[Peace-discuss] Congress: no $$ for war without debate & vote

Tue Nov 18 19:10:15 EST 2014

Robert, my responses below in bold.

Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 10:50:34 -0600
To: karenaram at hotmail.com
CC: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; cge at shout.net; sf-core at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Congress: no $$ for war without debate & vote
From: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net

Dear Karen,
You rationalize ignoring Congress on the grounds that Congress "does not represent the people." But according to public opinion polls, the American public supports airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. If Congress supports airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, then according to these opinion polls, Congress IS representing the people.   The American public who support the airstrikes against ISIS have been manipulated as a result of being fed so much media propaganda. It's no surprise that mainstream America feels this way.  When you suggest "debate" I would like to think that debate would include anti-war activists, not just Congressional Representatives who as I said don't truly represent the people, if the people are manipulated into supporting what the Reps. want supported. There is something reprehensible about debating the attributes of killing people especially given our record over the years. It's one thing to require the  administration adhere to the precedent set last year, to adhere to the process, but its another to give Congress and the administration the "right" to go to war, when we know its what they plan to do. Which is why I have a problem signing a petition that doesn't simply say "No more war, no more killing."  We won this battle against airstrikes against ISIS last year, but never doubted we'd be back again, as we are, with a nasty villain to unite the American public for the cause of war. "Transparency" is a goal worthy of acquisition, however in this case its a bit too late. This is why I support simply urging "No war, no more killing". It's an exercise that created ISIS and will continue to create more ISIS terrorists in the future. 
If you look around, you will see that people who have a possibility of achieving something concrete in the political system on other issues take objective reality as a starting point. It's a symptom of weakness that the peace movement in the United States doesn't have strong institutions to try to defend its interests in the political system, as other reform interests do. In this vacuum, the ideological ultra-left has more sway. I suspect, in fact, that the ultra-left has a tendency to cotton to anti-war issues precisely because it's an arena where ultra-left, anti-reform voices perceive that they can have more sway. In the labor movement, in the environmental movement, in the women's rights movement, ultra-left voices are a fly on an elephant. One can easily ignore them, it's obvious that they have little hope of significant impact. But in the anti-war movement, there is no elephant. In this context, a culture has developed of more indulgence of ultra-left voices, even though they have no more prospect of accomplishing anything concrete in this arena than they do in any other arena. These ultra-left voices have a tendency to try to gain a hearing for themselves by attacking reform efforts, rather than by organizing their own efforts.The "anti-war movement is not an ultra left movement", many of these issues are divisive among the left. 

Robert Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
(202) 448-2898 x1

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Karen Aram <karenaram at hotmail.com> wrote:

Robert, we at AWARE have held monthly demonstrations against war for a long time, including many in addition to the regular monthly ones. We also have a table at the market almost every other week throughout the year disseminating anti-war literature, and on the AWARE tv program we promote contacting our government leaders in respect to "war". I have only been involved with AWARE for a year and half, but others have been active for years, and perhaps could better address your question. 
To be clear, I support, sign and circulate most of your petitions, but though it may appear petti to denigrate this particular one, it does in essence reflect the divide between the Left in America. That is, the sense that Congress does not represent the people, but rather the lobbyists representing the 1%. Yes Obama set a precedent last year by going to Congress for funding, but its not just about the funding. The debate tends to be when and how to wage war, how to finance it, not whether we should have it. 
Last year Congress successfully refused strikes on Syria, out of mere opposition to Obama, I congratulate you on your successful efforts at the time, but this year they have a "perfect villain", to rally behind in spite of their opposition to the President. 
The issue should be "no war" period. Not about funding it, there are always ways around funding. 

Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 09:03:59 -0600
To: karenaram at hotmail.com
CC: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; cge at shout.net; sf-core at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Congress: no $$ for war without debate & vote
From: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net

I look forward to receiving invitations on this list to future public activities in Champaign-Urbana on the war attempting to engage Congress, organized by Carl and Karen.
So far, I see nothing going on. Is there a lot of activity going on in C-U that I don't know about? Why aren't invitations to these wonderful activities being posted on this list?

Robert Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
(202) 448-2898 x1

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 8:43 AM, Karen Aram <karenaram at hotmail.com> wrote:

I  agree with Carl, while  I understand how one might feel that going to war without congressional approval is wrong, and we should request congressional approval as a matter of process, in hopes that funding war will be rejected, nonetheless I agree that the "big picture" requires we insist on no war rather than permission or funding for war.

Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 14:52:11 -0600
To: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
CC: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; sf-core at yahoogroups.com; occupy.cu at gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Congress: no $$ for war without debate & vote
From: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net

We should urge our representative and senators to oppose any funding for war, period.
A Congressional "authorization for the use of force" cannot make mass murder legal under international law.
America's criminal war-making (and provocations of Russia and China) is in aid of the economic advantage of the American one percent - via their control of the Eurasian economy - and monstrously dangerous to the rest of the world, including Americans, who pay for it. 
We should instead call upon the Congress to institute impeachment proceedings against the war-makers in the US government, starting with the President. 

On Nov 17, 2014, at 2:30 PM, Robert Naiman <noreply at list.moveon.org> wrote:
Dear C. G. Estabrook,

The Pentagon has requested $5 billion in new funding for the new war in Iraq and Syria. But Congress has not yet debated and voted on an authorization for the use of military force [AUMF] [1], and budget watchdog groups say the Pentagon can easily find the money in the massive budgets it already has. [2]    

Urge your Representative and Senators to oppose any new funding for war in Iraq and Syria until Congress has debated and voted on an authorization for the use of force and the Pentagon has explained why it needs more money on top of the massive budgets it already has, by signing our petition at MoveOn.

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/no-war-money-without-debate

I explained why the idea of Congress giving the Pentagon new tax dollars for the war before Congress debates and votes on an AUMF is outrageous six ways from Sunday in a piece at Truthout. You can read and share that here:

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/27478-5-billion-for-iraq-syria-war-three-reasons-to-oppose

Here is the text of our petition at MoveOn:

"Members of Congress should oppose any new funding for war in Iraq and Syria until Congress has debated and voted on an Authorization for the Use of Military Force [AUMF] and the Pentagon has explained why it needs more money on top of the massive budgets it already has."
Urge your Representative and Senators to stand up for transparency and accountability by signing and sharing our petition:   

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/no-war-money-without-debate 

Thanks for all you do to help end, limit, and constrain war using democracy and the rule of law,

Robert Naiman
Just Foreign Policy

References: 
1. “Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine: We're in ISIS war 'without legal authority,'” Laura Koran and Ashley Killough, CNN, November 12, 2014,http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/12/politics/tim-kaine-isis/index.html
2. “The Pentagon's Budget Bamboozle: Lawmakers should look very closely at the latest Pentagon funding request,” Ryan Alexander, Taxpayers for Common Sense, U.S. News & World Report, Nov. 12, 2014, http://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2014/11/12/congress-should-look-closely-at-pentagon-overseas-funding-requests

This message was sent to C. G. Estabrook
by Robert Naiman through MoveOn's public petition website. 

MoveOn Political Action licensed and paid for this service, but
does not endorse contents of this message. 

To unsubscribe or report this email as inappropriate, click here:
http://petitions.moveon.org/unsub.html?i=26332-2656067-aTBFi0

Want to make a donation? MoveOn is entirely funded by our 8 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in here.

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss 		 	   		  

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss 		 	   		  

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20141118/b3070a21/attachment-0001.html>