The House and Senate are now expected to reconcile their two versions of the NDAA; the House bill includes a 3 percent pay raise for troops and $3.6 billion to combat China.
„Though our amendment didn’t pass, progressive power is stronger than ever. We will keep fighting for pro-peace, pro-people budgets until it becomes a reality,“ said Rep. Mark Pocan.
The White House took issue with several other provisions of the legislation, including one that would constrain Trump’s ability to withdraw American troops from Germany and another that would limit Trump’s efforts to scale back the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan.
With overwhelming bipartisan support, the House Armed Services Committee has added a Liz Cheney-spearheaded amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which throws severe roadblocks in the Trump administration’s proposed scale-down of US military presence in Afghanistan and Germany.
As The Intercept‘s Glenn Greenwald notes, both parties advancing the amendment cited in their arguments the completely unsubstantiated intelligence leak that was recently published by credulous mass media reporters alleging that Russia has paid bounties to Taliban fighters for killing the occupying forces in Afghanistan. Yet another western imperialist agenda once again facilitated by unforgivably egregious journalistic malpractice in the mass media.
It should come as absolutely no surprise that House Democrats are finding common cause with Liz Cheney and other GOP warmongers to block any efforts to reduce even moderately the footprint of the U.S. military in the world or its decades-long posture of endless war.
„One important thing to highlight: The Trump administration was briefing the Republican conference today, and several people told me that the administration made it clear that if Senator Sanders’s and my amendment passed, then it would have prevented the Suleimani strike. Well, Senator Sanders’s and my amendment had passed two months ago and was part of the national defense authorization, until it was stripped. And the lesson is that we should have fought harder to make sure it wasn’t stripped. It would have literally prevented this entire crisis.“
You may debate whether any particular historical war worked out well for its agitators. But there should be no debate that many of America’s recent wars have ended in misery for all. Our politicians talk of war as a last resort, but that is only to keep up appearances, because the truth is too terrible to admit: that our ever-more-expensive war machine (a cost of nearly $740 billion in 2020) can buy us little peace. Rather than a last resort, war now offers no resort. War can no longer be defended as the thing to do after everything else has failed. War must instead be seen as failure itself.
“Any member who voted for the NDAA — a blank check — can’t now express dismay that Trump may have launched another war in the Middle East,” thundered Khanna. “Our Congress let our nation down again by failing to stand up against a war in Iran.”
Khanna originally included legislation in the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act that specifically would have prevented the president from carrying out Thursday’s airstrike (co-sponsored with Rep. Matt Gaetz, Republican from Florida), as did Democratic Rep. Barbara Lee.
Mr. Sanders’s speech on Friday also indicated how he might use foreign policy to separate himself from other senators who are running for president: He pointed out that he has voted against all of Mr. Trump’s military budgets, a distinction that Ms. Warren and Ms. Klobuchar cannot claim.
In both 2001 and 2002, via large majorities, the Congress passed authorizations for war. While not declarations of war, these mandates, each titled an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) provided the legal framework in 2001 for attacks against al-Qaeda and in 2002 for the invasion of Iraq. Since 2001, the first AUMF has far exceeded its original purpose and has been used to justify military strikes and operations in close to twenty countries in the Middle East, Africa and Asia, often against nations, organizations, and individuals who had nothing to do with 9/11. It was even cited by President Obama, and then President Trump, as the authority to extra-constitutionally execute an American citizen and his teenage children, without trial, by drones and commandos.
In our case, of course, the definition of “national security” is subsidizing the U.S. military-industrial complex, year in, year out, at levels that should be (but aren’t) beyond belief. In 2019, Pentagon spending is actually higher than it was at the peak of either the Korean or Vietnam conflicts and may soon be — adjusted for inflation — twice the Cold War average.
Yes, in those four decades, there were dips at key inflection points, including the ends of the Vietnam War and the Cold War, but the underlying trend has been ever onward and upward. Just why that’s been the case is a subject that almost never comes up here.
“Let there be no mistake, the United States is the best in the world in space today, and today we’re even better,” said Air Force Gen. Jay Raymond, the commander of U.S. Space Command, who has led Pentagon efforts in space for months and who Trump picked Friday to be the first commander of the Space Force. “The United States Space Force will ensure that we compete, deter and win from a position of strength in securing our way of life and our national security.”
Just days after the “Afghanistan Papers” were published, only 48 Members of Congress voted against the massive military spending of the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act. They continue as if nothing happened. They will continue lying to us and ripping us off if we let them.
The Republican-controlled Senate voted 76-6 on a procedural motion to cut off debate on the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA. …This year’s legislation included a 3.1% pay increase for the troops, the first paid family leave for all federal workers and the creation of a Space Force, a top military priority for Trump.
On July 24, 54 organizations from across the political spectrum sent a letter to each member of the House of Representatives commending the House for including in the annual defense spending bill a measure to repeal the 2001 Authorization of Use of Military Force (AUMF) .
House and Senate negotiators will now determine whether the 2001 AUMF repeal provision will remain in the final bill. During this process, it is imperative that members of Congress continue to publicly support repealing the blank check for war, which has led to ever-expanding military operations under three presidents.
Discussions are expected to start in August, and he estimated that a conference report would be finalized by Oct. 1.
Recognizing the Flaws & Failures of the 2001 AUMF ( )
Lee, who was the sole NO vote on the 2001 AUMF passed in response to the 9/11 attacks, offered another amendment to express the sense of Congress that the 2001 AUMF has been utilized well beyond the scope that Congress intended, that it has served as a blank check for any President to wage war at any time and any place, and that any new authorization for the use of military force to replace the 2001 AUMF should include a sunset clause, a clear and specific expression of objectives, targets, and geographic scope, and reporting requirements. Eighteen years ago, she feared that the AUMF would be a blank check, and that is exactly what it has been.
The amendment passed 237 to 183. 215 Democrats, 21 Republicans, and Amash voted for it. 167 Republicans and 16 Democrats voted against it.
Here are the 16 warmongering Democrats:
Es ist ein zentrales Wahlversprechen Trumps, doch die Mittel für den Bau der Grenzmauer genehmigte der Kongress nicht. Nun gab der Oberste Gerichtshof dem US-Präsidenten recht – er darf Geld aus dem Verteidigungsetat verwenden.
The ruling allows the administration to use $2.5 billion in military funds to begin construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border while litigation plays out. A lower court had issued an injunction blocking officials from using those funds.
In a 5-to-4 ruling, the court overturned an appellate decision and said that the administration could tap the money while litigation over the matter proceeds. But that will most likely take many months or longer, allowing Mr. Trump to move ahead before the case returns to the Supreme Court after further proceedings in the appeals court.
In the Senate in recent months, Republicans have joined Democrats to pass similar measures, but not enough to override a presidential veto.
Both Concerned Veterans for America and VoteVets have long argued that Congress needs to take back its power to declare war from the executive branch and put an end to the „Forever Wars“ by revoking the 2001 authorization for use of military force against Al Qaeda, which presidents have used to justify military operations all over the world.
The flurry of amendments to the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) moving through the House of Representatives is finally wrapping up Friday, where a series of Thursday night debates gave way to key votes early Friday on some contentious issues.
Major subjects of those debates included amendments that aim to end both the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMF). The 2001 repeal passed 237-183, while the 2002 repeal passed even easier at 242-180.
Debates on the AUMF centered on concern that the authorizations could be used by President Trump or future presidents to authorize wars they were never intended for. The aim is to replace the 2001 version with something more current on the global war on terror, and to do away with the 2002 version entirely, since its main goal was to unseat the long-dead Saddam Hussein and conquer Iraq, now a US ally.
The House voted Friday to curb President Trump’s ability to strike Iran militarily on Friday, adopting a bipartisan provision that would require the president to get Congress’s approval before authorizing military force against Tehran.
The fiscal 2019 National Defense Authorization Act ordered the Pentagon to establish U.S. Space Command under U.S. Strategic Command, which oversees nuclear weapons.
The Pentagon, however, opted for a fully independent Space Command on par with other warfighting commands when reviewing how space is organized within the Defense Department.
The Pentagon had an independent Space Command from 1985 until 2002, when it was folded into the U.S. Strategic Command in a reorganization.
The House Armed Services Committee under a Democratic majority voted Thursday for what it calls Space Corps, following a similar move last month by the GOP-led Senate backing a Space Force—the name President Donald Trump coined. While initially met with skepticism in Congress, the panels almost certainly will greenlight the dedicated unit in the final defense authorization bill this year.
It was not clear whether Mr. Trump simply changed his mind on the strikes or whether the administration altered course because of logistics or strategy. It was also not clear whether the attacks might still go forward.
Asked about the plans for a strike and the decision to hold back, the White House declined to comment, as did Pentagon officials. No government officials asked The New York Times to withhold the article.
U.S. President Donald Trump approved military strikes against Iran in retaliation for downing of American global hawk drone but pulled back after planes were in the air and ships were in position, according to a report by the New York Times citing administration officials.
The report claimed the order to halt attacks on Iranian radar and missile batteries came after intense debate at the White House among top security officials and congressional leaders.
From the U.S.S. Maine in Havana Harbor in 1898 to the U.S.S. Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964, maritime incidents, shrouded in the fog of uncertainty, have lured the United States into wars on foreign shoals. Which is why cooler heads must prevail — and Congress must be consulted — as American and Iranian forces inch closer to open conflict in and around the Strait of Hormuz.
Pompeo, who arrived in Tampa on Monday, met with Marine Gen. Kenneth McKenzie Jr. and Army Gen. Richard Clarke, commanders of U.S. Central Command and U.S. Special Operations Command respectively, to align the Government’s efforts in the Middle East, according to Central Command.
The meeting focused on deterrence plans against Iran after U.S. officials blamed the country for two recent oil tanker attacks in the Gulf of Oman.
Den USA ist dieser Punkt besonders wichtig: Washington widerspricht dem Vorwurf, das Militär habe die iranischen Grenzen verletzt. Es habe vor dem Abschuss keine Provokation von US-Seite gegeben, erklärte Navy Captain Bill Urban vom Central Command.
Rebuking at the House bill’s $733 billion top line, which is $17 billion less than the Trump administration requested, panel Republicans threw their weight behind an amendment to add the money back. The GOP-controlled Senate is due to consider a rival $750 billion bill that passed the Senate Armed Services Committee in May.
Der National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA; deutsch Genehmigungsgesetz zur nationalen Verteidigung) ist ein US-Bundesgesetz, das den Haushalt des US Department of Defense (DoD) bestimmt. Der Beschluss des Etats bekommt mit dieser Norm jährlich Gesetzescharakter und ist die Voraussetzung für das Budget der US-Streitkräfte.
Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) said the aircraft had violated Iranian airspace, and that the incident sent a „clear message to America“.
But the US military insisted the drone had been over international waters at the time, and condemned what it called an „unprovoked attack“ by the IRGC.
Wenn US-Soldat*innen eine Drohne unter Leitung bspw. der CIA fliegen würden, würde eine solche Aktion nicht in dem Bericht auftauchen, da diese anders autorisiert wäre (US Code, Title 50). Dies unterscheidet die Berichte des ODNI und des DoD.
(23.5.2018) Hawai’i Democrat Tulsi Gabbard spoke yesterday (May 22) on the House floor, warning that a section of a defense funding bill (H.R. 5515) may lead to war with Iran.
She didn’t mince words over Section 1225.
For more information, visit Gabbard.House.gov
(22.5.2018) Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02) spoke on the floor today urging support for her amendment in the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that upholds Congress’s constitutional power to declare war. The congresswoman’s amendment strikes the language of Section 1225 of the FY2019 NDAA that authorizes the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State to develop and implement a strategy to counter the “destabilizing activities of Iran” and only afterwards inform Congress. The amendment will be on the House floor for a vote tomorrow, May 23.