The Fatal Flaws in a Congressional Resolution to End US Support for the Saudi-Led Yemen War
One consequence of the Saudi government’s horrific murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi is a renewed congressional focus on ending for the Saudi-led war against an anti-government movement in Yemen. This has to be somewhat bittersweet for many Yemenis, who have been pleading for the world to help end Saudi war crimes and actions that have killed children, bombed hospitals, and resulted in a worsening humanitarian crisis, with millions of people starving.
Now, Congress has the opportunity to make a real difference that will save Yemeni lives. But one of the main legislative solutions it’s considering contains major mistakes that would actually perpetuate Saudi and American fighting and Yemeni suffering, not end them. For that reason, the ACLU urged members of the House of Representatives to vote no on the legislation, commonly referred to as the Yemen resolution.
We did not make this decision to oppose lightly. We know the United States has played a leading role in Yemen’s devastation through its military support for the Saudi-led coalition and U.S. lethal strikes, and urgent congressional action is required to put an end to this unauthorized fight. In the end, the bill did not go forward because of a procedural vote last Wednesday. It won’t come up again in the House during this Congress but could be reintroduced in the next one. But our hope is that lawmakers do not repeat these mistakes and that they enact meaningful legislation instead.
Flaw No. 1: Maintaining what it’s trying to stop
Critically, the legislation wouldn’t actually end U.S. support for the Saudi-led coalition. That’s because it requires an end to U.S. support for Saudi “hostilities,” but it doesn’t specifically define the hostilities that Congress is prohibiting. To understand why that’s a problem, you have to know a bit of recent history — going back to the Obama administration, when U.S. support began. In order to circumvent congressional war approval requirements for airstrikes in Libya, officials in 2011 that congressional approval isn’t required for U.S. actions that “do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve U.S. ground troops.”
In essence, the Obama administration narrowed the definition of hostilities virtually out of existence where airstrikes are concerned. As legal scholars at the time, this was legally wrong but could set a dangerous precedent. And so it did. The Trump administration is now similarly that the Yemen resolution wouldn’t change anything because the U.S. support for the Saudi-led coalition isn’t “hostilities.”
Again, that’s legally and morally wrong, but the bill’s drafters could have circumvented the argument by simply defining the hostilities they’re prohibiting. They could have specified, for example, that Congress is prohibiting U.S. support, which includes refueling of Saudi aircraft, military advice and information, logistics, and other support to the Saudi-led coalition. These are all ways in which the U.S. is complicit in Saudi horrors. But the resolution does not do that.
Flaw No. 2: Legitimizing unlawful U.S. killings
Bad drafting also gives a pass to the United States’ own unauthorized killings in Yemen — and worse risks helping the Trump administration to argue that those killings are lawful. That’s because the Yemen resolution contains an exception stating that it doesn’t apply to the United States’ own use of force in Yemen if those activities are authorized by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). That law authorized only the war in Afghanistan, but three administrations have improperly relied on it for military actions around the world.
We have long fought against the government’s untenable arguments about where and how the AUMF applies — arguments the government has made to justify everything from deadly drone strikes in Yemen to unlawful detention of a U.S. citizen captured in Syria. Courts have largely been reluctant to adjudicate these claims, even in cases of the worst American human rights abuses. And the Trump administration knows that. We can confidently predict that this reference to the AUMF would be read by government lawyers to support its actions. That reading would be wrong, but Congress shouldn’t weigh the scales in favor of the administration and its illegitimate arguments for more war-based authority to kill.
As The Associated Press just last week, this administration has dramatically expanded the number of lethal U.S. strikes in Yemen, and at least a third of those killed so far in 2018 were civilians. The U.S. has a long history of excusing its own unlawful lethal actions abroad, even as it excoriates other countries for theirs. The new Congress has the ability to force an end to this dynamic.
Flaw No. 3: Letting the United Arab Emirates get away with abuses
There’s another related mistake here. The Trump administration would also likely read this exception to justify its support for the United Arab Emirate’s devastating actions in Yemen, so long as they are purportedly taken against al Qaeda under the AUMF umbrella. The UAE has been in political assassinations, unlawful detention, and torture of Yemenis. Congress should be questioning the Trump administration about its knowledge of and possible complicity with the UAE’s abuses, not inadvertently supporting them.
How to match good intentions with good results
In our letter, we explained that Congress could and should pursue other actions that will actually be meaningful and effective, like prohibiting funding for U.S. refueling of Saudi aircraft or barring arms shipments and other defense assistance to Saudi Arabia. There are several good bills and amendments introduced in the House and Senate that would truly force an end to the U.S. role in Saudi-inflicted horrors. And Congress should finally act to put an end to the devastation our own government is causing in multiple countries based on unauthorized war claims under the AUMF.
Khashoggi’s killing has rightly captured world attention and generated American outrage — likely more so because he was a prominent journalist and has prominent friends and institutions seeking justice for him. In the words of , “Yemenis were saddened, but not surprised, at the extent of the brutality exhibited in Khashoggi’s killing, because our country has been living through this same Saudi brutality for almost four years.”
The Yemenis who are continuing to suffer should have the same unrelenting support for meaningful action from Congress and from the American public. It just has to be done right.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Religious Liberty
ACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter IslamophobiaACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter Islamophobia
WASHINGTON – The Biden administration today released the first-ever national strategy to counter Islamophobia and related forms of bias and discrimination, including hate against Arab, Sikh, and South Asian Americans. In advance of the strategy, American Civil Liberties Union and its partners had urged the administration to overhaul government programs that reflect anti-Muslim discrimination. In particular, we have called for urgent action to constrain governmental agencies from continuing to exercise their authorities and technology to wrongly surveil and investigate, watchlist, and question and detain Muslims at the border, as well as deny immigration benefits to people from Muslim-majority countries. While the White House raised expectations that many of these issues would be addressed, the final strategy ended up falling far short. The following is a statement from Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project: “While this strategy acknowledges discrimination and its harms, it does little to end them and is a squandered opportunity. For decades, American officials have invoked national security to pass laws and implement programs that disproportionately harm Muslims and people perceived to be Muslim. A serious anti-discrimination strategy would concretely address multiple bias-infused government practices that deny our communities equal participation in civic life and our democracy, like federal watchlisting, surveillance, and investigation. We’re profoundly frustrated that the administration didn’t take even the basic, overdue step of recognizing that anti-Muslim discrimination is uniquely normalized and embedded in government policies.” -
VirginiaDec 2024
National Security
Trabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted ManTrabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted Man
Our client, Nizar Trabelsi, is in the United States against his will. The federal government brought him here from Belgium more than a decade ago and charged him with terrorism-related crimes. At trial, the government’s case failed: a federal jury found Mr. Trabelsi not guilty. But instead of allowing Mr. Trabelsi to return to Belgium after his acquittal, the United States placed him in highly restrictive immigration detention and began an ongoing effort to force him to Tunisia, where he was born and where he will very likely be tortured. Mr. Trabelsi’s detention violates the Constitution, immigration law, and the extradition treaty between the United States and Belgium. Through this lawsuit, he seeks to return to Belgium, and he demands an immediate improvement of his detention conditions. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
Federal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is UnlawfulFederal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is Unlawful
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — This week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that the court does not have jurisdiction to decide whether the government can continue to detain Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian national who was brought to the United States against his will for prosecution and was cleared of all charges last year. The ruling means the United States will be able to continue to detain Mr. Trabelsi while it attempts to deport him to Tunisia, where he was born and where, as an immigration judge ruled earlier this year, he will likely face torture. The court also concluded that even if it did have jurisdiction over Mr. Trabelsi’s case, his claims challenging the government’s detention of him would fail. “Reviewing claims that the government is holding someone unlawfully is at the core of the judicial function, and we’re heartbroken for our client that the court got this so wrong,” said Brett Max Kaufman, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Center for Democracy. “The government’s arguments in defense of Mr. Trabelsi’s detention makes a hash of the Constitution, immigration laws, and its own extradition treaty.” In 2013, the United States forcibly extradited Mr. Trabelsi from Belgium to face criminal charges in the United States. In July 2023, after almost 10 years of highly restrictive pretrial detention, a federal jury cleared Mr. Trabelsi of all charges. But instead of releasing Mr. Trabelsi or returning him to Belgium, the U.S. transferred him to immigration detention, wrongly treating him as an applicant for admission and placing him in the deportation process. Over the years, the Belgian government has issued multiple formal diplomatic requests asking the U.S. to facilitate his return, but the U.S. has refused to send him back. Mr. Trabelsi filed a lawsuit challenging the government's authority to detain him. He also sought immediate improvements to his detention conditions. Those claims were not part of the court’s ruling today, and will continue to be litigated on a separate track. “Mr. Trabelsi only wants to return to Belgium after being illegally extradited to the United States, held for ten years, and then acquitted by a jury of any crimes,” said Nicole Hallett, clinical professor of law and director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. “He cannot be held indefinitely and we will continue to fight to make sure that justice ultimately prevails.” Mr. Trabelsi is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the University of Chicago Law School’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, the ACLU of Virginia, and Professor Jonathan Hafetz of Seton Hall Law School. The complaint in Trabelsi v. Crawford was filed against Jeffrey Crawford, warden of the Farmville Detention Center where Mr. Trabelsi is being held; Liana Castano, ICE field office director for the Washington Field Office; Alejandro Mayorkas, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; and Merrick Garland, U.S. attorney general.