Tag Archives: Barbara Lee

Barbara Lee Was Right About the War on Terror, by Luke Savage

Barbara Lee had more guts than all her fellow legislators combined when she voted against the Authorization for Use of Military Force back in 2001. From Luke Savage at jacobinmag.com:

Twenty years ago, Barbara Lee cast the lone vote against the Authorization for Use of Military Force — the blank check for endless war Congress gave George W. Bush after 9/11. She’s been vindicated by history. Those who pushed the “War on Terror” have not.

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) speaks with reporters in the Capitol in January 2020. (Tom Williams / CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Three days after the horrific September 11 attacks, America’s national atmosphere was a disorienting haze of fear, trauma, and jingoism. In the wake of what had just transpired, the bipartisan consensus could not have been more ironclad: the country would be entering into a vaguely defined war of unknown length whose parameters were essentially open-ended and could be determined at will by the president. That spirit was aptly captured in the language of a House resolution passed on September 14:

The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.

Of the 421 lawmakers who voted on the resolution — which would pass in the Senate 98-0 shortly after — the lone voice of dissent was a single Democrat from California. Twenty years later, Barbara Lee’s intervention continues to count as one of the bravest individual votes in the history of the House of Representatives. Lee, moreover, refused to equivocate about the reasons for her opposition, explaining in an op-ed for the San Francisco Chronicle on September 23:

Some believe this resolution was only symbolic, designed to show national resolve. But I could not ignore that it provided explicit authority, under the War Powers Resolution and the Constitution, to go to war. It was a blank check to the president to attack anyone involved in the Sept. 11 events — anywhere, in any country, without regard to our nation’s long-term foreign policy, economic and national security interests, and without time limit. In granting these overly broad powers, the Congress failed its responsibility to understand the dimensions of its declaration. I could not support such a grant of war-making authority to the president; I believe it would put more innocent lives at risk. . . . A rush to launch precipitous military counterattacks runs too great a risk that more innocent men, women, children will be killed. I could not vote for a resolution that I believe could lead to such an outcome.

Continue reading→

Reining in the Ubiquitous Use of Military Force, by Arshad M. Khan

Representative Barbara Lee (D-California) was the only representative who voted in 2001 against the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, which was intended to authorize the war in Afghanistan, but has been stretched to cover every US intervention since then. Last July, she proposed repealing that authorization. House Speaker Paul Ryan deleted her proposal, but Lee deserves some credit for opposing the American pastime: foreign wars. From Arshad M. Khan at antiwar.com:

Four US soldiers died in Niger on October 4, and the president’s insensitive phone call to the widow of one has brought the subject of the military in every corner of the world back in the news.

The UN has 193 members. The US has over 240,000 troops in at least 172 of them, some of which are embroiled in what The New York Times describes as “forever wars”. How many people knew there was a contingent of more than 1,000 in Niger? Chuck Schumer, the Senate Minority Leader and thus the highest ranking Democrat, did not. Neither did Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican who serves on the Armed Forces Committee. Or, Senator Rand Paul who wants the post 9/11 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) to be reviewed.

It is now 16 years since the AUMF was passed, and the US is no longer responding to an attack on the mainland nor is it in any immediate peril. So why this flagrant insult to the Constitution, which wisely reserved the power to declare war for Congress alone. Yes, we live in a different world; yes, we are confronted with non-state actors. At the same time, we also live in a world of instant communication. How difficult could it be then for Congress to respond quickly when necessary?

In September, the Senate voted 61-36 against Senator Rand Paul’s AUMF amendment calling for another look. He denounced it as a recipe for “unlimited war, anywhere, anytime, any place upon the globe,” adding “I don’t think one generation should bind another generation to war.” One can only commend his steadfastness in forcing a vote. “Who in their right mind thinks Congress is going to do their job without being forced to do their job?” commented Senator Paul.

In the House, Representative Barbara Lee’s (D-California) repeal amendment last July was stripped off the defense authorization bill by Speaker Paul Ryan according to her in the “dead of night” in a move she called, “underhanded and undemocratic.”

To continue reading: Reining in the Ubiquitous Use of Military Force