Posts
FUELING WAR IN YEMEN AGAINST THE WILL OF CONGRESS: AN END RUN AROUND THE CONSTITUTION
BY
ALLAN C. BROWNFELD
———————————————————————
Congress, with bipartisan support, passed a resolution calling for the U.S. to stop fueling war in Yemen by massive arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. In doing so,it sought to restore the power given to Congress by the Constitution to decide when our country goes to war. Despite the Constitution’s clear division of powers, we have gone to war in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere without a congressional decision to do so. In April, President Trump vetoed the congressional resolution.
Both Republicans and Democrats in Congress have grown uneasy with the close relationship with Saudi Arabia. Many lawmakers in both parties also criticize the president for not condemning Saudi Atabia for the killing of Jamal Kashoggi, a Ssudi who lived in the U.S. and had written critical material about the Saudi regime. Last October, he entered the Saudi consulate in Istanbul and was never seen again. U.S. intelligence agencies say that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman was complicit in the killing—-something President Trump and his son-in-law Jared Kushner question. To the rest of the world, the role of the Saudi regime seems clear.
The U.S. is providing billions in U.S. arms to the Saudi-led coalition fighting against rebels in Yemen. Members of Congress have expressed concern about the thousands of civilians killed in air strikes since the conflict began in 2014 in the Arab world’s poorest country. People are suffering from a shortage of medical care and food and the country is said to be on the brink of famine.
The legal basis for providing massive aid to the Saudis—-in violation of the wishes of Congress—-is a loop-hole in the Arms Export Control Act which, in the event of an “emergency,” gives the president powers which the Constitution clearly assigns to Congress. This law, however, fails to define in any way what constitutes an “emergency.”
President Trump declared an “emergency” on May 24, to promote $8 billion in arms sales, just as he declared an “emergency” before unilaterally planning to impose tariffs on Mexico. He declared an “emergency” to use funds to build a border wall, which Congress had rejected. In an era of peace and prosperity, we seem to have an unusual number of “emergencies.”
Even one of President Trump’s closest congressional allies is now ready strip him of certain emergency powers in response to his actions to circumvent the will of Congress. “Do away with the emergency exception,” said Sen.Lindsay Graham (R-SC). Doing so, he added, would prevent the executive branch from repeating such a move in the future. “I would not have agreed to that before, but after this maneuver by the administration, count me in.”
Graham is one of several lawmakers conferring over how to change the rules governing congressional oversight of arms sales to prevent end runs around Congress, after Democrats and Republicans objected to the administration citing an unspecific threat from Iran to expedite more than $8 billion worth of arms sales.
“We’re talking about a more permanent fix so we can’t have it this way again,” said Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Senators Graham, Menendez and others are expected to ask for a vote on 23 disapproval resolutions aimed at blocking the sales, and a bipartisan majority of senators is expected to support that effort.
Members of Congress and White House officials remain at odds over the deals’ legitimacy. The chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), accused the administration of creating a “phony” emergency to justify the arms sales. He declared: “Here’s the reality. There is no emergency. It’s made up. And it’s an abuse of the law.”
The ranking Republican on the House Committee shared this view. Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) said that, “The recent use of the emergency authority, in my judgment, was unfortunate. Consulting with Congress is always the better route.” . In McCaul’s view, the “emergency” seemed less than serious if it would take months or years to complete the arms sales.
Rep, Tom Malinowski (D-NJ), a former assistant Secretary of State, declared: “The administration has provided us no evidence that the gulf countries face any substantially new threat from Iran that would justify declaring an emergency, or that these weapons, which the Saudis need to keep bombing Yemen, would even be useful if such a threat arose. If we allow these arms sales, the effect will be to prolong a war that does not serve U.S. interests, while signaling to the Saudis that they can get away with anything.”
Congress is finally showing an interest in ending our destructive role in Yemen and bringing to an end a legal loophole which permits the executive to engage in war—-and arms sales—-due to an “emergency” it is not legally required to precisely define. Pearl Harbor was an emergency. Whatever is going on in Yemen—-or at the Mexican border—-is something far different. The last thing the Framers of the Constitution had in mind was giving the executive—-of whatever party or philosophy—-the power to, in effect, rule unilaterally. Those Republicans inclined to acquiesce in such an assumption of executive power—-because their party now holds it—-should remember that when Democrats control the White House in the future, that power will then be theirs as well.
“if the administration won’t reverse its arms sales on its own, then Congress ought to assert its constitutional prerogatives and continue to do what it can to force the administration’s hand,”. said Robert Malley, President of the International Crisis Center.
Those who believe in constitutional government, in our system of checks and balances, and limited government—-which people who call themselves conservative have always embraced—-can hardly support government by manufactured “emergency,” which turns the Constiution on its head. It is time to end such arbitrary power before both parties become accustomed to a level of executive power which the Founding Fathers thought they had brought to an end.
BY
ALLAN C. BROWNFELD
———————————————————————
Congress, with bipartisan support, passed a resolution calling for the U.S. to stop fueling war in Yemen by massive arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. In doing so,it sought to restore the power given to Congress by the Constitution to decide when our country goes to war. Despite the Constitution’s clear division of powers, we have gone to war in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere without a congressional decision to do so. In April, President Trump vetoed the congressional resolution.
Both Republicans and Democrats in Congress have grown uneasy with the close relationship with Saudi Arabia. Many lawmakers in both parties also criticize the president for not condemning Saudi Atabia for the killing of Jamal Kashoggi, a Ssudi who lived in the U.S. and had written critical material about the Saudi regime. Last October, he entered the Saudi consulate in Istanbul and was never seen again. U.S. intelligence agencies say that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman was complicit in the killing—-something President Trump and his son-in-law Jared Kushner question. To the rest of the world, the role of the Saudi regime seems clear.
The U.S. is providing billions in U.S. arms to the Saudi-led coalition fighting against rebels in Yemen. Members of Congress have expressed concern about the thousands of civilians killed in air strikes since the conflict began in 2014 in the Arab world’s poorest country. People are suffering from a shortage of medical care and food and the country is said to be on the brink of famine.
The legal basis for providing massive aid to the Saudis—-in violation of the wishes of Congress—-is a loop-hole in the Arms Export Control Act which, in the event of an “emergency,” gives the president powers which the Constitution clearly assigns to Congress. This law, however, fails to define in any way what constitutes an “emergency.”
President Trump declared an “emergency” on May 24, to promote $8 billion in arms sales, just as he declared an “emergency” before unilaterally planning to impose tariffs on Mexico. He declared an “emergency” to use funds to build a border wall, which Congress had rejected. In an era of peace and prosperity, we seem to have an unusual number of “emergencies.”
Even one of President Trump’s closest congressional allies is now ready strip him of certain emergency powers in response to his actions to circumvent the will of Congress. “Do away with the emergency exception,” said Sen.Lindsay Graham (R-SC). Doing so, he added, would prevent the executive branch from repeating such a move in the future. “I would not have agreed to that before, but after this maneuver by the administration, count me in.”
Graham is one of several lawmakers conferring over how to change the rules governing congressional oversight of arms sales to prevent end runs around Congress, after Democrats and Republicans objected to the administration citing an unspecific threat from Iran to expedite more than $8 billion worth of arms sales.
“We’re talking about a more permanent fix so we can’t have it this way again,” said Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Senators Graham, Menendez and others are expected to ask for a vote on 23 disapproval resolutions aimed at blocking the sales, and a bipartisan majority of senators is expected to support that effort.
Members of Congress and White House officials remain at odds over the deals’ legitimacy. The chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), accused the administration of creating a “phony” emergency to justify the arms sales. He declared: “Here’s the reality. There is no emergency. It’s made up. And it’s an abuse of the law.”
The ranking Republican on the House Committee shared this view. Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) said that, “The recent use of the emergency authority, in my judgment, was unfortunate. Consulting with Congress is always the better route.” . In McCaul’s view, the “emergency” seemed less than serious if it would take months or years to complete the arms sales.
Rep, Tom Malinowski (D-NJ), a former assistant Secretary of State, declared: “The administration has provided us no evidence that the gulf countries face any substantially new threat from Iran that would justify declaring an emergency, or that these weapons, which the Saudis need to keep bombing Yemen, would even be useful if such a threat arose. If we allow these arms sales, the effect will be to prolong a war that does not serve U.S. interests, while signaling to the Saudis that they can get away with anything.”
Congress is finally showing an interest in ending our destructive role in Yemen and bringing to an end a legal loophole which permits the executive to engage in war—-and arms sales—-due to an “emergency” it is not legally required to precisely define. Pearl Harbor was an emergency. Whatever is going on in Yemen—-or at the Mexican border—-is something far different. The last thing the Framers of the Constitution had in mind was giving the executive—-of whatever party or philosophy—-the power to, in effect, rule unilaterally. Those Republicans inclined to acquiesce in such an assumption of executive power—-because their party now holds it—-should remember that when Democrats control the White House in the future, that power will then be theirs as well.
“if the administration won’t reverse its arms sales on its own, then Congress ought to assert its constitutional prerogatives and continue to do what it can to force the administration’s hand,”. said Robert Malley, President of the International Crisis Center.
Those who believe in constitutional government, in our system of checks and balances, and limited government—-which people who call themselves conservative have always embraced—-can hardly support government by manufactured “emergency,” which turns the Constiution on its head. It is time to end such arbitrary power before both parties become accustomed to a level of executive power which the Founding Fathers thought they had brought to an end.
No comments:
Post a Comment