109
submitted 5 months ago by lemmus@lemmy.world to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

The U.S. and U.K. led a series of airstrikes in Yemen on Thursday evening, setting off alarms globally about how the attacks play into the smoldering regional risk of conflict — including a stream of questions from Congress about whether Biden was legally authorized to conduct the strikes at all.

all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Pohl@lemmy.world 68 points 5 months ago

Repeal the AUMF you fucking cowards! Otherwise, shut your little mouths and be the meek useless branch that you seem determined to be.

Put up or shut up congress.

[-] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 35 points 5 months ago

Yeah, there's absolutely a valid question of whether the AUMF is a good idea or not, but the fact of the matter is that it did pass, it is in force, and therefore essentially any military action - especially in response to direct attacks on American military ships - is unquestionably legal.

If Congress would like to complain about the President conducting war without its authority, they should perhaps revoke the essentially unlimited authority to conduct war that it gave him.

[-] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 9 points 5 months ago

What’s the argument that it’s a good idea? That congress is dysfunctional and can’t respond to urgent threats in a timely manner?

[-] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 12 points 5 months ago

Basically, and that in the modern era where attacks can happen very quickly and with zero warning from non-state actors (as opposed to having to march an army across fields for days), the President needs to be able to react very quickly.

Given the current state of Congress, with a shutdown looming, no real plan, and apparently now some rumblings of a plan to oust the Speaker yet again, I can kinda understand the logic.

More cynically, it isolates Congress members from any political accountability.

[-] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 6 points 5 months ago

I understand the logic in this case but I still think congress should have more oversight of US military force. If the entire body is too cumbersome to react quickly, surely a delegated committee could be formed that can approve or deny actions quickly. The danger of having that power unilaterally available to the president is too great.

[-] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 3 points 5 months ago

For what it's worth, I don't really disagree.

[-] agitatedpotato@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

So they really said "Instead of making our congress functional again, we'll drop some of the oversights on warfare". Brilliant.

[-] FireTower@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

[-] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 9 points 5 months ago

Rep Tlaib is welcome to file a lawsuit if she thinks the AUMF in unconstitutional. It would be a bit strange though if it survived 23 years of use, including actions in Iraq, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, and then a response to direct attacks on US Navy ships winds up being what sinks it.

But again, these representatives can sue if they're so confident.

[-] yesman@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

It's ironic you bring up Marbury vs. Madison. The case where the Supreme Court gave itself the extra-constitutional authority to strike down laws.

[-] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 5 months ago

Spoiler: they are constitutional.

[-] Drewfro66@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 5 months ago

Who cares if it's "Legal" or not under U.S. law?

[-] Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago

They've made it clear beyond a reasonable doubt there is no rule of law in the States. It's just "I get what I want or you die"

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 3 points 5 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


The U.S. and U.K. led a series of airstrikes in Yemen on Thursday evening, setting off alarms globally about how the attacks play into the smoldering regional risk of conflict — including a stream of questions from Congress about whether Biden was legally authorized to conduct the strikes at all.

In a statement, President Joe Biden said, “Today, at my direction, U.S. military forces—together with the United Kingdom and with support from Australia, Bahrain, Canada, and the Netherlands—successfully conducted strikes against a number of targets in Yemen used by Houthi rebels to endanger freedom of navigation in one of the world’s most vital waterways.”

With Israel being brought before the International Court of Justice in the Hague for allegedly committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, the Houthi blockade of Israeli trade in the Red Sea could gain a newfound global legitimacy.

“It’s appalling that instead of acting to stop Israeli war crimes, the Biden administration chose to further damage both our global reputation and our Constitutional system by launching a new unauthorized conflict against Yemen.”

“Iran sowed hatred across the Middle East, and the world is now reaping endless attacks from Hezbollah, Hamas and Houthis,” said Rep. Brian Mast of Florida, who showed up to Congress in an IDF uniform on October 13, 2023.

While Biden justified his Yemen strikes without congressional authorization, in 2020, when President Donald Trump was escalating hostilities with Iran, he was a staunch defender of the notion that Congress should be consulted before taking military action that could spark U.S. involvement in a regional war.


The original article contains 1,245 words, the summary contains 260 words. Saved 79%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2024
109 points (81.1% liked)

World News

31456 readers
1310 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS