Senate to vote on SJRES7 to end out support for Yemen War Today

[Just AnotherPerson]

Senate is set to vote on war powers resolution SJRES 7 watch proceedings live on C-SPAN
https://www.c-span.org/video/?458673-1/senate-session


Excerpt:


Yemen War Powers Resolutions 2019

After the Senate passed a Yemen War Powers resolution (S.J. Res 54) in 2018 near the end of the 115th Congress, the 116th Congress again took up War Powers Resolutions in late January 2019.

On February 13, 2019, the House passed H.J. Res 37 "
Directing the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities in the Republic of Yemen that have not been authorized by Congress."

As soon as March 13, the Senate is expected to consider their version of the resolution, S. J. Res 7, "

A joint resolution to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities in the Republic of Yemen that have not been authorized by Congress."



Link to excerpt listed above https://www.forumarmstrade.org/2019ywp.html

Bernie on the floor


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ecPxjX-IrM

[Just AnotherPerson]

See more at the link

Excerpt: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/433842-white-house-advisers-recommend-trump-veto-yemen-resolution


The White House on Wednesday formally indicated that President Trump (https://thehill.com/people/donald-trump) would veto a joint resolution calling for an end to U.S. support of the Saudi-led military campaign in Yemen ahead of a key Senate vote (https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/433741-senate-set-to-rebuke-trump-on-support-for-saudi-arabia) on the measure.

The Office of Management and Budget released a formal statement of administration policy that called the resolution "flawed" and suggested it could undermine the president's role as commander in chief. Advisers would suggest Trump veto the measure, the statement said.

[Just AnotherPerson]

This is what it looks like when the people fight corporate interests.

Awesome as always Sen Mike Lee on the floor


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3M5pQi6bmDg

[The Xl]

This unfortunately won't go anywhere

[Ethereal]

It's good to know that there are still some politicians with a moral compass.

[Orion Rules]

This unfortunately won't go anywhere

It did too go somewhere. It was heard on the air. By a rai of sunshine, it went somewhere. People no longer may be misled as they once were.

[Just AnotherPerson]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=806eoo1k5jE

[Just AnotherPerson]

The vote is passed 54/46 to end military support in Yemen. Congress has spoken. Congress has taken back their war powers. If in fact Trump does veto he will be proving that his allegiance in not to the people of this nation, or to the constitution.

[Captdon]

Trump should veto this.

[Just AnotherPerson]

See more at the link https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/433926-senate-breaks-with-trump-on-saudi-led-war-in-yemen

Excerp:


The Senate broke with President Trump (https://thehill.com/people/donald-trump) on Wednesday over the Saudi-led military campaign in Yemen, paving the way for a veto showdown with the White House.

Senators voted 54-46 to pass a resolution requiring the president to withdraw any troops in or "affecting" Yemen within 30 days unless they are fighting al Qaeda.


I just want to say I am including the article but do not agree with the part about why they say it is a threat to our constitution. It says the threat is congress going against the president. But actually it is the opposite of that. It is the President himself who is working against the constitution. Article 1 section 8 clearly states that congress has the sole power to declare war. The president only has that power during times of emergency. If there is a direct threat to the United States.

A clean version of the bill still has to be voted on it could be as soon as tomorrow. https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/senate-rebukes-trump-over-saudi-war-in-yemen

[RadioGod]

Of all the Senators, I like Mike Lee's analysis the best. My concern is that there were 46 Senators who were in favor of shredding the Constitution. All 46 of the naysayers took an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution, which says Congress has the sole authority to declare war. All 46 believe that the president alone should possess that power, that the president should be able to remove our representatives and our voice, and single-handedly wield both the executive and legislative powers.
I would have liked to see a more encompassing resolution that addressed all regime-change and other covert hostilities, such as an outright repeal of the 2012 AUMF. The Authorization For Use Of Military Force signed after 9-11 was Congress giving the President wide latitude in going after the terrorists responsible for 9-11. Here we are, 7 years later, and all of the regime change wars and covert conflicts still derive their basic authority from that AUMF.
None of the 9-11 highjackers were from Syria, Iran, Yemen, Ukraine, or Venezuela, just to mention a few. It would be the responsible thing of Congress to rescind the AUMF and retake their power to declare war.
I also believe, as sanctions and blockades of foreign nations are an act of war, or at the very least a hostility that could lead to wars, those powers should rest solely with Congress also. The Executive branch has overstepped it's bounds with Executive branch origins of sanctions as well.
If Trump vetoes this legislation, it will reveal he is an enemy of the Constitution's separation of powers, a military industrial complex puppet, and acting in the worst interests of the American people.

[Captdon]

Congress long ago gave the President permission. Trump isn't about to let this become law. Anyone who thinks he would is foolish.


Sanctions are not an act of war.

[Peter1469]

See more at the link https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/433926-senate-breaks-with-trump-on-saudi-led-war-in-yemen

Excerp:


The Senate broke with President Trump (https://thehill.com/people/donald-trump) on Wednesday over the Saudi-led military campaign in Yemen, paving the way for a veto showdown with the White House.

Senators voted 54-46 to pass a resolution requiring the president to withdraw any troops in or "affecting" Yemen within 30 days unless they are fighting al Qaeda.


I just want to say I am including the article but do not agree with the part about why they say it is a threat to our constitution. It says the threat is congress going against the president. But actually it is the opposite of that. It is the President himself who is working against the constitution. Article 1 section 8 clearly states that congress has the sole power to declare war. The president only has that power during times of emergency. If there is a direct threat to the United States.

A clean version of the bill still has to be voted on it could be as soon as tomorrow. https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/senate-rebukes-trump-over-saudi-war-in-yemen


Good, the only thing the US should be doing in Yemen is killing AQAI.

[MisterVeritis]

...Sanctions are not an act of war.
In my opinion sanctions are absolutely war acts.

[Orion Rules]

Of all the Senators, I like Mike Lee's analysis the best. My concern is that there were 46 Senators who were in favor of shredding the Constitution. All 46 of the naysayers took an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution, which says Congress has the sole authority to declare war. All 46 believe that the president alone should possess that power, that the president should be able to remove our representatives and our voice, and single-handedly wield both the executive and legislative powers.

[...]

If Trump vetoes this legislation, it will reveal he is an enemy of the Constitution's separation of powers, a military industrial complex puppet, and acting in the worst interests of the American people.

That is right where it seems to be.

[Peter1469]

In my opinion sanctions are absolutely war acts.
Yes, they serve as a valid cause for a nation to go to war. However, most nations that the US applies sanctions too could not resist the US via open warfare. We would crush them, if we so chose to.

[RadioGod]

Congress long ago gave the President permission. Trump isn't about to let this become law. Anyone who thinks he would is foolish.


Sanctions are not an act of war.
Under the AUMF in 2012 the President got permission to go to war against the terrorists responsible for 9-11, and those who provided material aid to them. The terrorists are all dead now. Somehow we have moved on to other terrorists, especially civilian families that have committed the unforgiveable sin of living in the same city or nation as an actual bad guy.
And sanctions are a siege weapon. Sanctions are designed to cut off aid, food, medicine, and all possible outside interaction. That is a hostility. We don't put sanctions on our friends, or even other nations competing for the same resources. We put sanctions on our enemies. We do it to crush them. We do it to foster discontent in their populations as a prelude to regime change and civil wars. We do it to weaken them in case we need to invade with armed forces. Not only does the President not have the authority under the Constitution to declare war, he cannot even enter into "hostilities" without Congress's approval, unless it is an actual emergency. Sanctions are hostilities, acts of war, and only Congress should be able to apply sanctions on other nations.
Granted, Trump is good at creating fake emergencies, or at least he thinks he is. It's coming up for a vote tomorrow, his fake invasion being a real emergency, watch what happens. Congress is finally growing a sack. The house will also re-vote on the amended version of the Yemen resolution, and that will hit the President's desk for his veto also.
Trump cannot allow this to stand, he will veto both of these pieces of legislation, and it will backfire on him HUUUUUGE. He will be our first 1-term President in a while. Maybe then, instead of deporting asylum seekers from Honduras and Guatemala, we can get down to the business of deporting all Trump supporters back to Dumbf*ckistan. You will be missed, I am sure.

[Peter1469]

Under the AUMF in 2012 the President got permission to go to war against the terrorists responsible for 9-11, and those who provided material aid to them. The terrorists are all dead now. Somehow we have moved on to other terrorists, especially civilian families that have committed the unforgiveable sin of living in the same city or nation as an actual bad guy.
And sanctions are a siege weapon. Sanctions are designed to cut off aid, food, medicine, and all possible outside interaction. That is a hostility. We don't put sanctions on our friends, or even other nations competing for the same resources. We put sanctions on our enemies. We do it to crush them. We do it to foster discontent in their populations as a prelude to regime change and civil wars. We do it to weaken them in case we need to invade with armed forces. Not only does the President not have the authority under the Constitution to declare war, he cannot even enter into "hostilities" without Congress's approval, unless it is an actual emergency. Sanctions are hostilities, acts of war, and only Congress should be able to apply sanctions on other nations.
Granted, Trump is good at creating fake emergencies, or at least he thinks he is. It's coming up for a vote tomorrow, his fake invasion being a real emergency, watch what happens. Congress is finally growing a sack. The house will also re-vote on the amended version of the Yemen resolution, and that will hit the President's desk for his veto also.
Trump cannot allow this to stand, he will veto both of these pieces of legislation, and it will backfire on him HUUUUUGE. He will be our first 1-term President in a while. Maybe then, instead of deporting asylum seekers from Honduras and Guatemala, we can get down to the business of deporting all Trump supporters back to Dumbf*ckistan. You will be missed, I am sure.
Al Qaeda is still around, and one of the off-shoots- AQAI- is currently the most dangerous international terrorist organization in the world.

[RadioGod]

Good, the only thing the US should be doing in Yemen is killing AQAI.

True. But instead, we are supplying Al Qaeda in Yemen with money and weapons. They are paid mercenaries to go after the Houthi's. They are an official part of the roaming death squads that go around with kill lists taking out teachers, lawyers, farmers, doctors, and civic leaders. Anyone with a voice the people listen to as an educated authority.
The same in Syria. We are funding them, training them, and protecting them.
I ask you this- If the 2012 AUMF authorizes the President to go after any Al Qaeda that pops up anywhere in the world, and we are creating new Al Qaeda groups through the CIA in every place we need an excuse to bomb without Congress's approval, don't you think it's time to put an end to this endless war on terrorism?
If we are creating and bankrolling the very danger we are going after, it means perpetual war. Even if the CIA and State Department were to stop on their end, the defense contractors would create terror groups. We are now going to have a 750 billion dollar defense budget, up from last year's budget of just over 700 billion. That is over double the entire defense budgets of Russia and China combined. And because corporations need more profits than the last quarter, that budget number will only keep increasing, and our global enemy tally will keep growing as well. If we don't put the brakes on this quick, we won't have a nation left to defend. We'll all be homeless and still taxed for breathing air. LOL.

[MMC]

How could a bill under the WPR fail to constrain U.S. involvement in Yemen’s civil war? While important as a symbolic rebuke, the bill directs the President to cease activity that the Trump and Obama administrations both argued has never occurred — the involvement of U.S. forces in “hostilities” in Yemen’s civil war. As Steve Pomper and I explained here (https://www.justsecurity.org/61666/saudi-arabia-senate-move-resolution-withdraw-yemen-war-and-avoid-pitfalls-current-text/), even if a WPR bill were enacted over the President’s veto, the Administration would argue that intelligence sharing and logistics support to the Saudi-led coalition do not constitute involvement of U.S. forces in “hostilities,” and thus may lawfully continue (the same would apply to aerial refueling, but the Trump administration stopped that activity of its own accord late last year).


Two amendments (https://rules.house.gov/bill/116/hj-res-37) to H.J. Res. 37 were made “in order” by the Rules Committee and now may be subject to debate when the bill moves to the House floor. First, a rule of construction offered by Rep. Buck (https://amendments-rules.house.gov/amendments/BUCK_016_xml211190932403240.pdf) (R-Colo.) declares that nothing in H.J. Res 37 “may be construed to influence or disrupt any intelligence, counterintelligence, or investigative activities” conducted by or with the U.S. government involving the collection, analysis, or sharing of intelligence “between the United States and any foreign country if the President determines such sharing is appropriate and in the national security interests of the United States.” Given the Executive has made clear it does not believe intelligence sharing constitutes involvement in “hostilities” for WPR purposes, it’s unlikely this amendment would have any practical impact. Rather, it would make clear that Congress intends for intelligence sharing to continue, irrespective of differences between the two branches on the scope of the term “hostilities” more broadly.


The other amendment (https://amendments-rules.house.gov/amendments/RCP116-4_A11_xml211191218421842.pdf) replaces the carve-out for “operations directed at al Qaeda or associated forces” (found in both H.J. Res. 37 and S.J. Res. 54) with a specific statement that the “hostilities” U.S. forces must be removed from are those “directed at Houthi forces.” It also adds a rule of construction that the bill does not “limit, expand, or otherwise modify” the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).


Again, the practical import of this amendment may be essentially null – the Executive branch has long argued that the 2001 AUMF authorizes the use of military force against associated forces of al-Qaeda, most notably al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) operating in Yemen (the Executive also argues that the 2001 AUMF covers ISIS in Yemen, though not necessarily as an “associated force” of al-Qaeda). But while Congress has embraced the concept of associated forces in the detention context, it hasn’t codified specific associated forces as falling under the scope of the 2001 AUMF, including AQAP. For this reason, the ACLU argued (https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/targeted-killing/fatal-flaws-congressional-resolution-end-us-support-saudi) that the carve-out’s implicit endorsement of the Executive interpretation of the 2001 AUMF is a “fatal flaw” in S.J. Res. 54. This amendment would essentially save for another day the debate on whether Congress truly authorized the use of force against AQAP in the 2001 AUMF.


the new Senate will still need to pass a companion bill. It’s not clear whether a bill in the Senate currently has a path forward, particularly if it would need to be reconciled with a House bill that has been altered by either of the amendments described above. If it did pass, both Houses would still need to override a veto by President Trump before the bill could become law snip~


https://www.justsecurity.org/62560/congress-saudi-arabia-conflict-yemen-here/


Congress wont prevent seeking out AQ, AQAP, and Daesh in Yemen. So its a mute point.

[Peter1469]

True. But instead, we are supplying Al Qaeda in Yemen with money and weapons. They are paid mercenaries to go after the Houthi's. They are an official part of the roaming death squads that go around with kill lists taking out teachers, lawyers, farmers, doctors, and civic leaders. Anyone with a voice the people listen to as an educated authority.
The same in Syria. We are funding them, training them, and protecting them.
I ask you this- If the 2012 AUMF authorizes the President to go after any Al Qaeda that pops up anywhere in the world, and we are creating new Al Qaeda groups through the CIA in every place we need an excuse to bomb without Congress's approval, don't you think it's time to put an end to this endless war on terrorism?
If we are creating and bankrolling the very danger we are going after, it means perpetual war. Even if the CIA and State Department were to stop on their end, the defense contractors would create terror groups. We are now going to have a 750 billion dollar defense budget, up from last year's budget of just over 700 billion. That is over double the entire defense budgets of Russia and China combined. And because corporations need more profits than the last quarter, that budget number will only keep increasing, and our global enemy tally will keep growing as well. If we don't put the brakes on this quick, we won't have a nation left to defend. We'll all be homeless and still taxed for breathing air. LOL.
We are perhaps indirectly funding / arming them through are moderate contacts there. But we are killing AQAP en masse.

[MisterVeritis]

Yes, they serve as a valid cause for a nation to go to war. However, most nations that the US applies sanctions too could not resist the US via open warfare. We would crush them, if we so chose to.
I agree. That is why we use them. They are just as much an act of war as blockading ports. A clever nation may try its hand at asymmetric attack against us and our interests. Perhaps they already have.

[Just AnotherPerson]

Hopefully they pass the clean bill soon. There is no time to spare. Our hand in these atrocities must come to an end.


https://youtu.be/7A8AQglGW3o


Link to excerpt https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/03/19-million-yemeni-children-suffer-malnutrition-illness-190308133114035.html

Excerpt:


When Yemen (https://www.aljazeera.com/topics/country/yemen.html)'s warring sides agreed to stop fighting and withdraw their troops from a crucial port city, there was hope that more food and medicine would soon flow in.

But with sporadic fighting has continued and there is growing despair for 19 million Yemenis suffering from malnutrition and illness.

Aid agencies have said time is running out, particularly for the children.

[RadioGod]

How could a bill under the WPR fail to constrain U.S. involvement in Yemen’s civil war? While important as a symbolic rebuke, the bill directs the President to cease activity that the Trump and Obama administrations both argued has never occurred — the involvement of U.S. forces in “hostilities” in Yemen’s civil war. As Steve Pomper and I explained here (https://www.justsecurity.org/61666/saudi-arabia-senate-move-resolution-withdraw-yemen-war-and-avoid-pitfalls-current-text/), even if a WPR bill were enacted over the President’s veto, the Administration would argue that intelligence sharing and logistics support to the Saudi-led coalition do not constitute involvement of U.S. forces in “hostilities,” and thus may lawfully continue (the same would apply to aerial refueling, but the Trump administration stopped that activity of its own accord late last year).


Two amendments (https://rules.house.gov/bill/116/hj-res-37) to H.J. Res. 37 were made “in order” by the Rules Committee and now may be subject to debate when the bill moves to the House floor. First, a rule of construction offered by Rep. Buck (https://amendments-rules.house.gov/amendments/BUCK_016_xml211190932403240.pdf) (R-Colo.) declares that nothing in H.J. Res 37 “may be construed to influence or disrupt any intelligence, counterintelligence, or investigative activities” conducted by or with the U.S. government involving the collection, analysis, or sharing of intelligence “between the United States and any foreign country if the President determines such sharing is appropriate and in the national security interests of the United States.” Given the Executive has made clear it does not believe intelligence sharing constitutes involvement in “hostilities” for WPR purposes, it’s unlikely this amendment would have any practical impact. Rather, it would make clear that Congress intends for intelligence sharing to continue, irrespective of differences between the two branches on the scope of the term “hostilities” more broadly.


The other amendment (https://amendments-rules.house.gov/amendments/RCP116-4_A11_xml211191218421842.pdf) replaces the carve-out for “operations directed at al Qaeda or associated forces” (found in both H.J. Res. 37 and S.J. Res. 54) with a specific statement that the “hostilities” U.S. forces must be removed from are those “directed at Houthi forces.” It also adds a rule of construction that the bill does not “limit, expand, or otherwise modify” the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).


Again, the practical import of this amendment may be essentially null – the Executive branch has long argued that the 2001 AUMF authorizes the use of military force against associated forces of al-Qaeda, most notably al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) operating in Yemen (the Executive also argues that the 2001 AUMF covers ISIS in Yemen, though not necessarily as an “associated force” of al-Qaeda). But while Congress has embraced the concept of associated forces in the detention context, it hasn’t codified specific associated forces as falling under the scope of the 2001 AUMF, including AQAP. For this reason, the ACLU argued (https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/targeted-killing/fatal-flaws-congressional-resolution-end-us-support-saudi) that the carve-out’s implicit endorsement of the Executive interpretation of the 2001 AUMF is a “fatal flaw” in S.J. Res. 54. This amendment would essentially save for another day the debate on whether Congress truly authorized the use of force against AQAP in the 2001 AUMF.


the new Senate will still need to pass a companion bill. It’s not clear whether a bill in the Senate currently has a path forward, particularly if it would need to be reconciled with a House bill that has been altered by either of the amendments described above. If it did pass, both Houses would still need to override a veto by President Trump before the bill could become law snip~


https://www.justsecurity.org/62560/congress-saudi-arabia-conflict-yemen-here/


Congress wont prevent seeking out AQ, AQAP, and Daesh in Yemen. So its a mute point.
That was a well-crafted analysis. I just realized while I was slowly reading it, I misspoke about the AUMF. I had called it the 2012 AUMF, and it was actually the 2001 AUMF. LOL. My Alzheimer's moment. :)
This, as I understand it, is the way the Executive branch has and will continue to argue that it is not engaged in "hostilities". Not just in Yemen, but in several other places where regime change is in progress.
But let's take a hypothetical case scenario here. Suppose I know someone, and he wants to kill a person. I sell him a gun, ammunition, transportation to execute the plan, and then go even further. I plan out the murder, pick the time and place, pick the approach route. I even follow the victim around all day to be accurate. In a court of law, even if I did not pull the trigger, I am also guilty of murder. Even if you discount the law, it is obvious to all I conspired to murder that person every bit as much as the shooter.
We were not just refueling planes for the Saudi's. We are selling them weapons and weapons platforms. Assorted vehicles-land, sea, and air. We have interagency intelligence deals with them, and we provide them intelligence, including targeting intelligence. We are advising them on when and where to drop bombs or assassinate a target(s).
Nobody would argue that the Saudi's are not engaged in "hostilities" in Yemen, and as purposeful co-conspirators, how can we rationally argue that we are not?
This is a simple rationale, really. And it discounts any argument that could be made by the President's lawyers. Anyone with 2 decent eyes can see it for the misdirection it is.
On an aside, I would also like to mention that I believe Congress should recall the 2001 AUMF. Just like Congress has the power to coin money under the Constitution, then creates a Treasury Dept., and then puts that Dept. under the control of a private central bank, thereby violating the Constitutional intent. Congress should have never given blanket consent to the President to take on it's own powers to declare war or engage in hostilities. The AUMF itself is unconstitutional.
The other reason the AUMF is not right, is it declares open season, not on a nation, but a splintered group of terrorists. That is a declaration of war on an ideology. And we pump hundreds of millions into keeping that ideology alive at the same time in any nation that has oil or is positioned to use pipelines that control the flow of oil and natural gas.

[RadioGod]

We are perhaps indirectly funding / arming them through are moderate contacts there. But we are killing AQAP en masse.
I know this, if there is a terror group in the world, the odds are 50/50 we are secretly funding it. The other 50% is Saudi Arabia. Often we fund them together. That's what friends do.:)

[donttread]

We are perhaps indirectly funding / arming them through are moderate contacts there. But we are killing AQAP en masse.

Can there be any doubt that American funds and weapons have been used to kill allies over time?

[Peter1469]

Can there be any doubt that American funds and weapons have been used to kill allies over time?

Of course they have.

[Peter1469]

House joins Senate in passing measure to end U.S. military involvement in Yemen, a move with major political implications for Trump (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/house-passes-resolution-ending-participation-in-yemens-war-setting-up-trumps-second-veto/2019/04/04/9225dad0-56e2-11e9-8ef3-fbd41a2ce4d5_story.html?utm_term=.0d852deb4e7a)