hundred. Please also report your call in the comments below this post, to help inspire others to call. Then please share the post. 

Thanks for all you do to help U.S. foreign policy become more just,

Robert Naiman
Just Foreign Policy

If you think our work is important, please make a donation to support it.http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate

House: Defund U.S. Participation in Yemen War

Urge your Rep. to back the Khanna-Schiff amendment to defund the Yemen war.Report your call / Share our action alert

On Tuesday afternoon the House Rules Committee will consider whether to allow a floor vote on Amendment 339 to the National Defense Authorization Act. The amendment, led by California Rep. Ro Khanna and House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff, defunds U.S. participation in the Saudi-led war in Yemen. 

The Khanna-Schiff amendment seeks to enforce the Bernie Sanders-Mike Lee-Chris Murphy Yemen War Powers Resolution passed by Congress and vetoed by President Trump. The Khanna-Schiff amendment does this in three key ways:

• it attaches the Sanders-Lee-Murphy prohibition to the “must-pass,” hard-to-veto NDAA, which “funds the troops”;
• it makes clear Congressional intent that prohibiting unconstitutional participation in the war includes prohibiting the provision of intelligence for targeting Saudi-UAE airstrikes;
• it prohibits the provision of spare parts to the Saudi-UAE war. 

In a just and more perfect world, we’ll be able to assume that amendments like the Khanna-Schiff amendment will be considered and adopted by the Democratic-controlled House. If past is prologue, we don’t live in that world yet. Therefore, I ask you to call your Representative now and urge them to co-sponsor, speak out for and vote for the Khanna-Schiff amendment on Yemen, to ensure that the Khanna-Schiff amendment receives a floor vote and that we win that vote decisively to help end the war. 

The Congressional switchboard is 202-225-3121. When you speak to a staffer or leave a message, you can say something like:

“I urge you to co-sponsor, speak out for and vote for the Khanna-Schiff amendment to end all U.S. participation in the Saudi-UAE war in Yemen. The lives of Yemeni kids are hanging on your vote.” 

When you’ve made your call, please report it in the comments at this post on Daily Kos, to inspire others to call. 

And, if you can't call, or if you're 100% sure that calling your particular Rep. is futile, then please share our post at Daily Kos to inspire others to call. 

Thanks for all you do to help make U.S. foreign policy more just, 

Sarah Burns, Hassan El-Tayyab, and Robert Naiman
Just Foreign Policy

If you think our work is important, please make a donation to support it.
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate

© 2019 Just Foreign Policy

House: Defund Unconstitutional U.S. Participation in Saudi-UAEWar in Yemen

On Tuesday afternoon the House Rules Committee will consider whether to allow a floor vote on Amendment 339 to the National Defense Authorization Act. The amendment, led by California Rep. Ro Khanna and House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff, defunds U.S. participation in the Saudi-led war in Yemen.

The Khanna-Schiff amendment seeks to enforce the Bernie Sanders-Mike Lee-Chris Murphy Yemen War Powers Resolution passed by Congress and vetoed by President Trump. The Khanna-Schiff amendment does this in three key ways:
it attaches the Sanders-Lee-Murphy prohibition to the “must-pass,” hard-to-veto NDAA, which “funds the troops”;
it makes clear Congressional intent that prohibiting unconstitutional participation in the war includes prohibiting the provision of intelligence for targeting Saudi-UAE airstrikes;
it prohibits the provision of spare parts to the Saudi-UAE war.
In a just and more perfect world, we’ll be able to assume that amendments like the Khanna-Schiff amendment will be considered and adopted by the Democratic-controlled House. If past is prologue, we don’t live in that world yet. Therefore, I ask you to call your Representative now and urge them to co-sponsor, speak out for and vote for the Khanna-Schiff amendment on Yemen, to ensure that the Khanna-Schiff amendment receives a floor vote and that we win that vote decisively to help end the war. The Congressional switchboard is 202-225-3121. When you speak to a staffer or leave a message, you can say something like: “I urge you to co-sponsor, speak out for and vote for the Khanna-Schiff amendment to end all U.S. participation in the Saudi-UAE war in Yemen. The lives of Yemeni kids are hanging on your vote.”

When you’ve made your call, please report it below in the comments.

Tell Eliot Engel: "Limited Strike" == "Act of War"

Tell Eliot Engel he must acknowledge that a "limited strike" is an "act of war."
Sign the petition 

On Sunday, Bernie Sanders was on Face the Nation. CBS employee Margaret Brennan asked Bernie about Trump’s aborted strike on Iran, and then chastised Bernie for referring to the aborted “limited strike” as “war,” to which Bernie strenuously objected. You have to watch a clip to get the full effect. But here is a transcript of the exchange:
 
MARGARET BRENNAN: He was just doing a limited strike.
 
SEN. SANDERS: Oh, just a limited strike - well, I'm sor-ry. I just didn't know that it's okay to simply attack another country with bombs with just a limited strike - that's an act of warfare.

On a normal planet, Bernie Sanders would deserve zero credit for the observation that a “limited strike” is an act of war. Can you get an A in Algebra outside of Lake Wobegon for knowing that two plus two is four? Can you patent the Sun? But apparently Planet Washington is not a normal planet: the top foreign policy Democrat in the House has not yet won this most trivial insight. Here is Eliot Engel, Chair of the powerful House Foreign Affairs Committee, talking to Jake Tapper of CNN the day after the aborted strike:
 
JAKE TAPPER: "You think the President needs to come to Congress to get the authority to strike Iran if he wants to?"
 
ELIOT ENGEL: "Oh, absolutely. I think the President needs to come to Congress if ... going to war with Iran. I mean, individual strike, we don't want to tie the President's hands. But in terms of going to war, we're a co-equal branch of government, it's very important that Congress have a say in it." 
 
According to Eliot Engel, Democratic chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, an "individual strike" on Iran does not equal "going to war." If we're "going to war," the President needs to come to Congress for authority, Congress is a co-equal branch of government, and it's very important that Congress have a say in it. But in the case of an "individual strike," the President does not need to come to Congress for authorization, Congress is not a "co-equal branch of government," and it is not very important that Congress have a say in it. In the case of an "individual strike," Congress has no business trying to prohibit,” because that would "tie the President's hands."
 
This is basically the same worldview that CBS’ Margaret Brennan was trying to push on Bernie Sanders: an “individual” or “limited” strike is a nothingburger, “wafer thin,” not something that Congress should concern itself with.
 
As an individual, Eliot Engel is entitled to his own personal views, like any other American. He voted for the Iraq war, when most Democrats were against it. He voted against the Iran deal, when most Democrats were for it. He voted to keep sending cluster bombs to the Saudi regime to use in Yemen, even after Obama stopped doing it.
 
But as Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Eliot Engel is representing House Democrats to the White House on key issues of war and peace. There was a small classified briefing for “Congressional leaders” in the White House Situation Room on Thursday, the day of the aborted strike. Eliot Engel, as Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, was at the meeting, supposedly representing the views and interests of House Democrats, not his own personal views. We don’t know exactly what Eliot Engel said or didn’t say in this meeting, because the meeting was “classified.” But we do know that Eliot Engel told Jake Tapper on national TV the next day that an “individual strike” was no big whoop. It’s hard to imagine that Eliot Engel was better than that in the secret meeting.
 
And this is why it’s urgent that Eliot Engel must change his line on this if he’s going to continue serving as the Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and concede that an "individual strike" is an "act of war."
 
Urge your representatives in Congress to tell Eliot Engel that a “limited strike” on Iran would be an act of war requiring specific prior Congressional authorization by signing our petition. 

Thanks for all you do to help make U.S. foreign policy more just, 

Sarah Burns, Hassan El-Tayyab, and Robert Naiman
Just Foreign Policy

If you think our work is important, please make a donation to support it.
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate

© 2019 Just Foreign Policy

Senate Votes No on Saudi Arms - Engel Must Follow on NDAA

The Senate has voted to block the Trump-Pompeo move to cram through Saudi-UAE arms deals with the fake Iran emergency delcaration.

Now Eliot Engel, the top foreign policy Dem in the House, must include this prohibition in the "must pass" National Defense Authorization Act.
Vote in the poll at Daily Kos 

The Senate voted today against the Saudi-UAE arms deals that Trump and Pompeo are trying to cram through with the fake Iran emergency declaration. This is a step towards ending the Saudi-UAE war in Yemen, which has created the worst humanitarian crisis in the world, with the Saudi regime deliberately trying to push the civilian population of Yemen into famine, as Chris Murphy noted on the Senate floor two years ago.

The House Democratic leadership has promised to follow the Senate’s lead. If past is prologue, Trump will veto. Senators can force an override vote, but may not be able reach 67 votes to override.

But even if the Senate can’t find 67 votes to override, there’s another path to prohibiting these arms deals, which is to cram whatever passes the Senate and the House into the “must pass” National Defense Authorization Act when the House considers NDAA on the floor in July. So – contrary to what a lot of the press is implying, including NYT– it’s not the end of the road if the Senate doesn’t reach 67 votes against the arms deals. The road can continue by the House passing the same resolutions of disapproval as the Senate and then by cramming those prohibitions into the NDAA.

This would still leave the problem of attaching these prohibitions to NDAA in the Senate. McConnell threatens to block any “controversial” NDAA amendment, and McConnell’s definition of “controversial” includes “anything opposed by Trump.” And it still leaves the problem of what happens in the POTUS vs. Congress endgame on NDAA.

But: Trump has already thrown down a veto threat on the DoD appropriations bill that just passed the House. Why not add Saudi-UAE arms deal prohibitions to the veto-bait Christmas tree? There is nothing to lose. It's got as much right to be there as the veto-bait that's already there.

Eventually the government will stay open or re-open. Eventually the House, the Senate, and the White House will come to a deal. When they reach a deal, we'll get to see what Democrats fought for in the deal and what they didn't fight for. More Republicans will have voted for restrictions on U.S. participation in the Saudi-UAE war in Yemen than other things that Democrats will fight for. 

Therefore, it should be easier for Congressional Democratic leaders to win on this in the endgame than it is for them to win on other things. If they win on other things but not on this, we’ll know that Democratic leaders, especially Eliot Engel, the top foreign policy Democrat in the House, didn’t care about this very much.

Here’s the first step: we need to get the House Democratic leadership – especially House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Eliot Engel - to commit to pass the Senate resolutions of disapproval on the Saudi-UAE arms deals immediately and to attach these prohibitions to NDAA in July.

If you agree, vote yes in the poll at Daily Kos.

Thanks for all you do to help make U.S. foreign policy more just, 

Sarah Burns, Hassan El-Tayyab, and Robert Naiman
Just Foreign Policy

If you think our work is important, please make a donation to support it.
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate

© 2019 Just Foreign Policy

Let's cut the Pentagon budget by $200 billion a year

Urge Congress to cut the Pentagon by $200 billion.
Sign the petition

More than half of our federal income tax dollars go to military spending, one way or another. That’s helped produce the skewed national priorities that President Eisenhower warned about. It’s a key reason that it’s been so hard to end U.S. participation in the Saudi-UAE war in Yemen. President Trump told 60 Minutes that we have to keep arming Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates because of Boeing, Raytheon, and Lockheed Martin. These Pentagon contractors and others lobby both Republicans and Democrats in Washington to throw more of our tax dollars at wars and military spending. The money they use to lobby both parties to get more of our tax dollars for more war came from our tax dollars in the first place. We have to stop this cycle of theft and destruction.
A big coalition of groups is joining together to push Congress to cut the Pentagon by $200 billion a year. If we can get more Members of Congress to say it, maybe we can even get Presidential candidates to say it - after all, a bunch of the Presidential candidates are Members of Congress.
You can sign the joint petition here.


Thanks for all you do to help make U.S. foreign policy more just, 

Sarah Burns, Hassan El-Tayyab, and Robert Naiman
Just Foreign Policy

If you think our work is important, please make a donation to support it.
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate

© 2019 Just Foreign Policy

Dick Durbin: Tell America what Biden knew before he voted for the Iraq war

Urge Dick Durbin to tell the American people about his conversation with Joe Biden before Biden voted for the Iraq war.Sign the petition

In March 2003, the George W. Bush Administration led the United States to war in Iraq under false pretenses. The Bush Administration claimed that Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction.” It did not. The Bush Administration claimed that Iraq was threatening the United States. It was not. The Bush Administration claimed that Iraq was implicated in the 9/11 attacks. That was also a lie.

Consistent with Article I of the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973, the war had been authorized by Congress in October 2002. The authorization for the use of military force is here. The Senate roll call is here. The House roll call is here. Of course, the purpose of requiring Congress to vote - that the elected representatives of the American people decide in public view - is undermined if the vote is based on lies that were known by Members of Congress to be lies at the time. 

Many Democrats still prominent in public political life voted against the war. Dick Durbin voted no. Bernie Sanders voted no. Robert Menendez voted no. Jack Reed voted no. Nancy Pelosi voted no. Ben Cardin voted no. Patrick Leahy voted no. Patty Murray voted no. Debbie Stabenow voted no. Ron Wyden voted no.

Many Democrats still prominent in public life voted for the war. Joe Biden voted yes. Chuck Schumer voted yes. Steny Hoyer voted yes. Eliot Engel voted yes. Adam Smith voted yes. Adam Schiff voted yes.

On April 25, 2007, Dick Durbin gave a remarkable speech on the Senate floor. He said that at the time of the vote, he knew as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee that the Bush Administration’s public case for war did not match the U.S. intelligence he was seeing as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. 

On the Senate floor, Durbin said:

“At the time of this debate [on the 2002 Iraq AUMF], I was a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. I would read the headlines in the paper in the morning and watch the television newscasts and shake my head because, you see, just a few hundred feet away from here in a closed room, carefully guarded, the Intelligence Committee was meeting on a daily basis for top-secret briefings about the information we were receiving, and the information we had in the Intelligence Committee was not the same information being given to the American people... 

“I was angry about it. Frankly, I couldn’t do much about it because, in the Intelligence Committee, we are sworn to secrecy. We can’t walk outside the door and say the statement made yesterday by the White House is in direct contradiction to classified information that is being given to this Congress. We can’t do that. We couldn’t make those statements. So in my frustration, I sat on the floor of the Senate and listened to this heated debate about invading Iraq thinking the American people are being misled, they are not being told the truth. That is why I joined 22 of my colleagues in voting no. I didn’t believe at the time that the American people knew the real facts.”

When Durbin gave this speech, people asked: if you knew so at the time, why didn’t you say anything at the time? Durbin said in response - as he had in his speech - the U.S. intelligence was classified. As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, he was not supposed to share it - with the public or the media.

Durbin’s answer to this natural follow-up question needs to be revisited, because the natural follow-up question implicated other Democrats, many of them still in Congress or prominent in public political life.

Let's stipulate that it was not Durbin’s job to go to the New York Times like Daniel Ellsberg went to the New York Times when he leaked the Pentagon Papers, exposing Pentagon lies about the Vietnam War.

It was Durbin’s job to tell other Members of Congress. That is the point of having an Intelligence Committee. The intelligence may have been “classified” from the public and the press, but it was not classified from other Members of Congress.

Given Durbin's vote, given Durbin's speech, it is reasonable to infer that Durbin told other Members of Congress. If Dick Durbin told anyone, he told Senate Democrats. If he told any Senate Democrats, he told the Democratic chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

Joe Biden.   

It is reasonable to infer that Joe Biden knew what Dick Durbin knew. 

This matters now, because a key question on the table is: will we ever be allowed to change America so that crimes like this never happen again? There was never any real accountability for the Iraq war. And that’s a key reason why the crime was repeated in Libya, Syria, and Yemen.    

Urge Dick Durbin to tell the American people about his conversation with Joe Biden before Biden voted for the Iraq war by signing our petition.

Thanks for all you do to help make U.S. foreign policy more just, 

Sarah Burns, Hassan El-Tayyab, and Robert Naiman
Just Foreign Policy

© 2019 Just Foreign Policy

Congress: Save Yemen & Article I: Pass "Concurrent Resolution" to end Saudi war

There's a path in the War Powers Resolution to end the Yemen war without Trump's signature.

Urge Congress to pass a concurrent resolution to end the war.

On May 2, the Senate failed to override Trump’s “veto” of the Bernie Sanders – Mike Lee – Chris Murphy joint resolution to end unconstitutional U.S. participation in the Saudi war in Yemen. 53 Senators voted yes, including all Democrats voting and seven Republicans. [Democratic Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado missed the vote.] But 67 votes were required to override the “veto.”
 
In his statement following the vote, Senator Bernie Sanders said:
 
“The bad news today: we were unable today to override Trump’s veto regarding U.S. intervention in this horrific war in Yemen. The good news: for the first time in 45 years, Congress used the War Powers Act to reassert its constitutional responsibility over the use of armed forces. Let me be clear: this is the beginning of a bipartisan process to take back our responsibility over these most important matters. My likeminded colleagues and I, in a bipartisan fashion, will utilize all of the legislative tools at our disposal—including further use of the War Powers Act."
 
There’s another path in the War Powers Resolution to ending the Yemen war: for Congress to pass a concurrent resolution, rather than a joint resolution, to end the war. The difference between a concurrent resolution and a joint resolution is that a concurrent resolution isn’t subject to a presidential veto.    
 
There are two key reasons that this should happen now:
 
One reason this is urgent is that, if past is prologue, every means of trying to end the war that doesn’t use the War Powers Resolution is likely to take at least five months, and that means that many, many more Yemenis will die. Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy recently met with the UN and aid groups working in Yemen. He reported on the Senate floor:
  
[...]
Sen. Christopher S. Murphy, D-Conn., who spent part of the Easter recess on a congressional trip to the Middle East, said he met in Amman, Jordan, with a delegation of the major humanitarian aid groups working in Yemen and was alarmed by what he was told. “Today in Yemen, there are 250,000 Yemenis who are so malnourished and so sick that they are beyond saving, they will die,” Murphy said from the Senate floor. “Another 10 million are on the cusp of entering that category.”
[...]

The second reason this is urgent is, if Congress now concedes that Article I of the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution are no longer relevant, that would imply that Trump could now bomb wherever he wants until Congress cuts off the money. He could bomb Venezuela, he could bomb Iran, he could bomb wherever he wants, until Congress cuts off the money, if now Congress concedes that Article I of the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution are no longer relevant.
 
Urge Congress to pass a concurrent resolution now to end unconstitutional U.S. participation in the Saudi war in Yemen by signing our petition.

Thanks for all you do to help make U.S. foreign policy more just, 

Robert Reuel Naiman
Just Foreign Policy

If you think our work is important, please make a donation to support it.
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate

© 2019 Just Foreign Policy

SenateGOP: Override "Veto" of "JASTA for Children of Yemen"

 Tell Senate Republicans to "override" the "veto."

Sign the petition

In mid-April, President Trump “vetoed” [sic] the bipartisan Mike Lee - Bernie Sanders - Chris Murphy Yemen War Powers Act Congress passed to end unconstitutional U.S. participation in the despotic Saudi regime’s war and blockade on children in Yemen. The Saudi regime’s war on Yemeni children, which began in March 2015 under the Obama-Biden Administration, has strengthened the most dangerous branch of the Al Qaeda terrorists who attacked our homeland on 9/11/2001, killing three thousand innocent American civilians - the Yemeni branch, which the Saudi regime has actively supported. The Saudi regime’s war in Yemen has also deliberately created the worst humanitarian crisis in the world. A recent UN report says the death toll from the Saudi regime’s war will pass 230,000 by end of this year. Aid groups say 85,000 children have been starved to death so far by the Saudi regime’s war and blockade.
 
As Iraq war veteran and senior writer David French pointed out at the William F. Buckley-founded National Review, not only is U.S. participation in the Saudi regime’s war in Yemen unconstitutional, but Trump’s so-called “veto” is also unconstitutional. Under the War Powers Clause of Article I of the Constitution, re-affirmed by Section 2c of the War Powers Resolution in 1973, the Congress of the United States - not this President, nor the last one, nor the next one - decides when the U.S. uses military force. As David French correctly noted [my bold, his italics]:
 
“Moreover, even Trump’s veto is an unconstitutional act. A declaration of war requires an affirmative act of Congress. A bipartisan majority’s rejection of American participation in the Yemeni conflict is anything but an affirmation. And when the Constitution requires congressional affirmation, then congressional rejection can’t be vetoed by the president.”   
 
This week, the Senate is expected to vote on “overriding” Trump’s so-called “veto” of the Mike Lee – Bernie Sanders – Chris Murphy Yemen War Powers Act. A two-thirds vote is needed to “override.” That means it’s all up to Senate Republicans now.
 
There is a key historical precedent for what Senate Republicans are now being asked to do: when the Senate overrode President Obama’s veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act [JASTA], the law which enabled family members of victims of the Al Qaeda terrorist attacks on our homeland on 9/11/2001 to sue the despotic Saudi regime in U.S. courts for the Saudi regime’s complicity in the 9/11 attacks. The Senate vote on the override of the Obama-Biden attempt to prevent the 9/11 families from getting their day in court against the Saudi regime was 97-1. Only Democrat Harry Reid voted no. Every Senate Republican voted to override the Obama-Biden attempt to protect the despotic Saudi regime from U.S. justice.
 
Urge Senate Republicans to do the right thing now by signing our petition. Remember 9/11. Bring the Saudi regime to justice. Override the “veto” of "JASTA for the children of Yemen."

Thanks for all you do to help U.S. foreign policy become more just,

Robert Reuel Naiman
Just Foreign Policy
If you think our work is important, please make a donation to support it.I've been told that $18 is lucky.
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate

© 2019 Just Foreign Policy

VOTE THURSDAY: Save 30,000 Yemenis from the Saudi Regime

Call your Senators:
202-225-3121

Report your calls in the comments below my post at Daily Kos, to inspire others to call

The last report Tuesday evening from DC was that a vote was expected in the Senate Thursday afternoon on overriding Trump’s “veto” of the Bernie Sanders – Mike Lee – Chris Murphy Yemen War Powers Resolution to end unconstitutional U.S. participation in the Saudi war-blockade-famine on children in Yemen. 

If that’s all you needed to know, please call your two Senators now at 202-225-3121 and urge them to vote to override the “veto.” When you’ve made your calls, please report them in the comments below this post, in part to report what happened, and in part to inspire other people to call. Note that the first comment is from me. I made my two calls. You can too. I’m not asking you to do anything I didn’t do. 

[I put “veto” in quotes because under Article I of the Constitution, reaffirmed by the War Powers Resolution in 1973, Congress, not the President, decides when to use U.S. military force, so if Congress says U.S. participation in the war is unconstitutional and should stop, which it did when it passed the Sanders-Lee-Murphy resolution, that should be the end of the matter, and Trump’s so-called “veto” was unconstitutional. But the question on the table right now is the Senate vote to override.] 

The distance from our slingshot to the Goliath of the Saudi war in Yemen on the override vote is not small. In order to win the override vote, we need all the Democrats to vote again with us, plus the seven Republicans who voted with us in March, plus a bunch of other Republicans. 

Here’s some reasons why we should try to end the war now, although the distance to Goliath on the override vote is far: 

- If we don’t end this war now, thirty thousand more human beings in Yemen are likely to be killed by the Saudi war and blockade by the end of the year. Congress can cut off funding for the war in the Pentagon authorization/appropriations bills, which are very hard to veto, since they “fund the troops.” But those are not likely to become law until the end of the year. Meanwhile, thirty thousand more Yemenis would die, many of them from starvation and preventable disease. So we should try to end the war now. Isn’t it worth two short phone calls to DC to try to save thirty thousand lives?

- We’ve never been at this juncture before, since the War Powers Resolution was passed in 1973, so nobody can really say exactly how it goes. Senate Republicans who vote to sustain the “veto” now would be ostentatiously voting against Article I of the Constitution. 

- The fact that seven Senate Republicans voted with us last time proves that it’s not impossible for a bunch of Senate Republicans to be with us. The issue of unconstitutional war doesn’t divide neatly along partisan lines. We have Republican friends on this. We just need a bunch more of them, and we need them now. 

- Phone calls can move Members of Congress, including Republicans, on the issue of unconstitutional war. It happened in August 2013. 

- Most Republicans outside the Beltway don’t like unconstitutional war or the Saudi regime any more than most Democrats do. So it’s not like there’s big grassroots Republican punishment for Republicans in store if they vote for the Constitution and against the Saudi regime now. 

- When you call a Senate office, they don’t know if you’re a Democrat or a Republican. If a Republican Senator gets a bunch of phone calls from their district on unconstitutional war, they don’t know if they were Democrats calling. Maybe they were Republicans calling.  

Please call now: 202-225-3121. Ask your two Senators to vote to override the “veto” of the Sanders-Lee-Murphy resolution. And please report your calls in the comments below this post at Daily Kos. 

You can also sign and share our petition to Senate Republicans urging them to override the “veto,” so children in Yemen may live.  

Thanks for all you do to help make U.S. foreign policy more just, 

Robert Reuel Naiman
Just Foreign Policy

If you think our work is important, please make a donation to support it.
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate

© 2019 Just Foreign Policy