Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday February 07 2019, @07:33PM   Printer-friendly

Senate approves Syria, anti-BDS[*] bill

The Senate passed legislation on Thursday breaking with President Trump's Syria policy. Senators voted 77-23 to send the legislation to the House that includes a provision warning Trump against a "precipitous" withdrawal of troops from Syria and Afghanistan. It also asks the administration to certify that certain conditions have been met "for the enduring defeat of al Qaeda and ISIS before initiating any significant withdrawal of United States forces from Syria or Afghanistan."

[...] In addition to the Syria amendment, the bill also included sanctions against the Syrian government, increased support for Israel and Jordan and a provision that would let states penalize businesses that take part in boycotts or divestments of Israel.

Both the Syria amendment and the anti-BDS provisions sparked division among Democrats. [...] Democrats had raised First Amendment concerns about the anti-BDS provision, which splintered most of the party's 2020 contenders and caucus leadership. "While I do not support the BDS movement, we must defend every American's constitutional right to engage in political activity. It is clear to me that this bill would violate Americans' First Amendment rights," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement last week.

[*] BDS: boycott, divestment and sanctions.

Also at NYT.

See also: Is the Anti-BDS Bill Constitutional? Yes, But...


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @09:09PM (8 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @09:09PM (#797971)

    Any war not declared by Congress is unconstitutional, and we are engaged in several such wars. They try to play semantics with the word "war" to get around this, preferring instead to call these wars something else.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +5  
       Insightful=2, Informative=3, Total=5
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday February 07 2019, @10:59PM (7 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 07 2019, @10:59PM (#798039) Journal

    Gray area. It is unfortunate that congress has abdicated much of it's authority to the president by passing the war powers acts. Ditto with immigration. Congress critters are far more interested in enriching themselves, than doing their jobs, so they grant powers to the president which aren't properly under his authority.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 08 2019, @04:16AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 08 2019, @04:16AM (#798143)

      Gray area. It is unfortunate that congress has abdicated much of it's authority to the president by passing the war powers acts.

      You seem to have forgotten what it was like to live through the Cold War. The war powers acts were passed so that the Commander in Chief would not have his hands tied in the event that the Soviet Union launched an all-out surprise attack that required quick action. The intention was that this would give the CiC a free hand to respond in real time to imminent threats; once the real time threat had been dealt with, the CiC was supposed to go to Congress to get approval for a longer term military engagement. (I seem to recall 60 days as being the time limit.) Of course, I do think you have a good point that, in practice, this has been used by Congress to abdicate it's constitutional authority. Sometimes, they do summon a modest bit of courage to push back against encroachment by the executive branch, but those moments are depressingly rare.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 08 2019, @04:39PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 08 2019, @04:39PM (#798391) Journal

        You seem to have forgotten what it was like to live through the Cold War.

        That's almost amusing. 1961, I was five years old, and starting first grade. To register for school at Walmo Elementary, in Neshannock Township, Lawrence County, Pennsylvania at that time, new students had to see the school nurse, the principal, a couple different teachers, and pass a few small tests. The nurse was downstairs, in the basement. To get to the nurse's station, one had to walk past a chain mesh gate that protected the entrance to a fall out shelter. Food and water enough to feed ~ 150 people for some period of time, I think it was 3 months. That was my first inkling that there was a Cold War.

        That Cold War lasted long enough for me to grow up, serve eight years in the military, and then to start a family.

        No, I haven't forgotten.

        It's CONVENIENT for one man to have all the power of the War Powers acts. That doesn't mean that congress acted wisely.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 08 2019, @07:12PM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 08 2019, @07:12PM (#798478)

      Not a gray area. Congress has the power to declare war, but doesn't have the power to give the president its own power to declare war. If you disagree, tell me where in the Constitution it says otherwise.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 08 2019, @07:42PM (3 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 08 2019, @07:42PM (#798506) Journal

        I'm too tired for this, but yes, it's a gray area. We can agree that the executive branch has the power and authority to react to an emergency, even in the absence of congressional approval? That much is certainly constitutional. He can't declare a formal war, but he can take (limited) action to address an emergency.

        Problem is, how one defines "emergency". Like, civil war in Syria, we donate arms and funds to "rebels", then learn that those "rebels" are beasts of an entirely different stripe. So, terrorists are using our weapons and our money to create an army of jihadis. So, is this an emergency? Maybe. But, what do we do? We redouble our efforts to topple Syria's government. Stupid? How does that address the jihadi army? WTF? Tired or not, I've never seen any sense in any of that. But, emergency. The president can decide to put boots on the ground to address this half-imagined emergency of our own making.

        And, in fact, the Senate has warned the president NOT TO WITHDRAW from Syria - despite the fact that there has been no declaration of war against Syria. And, we're all left scratching our heads, wondering WTF. So, the executive is exercising it's proper authority to react to a self inflicted emergency, at the behest of a congress/senate that refuses to declare war, but refuses to allow our troops to leave a sovereign nation. It's all kinds of gray here, if you ask me. There is no black, no white, no colors at all, just gray.

        The War Powers acts just add confusion to the already sordid tale. Genuine constitutional scholars probably have problems deciding whether we've done anything right, or it's all wrong.

        Overall, we have to give congress an FF. Not a mere F for failure, but an FF for fucking failure. Or, maybe TFF, the T for total.

        The whole War Powers thing needs to be determine to be constitutional, or unconstitutional before we can address specific actions taken by the executive. With that out of the way, we might begin to see some blacks, some whites, and some colors. Until then, nothing but confusing grays.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 10 2019, @05:31PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 10 2019, @05:31PM (#799138)

          I'm too tired for this, but yes, it's a gray area. We can agree that the executive branch has the power and authority to react to an emergency, even in the absence of congressional approval? That much is certainly constitutional. He can't declare a formal war, but he can take (limited) action to address an emergency.

          If you're saying the military can wage war in another country without a declaration of war, then we don't agree. The army can defend what is inside US borders, but without a declaration of war, it cannot do more than that. So, the army invading another country without a declaration of war from Congress is out of the question. Period.

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday February 10 2019, @05:53PM (1 child)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 10 2019, @05:53PM (#799146) Journal

            We're pretty much in agreement. By "emergency" I mean that the US and/or it's territories are under attack. But, then, there are some shady areas again. We have a ship, an army division, or some such, in a foreign land, on some peaceful mission. They're attacked, by some third party. Quite naturally, they have a right to defend themselves. The pres sends in air support, and reinforcements. Is that right, or should he have just evacuated our troops as quickly as possible? I can go on, but that should be enough of an example. There are times and places when an emergency might justify war-like acts in foreign lands.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 11 2019, @08:06PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 11 2019, @08:06PM (#799719)

              We're not just defending ourselves from immediate attacks, but waging war offensively. That's the difference. For Syria and all these others middle eastern countries, the answer is obvious: Pull all troops out immediately.