House declares U.S. military role in Yemen's civil war unauthorized

[Swordsmyth]

In a rare exercise of its war-making role, the House of Representatives on Monday overwhelmingly passed a resolution explicitly stating that U.S. military assistance to Saudi Arabia in its war in Yemen is not authorized under legislation passed by Congress to fight terrorism or invade Iraq.
The nonbinding resolution adopted 366-30, does not call for a halt to the American support but publicly acknowledges the Pentagon has been sharing targeting information and refueling warplanes that Saudi Arabia and other allies are using to attack Houthi rebels in a conflict that is widely considered a proxy war with Iran — and a humanitarian disaster.



It states, in part, that U.S. military operations are authorized to fight only Al Qaeda and other allied terrorist groups in Yemen, not Shiite Muslim rebels.

More at: https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/13/house-yemen-civil-war-authorization-244868


When are they going to do something binding about it?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

When are they going to do something binding about it?

Great news nonetheless

Look for Rand to pick this up in the Senate

 

[timosman]

Great news nonetheless

Look for Rand to pick this up in the Senate

What a cheerleader.

 

[charrob]

House Gets Heavily Watered-Down Vote on Yemen War

Interestingly, those who are most non-interventionist in congress voted 'No', against this resolution:

Nays

Amash
Bass
Biggs
Cheney
Clarke (NY)
Davidson
Doggett
Duncan (TN)
Ellison
Gabbard
Gosar
Griffith
Harris
Hunter
Jayapal
Jones
Jordan
Kinzinger
Lee
Massie
Perry
Raskin
Rothfus
Sanford
Smith (WA)
Swalwell (CA)
Taylor
Watson Coleman
Weber (TX)
Zeldin

Interventionists like Steny Hoyer, who single-handedly pushed for the rules committee to stop the original resolution, voted Yea.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll623.xml

House Gets Heavily Watered-Down Vote on Yemen War
Resolution Makes No Call to End US Involvement in War

Weeks after the House Rules Committee gutted the War Powers Act challenge to the legality of US military involvement in the Saudi invasion of Yemen, the House finally got a limited debate on the conflict and a token vote on a non-binding resolution that didn’t even propose an end to US involvement in the conflict.

Congress never authorized the use of military force against Yemen’s Shi’ites, which means US military involvement is illegal. The House Rules Committee dodged this vote by claiming that the specific legal challenge to the War Powers Act didn’t count.

After the House leadership backed this effort to kill an actual vote, they decided to allow the non-binding resolution. This offered some measure of public debate on the conflict, which is more than has happened in the previous two and a half years.

The 366-30-1 vote in favor of the resolution, however, means less than nothing, as the final text not only didn’t urge compliance with the War Powers Act, but in many ways appears to be an endorsement of the status quo.

The bill endorses the Saudi promise to “improve targeting capabilities,” and while it gives some lip-service to improving access to humanitarian aid to the starving nation, it also “condemns Iranian activities in Yemen,” back sanctions against Iran and backs efforts to keep Iranian weapons from reaching Yemen.

At the very least, officials underscored that the war was never authorized though Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA) insisted it didn’t need to be, and it seems unlikely there will be any serious new pushes to enforce the law with respect to the conflict.

The sum of this resolution was useless enough that many Congressional hawks appear to have been perfectly comfortable with it, while many of the usual anti-war Representatives, who would’ve been the champions of the attempt to enforce the War Powers Act, voted against it.

http://news.antiwar.com/2017/11/13/house-gets-heavily-watered-down-vote-on-yemen-war/

 

[Origanalist]

Interestingly, those who are most non-interventionist in congress voted 'No', against this resolution:



Interventionists like Steny Hoyer, who single-handedly pushed for the rules committee to stop the original resolution, voted Yea.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll623.xml

More Orwellian doublespeak.

 

[shakey1]

... for all the good it'll do.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Interestingly, those who are most non-interventionist in congress voted 'No', against this resolution:

Interventionists like Steny Hoyer, who single-handedly pushed for the rules committee to stop the original resolution, voted Yea.

Interesting, I guess they thought of it as another USA Freedom Act.

I can understand that.

On the other hand, I think this resolution could be the impetus to a real amendment of the AUMF.

Those warmongers who voted for this resolution will have a harder time voting against a real bill in the future.

Much like with the dozens of (otherwise) useless Obamacare repeal votes pre-2017.

 

[spudea]

can something non-binding be considered a "declaration"? I think no. Can something that continues to be allowed with zero consequences be considered "unauthorized"? I think no. This is such a weak disapproval its effectively endorsing the idea the president and military can do whatever they want which probably explains the no votes from the likes of Amash, Lee, Massie

 

[nikcers]

can something non-binding be considered a "declaration"? I think no. Can something that continues to be allowed with zero consequences be considered "unauthorized"? I think no. This is such a weak disapproval its effectively endorsing the idea the president and military can do whatever they want which probably explains the no votes from the likes of Amash, Lee, Massie

I think its a first step, can't pull the rug out from under them. If they only discontinue funds for the military spending they will be accused of not caring about the troops and if they don't do anything then the executive branch blames the legislative branch. They should definitely put the ball in the executive branch's court. It should be something that the president is held accountable for but they always blame congress. The only way to end this is to force congress to either authorize the military force or deem it unauthorized after that I think its fair to blame the executive for illegal use of military force, for illegal war.

 

[AZJoe]

And yet, the war rages on. US bombs continue to flow to Saudi Arabia (Salafi Barbaria) to descend upon Yemen. Washington continues to provide midair refueling for the Saudi bombers. Washington continues to provide logistical support and training for the Saudis.
Since the start of the Saudi invasion, the Saudi coalition has flown over 90,000 bombing sorties on Yemen.

 

[nikcers]

And yet, the war rages on. US bombs continue to flow to Saudi Arabia (Salafi Barbaria) to descend upon Yemen. Washington continues to provide midair refueling for the Saudi bombers. Washington continues to provide logistical support and training for the Saudis.
Since the start of the Saudi invasion, the Saudi coalition has flown over 90,000 bombing sorties on Yemen.

"Yeah but if we didn't sell them the guns they would of just bought them from someone else.."