Barbara Lee explains her rationale for voting against the Authorization to Use Military Force in Afghanistan, citing the overly broad nature of the bill.
In response to the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001,the Congress passed legislation, S.J.Res. 23, on September 14, 2001, authorizing the President to “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided theterrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizationsor persons….” The President signed this legislation into law on September 18, 2001(P.L. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001)).
The main author of the resolution that limited a president’s ability to wage war, he also made overtures to the Arab world and earned the opposition of the pro-Israel lobby.
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:
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.
September 15, 2018
Washington, DC—In recent days, the Trump Administration has threatened military force against Syria, Russia, and Iran if they attack al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups that currently control the city of Idlib, Syria. Reps. Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02) and Walter Jones (NC-03) introduced a bipartisan resolution, requiring the President to comply with the U.S. Constitution, War Powers Resolution and U.S. law, and obtain congressional authorization prior to the use of U.S. military force.
Sign Bernie Sanders‘ petition to tell Congress to pass legislation that would prohibit military action against Iran without Congressional approval.