After voting down a Republican motion to recommit, the House of Representatives voted on Thursday to pass S.J. Res 7, the Senate version of the War Powers Act challenge to US involvement in the war in Yemen. The vote was 247-175-1.
This Senate passed this resolution in March, and sends the resolution to President Trump, who has threatened to veto it. So far it appears unlikely that Congress will be able to override such a veto.
Both House votes on Yemen ran heavily along party lines. The War Powers Act requires any US war to be approved by Congress, and the resolution notes that Congress never authorized any such war in Yemen.
The administration has argued that the four years of war in Yemen technically don’t count under the War Powers Act, sometimes overtly lying about the extent of US involvement in Yemen, and other times arguing that support fo the Saudi-led war is obligated because of arms sales to them.
This is the second House vote on the War Powers challenge in 2019. The previous vote was derailed by an amendment on anti-Semitism, which forced the Senate to start over, and the House to then adopt the Senate’s language, as they did in this vote.
If they were serious about doing something useful they’d vote to get us out of Afghanistan or even Syria. I’m sorry, but this vote is petty token BS.
It’s not petty token BS for those suffering under US bombs and blockade in Yemen.
The Saudis are perfectly capable of continuing this without the minor US involvement.
Only if the UK and others continue to assist them. On their own, I’d guess they’re pretty useless.
Only if the UK and others continue to assist them. On their own, I’d guess they’re pretty useless.
Petty, no. Token, yes.
So your saying congress should not go thru the constitutional process to end wars ? Tackling the War on Terror Authorization is politically huge. Yemen is where it starts. This is why the US announced drone strikes against “al Qaeda” in Yemen a few days ago.
What I’m saying is that this resolution is like saying get our 100 guys out of Grenada while a Vietnam scale war is raging. It’s a fig leaf to make Democrat voters think their party is anti-war, which couldn’t be further from the truth!
It’s a cynical manipulation ploy. Meanwhile these same people are trying to steer us into conflict with Russia!
Apparently, today, according to this vote, they are antiwar.
No. They are just trying to fool you, and apparently have succeeded.
I see, fake news, and fake votes.
“The administration has argued that the four years of war in Yemen technically don’t count under the War Powers Act”
“Four years” reminds us that it was not just this Administration. It is the national security state that dominated Obama’s terms too.
Didn’t the Obama administration argue against this same type of thing concerning Libya? I think they even tried renaming war to a “kinetic action” so it couldn’t be a violation of the war powers act.
And Obama kept sending “aid” to the Israel-loyal general junta in Egypt, so they’d close the border against the Palestinians again. The reason why Obama had shipped riot gear and tear gas to Mubarak earlier, while pretending to support the democratic protests in Egypt.
When the junta with the aid of the socialist parties who lost the election overthrew democracy, U.S. law forbade Hillary and Obama to send money to Egypt. So they simply pretended that there was no coup. Just like that – there is no coup, they are not machine gunning those hundreds of people in the streets, now we can send money. And all the media owners went along with it. It was astonishing.
Wasn’t that what John Kerry described as “restoring democracy”?
They abused a resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations which allowed the “protection of people in Benghazi from mass murder by Qaddafi.”
Yes, and GW Bush’s, and Clinton’s, GHW Bush’s, and Reagan’s, and Carter’s, etc etc.
The Constitution gives Congress the right to declare war, NOT the Executive. If Congress comes out and votes explicitly against a war, how can the President override this with a veto and continue participating in a war that he was never authorized to be in in the first place? If Trump vetoes, this needs to go to the Courts and precedent set. Trump is completely exceeding his authority. This is a case where it makes no sense to give the President the power of the Veto.
A long bipartisan tradition of cowardice has neutered the Constitutional powers of Congress.
Cowardice? Or convenience. They want the war, any war, and have generally voted to prevent president from being able to end sanctions or indirectly wars. So, presidents are convenient tools. The problem starts when president drags his feet, and tries to end wars.
This “ending” Yemen war is a joke. Are we this desparate to believe that this is done for real? And that there are good people in Congress? Not that ths is just one if many games played to keep the illusion of bipartisan policies. Incudentally, there are no domestic politics presently — all their eyes and snouts are focused in the only goose — foreign policy.
“Trump is completely exceeding his authority.” Agreed. Just like Obama did when he started this. And tripled the drone bombings on the Afghan-Pakistan border. Conveniently the Left’s anti-war movement completely died when he took power, so those who vote against this war now are hypocrites. At least their hypocrisy is right now of some use.
Obama is the only president to ever have a war that started before him continue after he leaves office. Let’s hope Trump doesn’t become the second.
“Obama is the only president to ever have a war that started before him continue after he leaves office”
Vietnam arguably started before LBJ and certainly ended after LBJ.
Interesting, no criticism for the GOP which votes for war everytime?
When you hear that Charles Manson murdered someone, it’s like yeah … so?
When you hear that Mr. Rogers murdered someone, it’s like wait … what?
True, tho in this case, today, Mr Rogers just put his sweater on, and started singing…”It’s a beautiful day in the neighborhood….”
I think that you are correct. The writers of the constitution did not want us to have an elected King George II who could arbitrarily begin and end wars.
The President is not the Commander-in-Chief of the nation nor of Congress. He or she is only the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. If Congress votes that we are at war with X then the President must obey and conduct our war with X. If Congress votes to end a war with Y then the President must stop our war with Y. I believe it is that simple.
Of course, when an enemy surrenders that also ends a war. In that case without the direct involvement of Congress.
And I furthermore hold that our judiciary has no say in this matter either. The fate of this resolution is now in the hands of Congress. If President Trump refuses to obey he should perhaps be impeached and removed from office for derelict of duty.
“The President is not the Commander-in-Chief of the nation nor of Congress. He or she is only the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces”
And then only when they are “called into the service of the United States.” Which until after World War II, only described a few tens of thousands of troops in peacetime.
This resolution does nothing for Yemeni people. Congress votes for such feel good measures, Hoping Trump will veto.
They sll are participants in global warfare, they have no choice.
I am not sure how exactly we are going to be uninvolved. And how exactly — exactly — are we going to improve the life of Yemen population? Exactly? Are we going to pull our Navy away from the port, to allow FREE and UNIMPEDED delivery of food and medical supllies, field hospitals, water treatment systems — by ANY country that wants to donate.
If Saudi Arabia Navy moves in, then it will be THEIR RESPONSIBILITY for famine and disease, If we do not — we are just as guilty as Saudis.
Are we going to continue arming and providing mercenaries to UAE — as they are just as much killing Yemeni civilians, worse, their armies are occupying part of Yemen.
The transparent trick here is to ditch Saudis and prevent them from controlling Yemeni cosst. And then rope UAE to allow us to enter South Yemen on some pretext — and BINGO, we get to control both sides of Bab Al Mandeb straights! Something Saudiis, Egypt or Sudan do not want.
So, by ditching Saudis — we are banking on UAE. But now that MbS has shown staying power, and is supported by China and Russia — UAE will dare not cross them, and the region. They are too small to play such games and count on US to protect them against Saudis, Egypt, Sudan, Kuwait, Iraq, etc.
Basically, we are NOT getting out. We are droning Yemenis who are opposing UAE occupation. We are continuing blockade, and are risking the fate of probably the ONLY remaining Gulf ally. Or Saudis and UAE will be conniving against our plans.
This is what happens when GOALS are not transparent. Once we are honest about what are we doing there, exactly — then we can talk about (un)involvement!
Going after US mercenary outfits is a tough nut. I wonder if Congress could even find out how they are paid. Perhaps the quickest way is to name them “terrorist entities”, then go after them with US federal troops.
Dubya and Cheney’s brainwashing still in full effect. Just listen to today’s Trumper “anti-globalists” who still buy the neocon propaganda on Iran.
About time… So when will they vote on ending the mess in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Venezuela, and the tons of other unnecessary wars?
And when will they vote to end the occupation of Germany?
The current Saudi “best buds” the Israeli regime will pick up the slack if necessary.
If President Trump vetoes this resolution then the excuse of “the deep state made him wage that war” will go down the drain. The war will become the war of Trump and the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia.
We keep hearing that Trump is not the one in power and seeing those like Bolton and Pompeo deciding important decisions, then this serious breach of any sense and decency is about to happen-a veto of the “will of the people”.