Mainers demand federal delegation ‘take a moral stand’ against war with Iran

Anti-war protests filled the streets in cities across the country last weekend, and in several towns in Maine, opposing an increasingly-likely military conflict with Iran. The demands of participating Mainers were unequivocal, as they denounced any mobilization towards further wars in the Middle East.

“People are calling for an end of the war economy. People are calling for an end of militarism,” said Mainers for Accountable Leadership co-founder Marie Follayttar.

“Can you imagine if we put that money that went into the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan here in America?” asked Portland City Councilor Pious Ali. “We need housing. Our education system could be better. Our healthcare system could be better. But we didn’t because we tend to benefit a certain class of citizens.”

Demonstrators asked Maine’s federal delegation to take a clear, moral stand against the drive for war.

“In this case, there is not only no restraint, we are seeing an all-out push for war, with nobody pulling back on the reins,” said Jackie McNeil, director of Moral Movement Maine.

Much of their focus is on Maine’s senior senator, Susan Collins. Collins, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and likely the most powerful member of Congress in the GOP-majority Senate, did not condemn the Trump administration’s drone strikes last Friday that killed Iranian Major General Qassim Soleimani and nine other people. She instead requested the administration “quickly brief Congress on all available intelligence and its strategy to protect American citizens and servicemembers against Iran,” and said, “Congress must not be side-lined.”

“Senator Collins has extensive information and expertise due to her current position,” Follayttar said. “It is reckless and disrespectful to her constituents to not leverage both her information and her power to push back against this president.”

Over the weekend, President Trump said he could give “notice” to Congress of any military action via tweet (The War Powers Act requires 48 hours’ notice). “These Media Posts will serve as notification to the United States Congress that should Iran strike any U.S. person or target, the United States will quickly & fully strike back, & perhaps in a disproportionate manner,” he tweeted. “Such legal notice is not required, but is given nevertheless!”

Rep. Chellie Pingree responded on Monday. “Trump should review the War Powers Act. Hint: these powers belong to Congress. He should also brush up on the Geneva Convention which deems an attack on cultural sites or having a ‘disproportionate’ response to be a war crime,” the congresswoman tweeted. “This is how dictators behave, not US Presidents.”

Strategic, not moral, pushback

While many of the protesters in Maine said they were dubious about the justification for the attack after previous administrations led a march to war with manufactured threats, most of Maine’s federal lawmakers responded to the strike by reiterating the Trump administration’s argument that Soleimani was a worthy target.

“Soleimani was a ruthless enemy of America,” Collins said in a statement.

“Suleimani was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of U.S. service members in Iraq and Afghanistan, men and women I fought alongside,” Rep. Jared Golden echoed. Pingree added, “Soleimani was an evil man whose death we do not mourn.” “There is no doubt he was a force for evil,” Sen. Angus King said.

Chesterville resident and Vietnam War veteran Doug Rawlings, a founding member of Veterans for Peace, believes qualifying criticisms with such statements serves the administration’s interests. “We can’t waffle on this,” he said. “This is exactly what we do in America. We find foreign leaders and we demonize them to such an extent that it justifies us going into war.”

Rather than taking a stance against another war mobilization, King and Golden instead raised questions about the strategic implications of the administration’s unilateral strike.

“[L]ast night’s attack leaves us with one important question: how does this impact our strategic objectives in the region?” asked King. Golden said, “It remains to be seen whether this strike is in the long-term national security interests of our country. We need more information from the Trump Administration about the circumstances that led the president to authorize the strike.”

Rawlings said that he was “very, very unhappy with our delegation’s lukewarm response to this whole situation. They are getting caught in the weeds of strategy, without looking at the really profound immorality of what [Trump] just ordered. Threatening attacks on cultural sites, for example — it’s just staggering,” he added, referring to Trump’s Jan. 4 tweet threatening to target 52 sites “important to Iran & the Iranian culture.”

Rawlings explained what members of his veterans group want from their elected leaders in this time of crisis. “We’re looking for somebody with some degree of integrity, somebody that can take a moral stand,” he said.

‘Congress has abdicated their role’

In May 2018, Trump unilaterally withdrew from the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, greatly increasing tensions with the country. Collins said she opposed the deal in 2015 because it was “fundamentally flawed,” — an argument she reiterated when the administration walked away.

King, who also has a seat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, similarly characterized the deal as “flawed,” but supported it and said in September “we put all the pressure on Iran and now we shouldn’t act surprised when they strike back.”

On Sunday, Iran issued a statement that it was ending its commitment to limit the enrichment of uranium.

“We were pushing really hard to make sure that deal was approved,” said Martha Spiess, an organizer with Peace Action Maine, whose members demonstrated with other residents in Portland on Saturday. “That was kind of the beginning of where this all started, when they pulled out of that.”

With that deal now torn up, some Mainers are now pressuring their lawmakers to limit the president’s war powers.

Under the U.S. Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973, the executive branch has to seek the authorization of Congress to launch an offensive attack. This was greatly eroded during the “War on Terrorism” when, in 2001, Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), allowing the president “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.” The Bush, Obama, and now Trump administrations have interpreted that authorization broadly.

“We’re going to get all our members to phone our senators and representatives to demand to push for a War Powers Act,” Spiess said.

The effort to recapture Congressional war powers picked up last month in the U.S. House when the Progressive Caucus clashed with Democratic party leadership in the lead up to the passage of a $738 billion defense spending package for 2020, the annual National Defense Authorization Act.

An amendment attached to the NDAA by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), which was stripped out before the final vote, would have barred Trump from using federal dollars for military action against Iran without congressional approval.

Forty-eight Democrats in the House withheld their vote from the final budget when that amendment was cut. Pingree and Golden were not among them.

Last summer, when the same spending package was in the Senate, Collins broke with her party to support a proposed amendment that would have similarly restricted the president. The amendment didn’t get enough votes, however, and GOP leadership were confident it would be blocked. Collins and King both later voted for the final military spending package without any restrictions.

On Monday, weeks after Khanna’s amendment was cut, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she would introduce a new war powers resolution this week. Pingree announced Tuesday that she plans to vote in favor of the resolution, as well as repeal the 2001 AUMF passed after 9/11. Pelosi’s move could force Senate Republicans to address the heightened tension. Collins’ Democratic challengers are skeptical that she will support the resolution if her vote is pivotal to its passage.

“Saying, ‘Oh, isn’t it too bad,’ and then doing nothing about it is really getting very old and now putting thousands of lives in Iran and Iraq and in the United States at risk,” said Betsy Sweet, a candidate in the Democratic primary hoping to run against Collins.

Sweet said she supports repealing the 2001 AUMF as well. “There’s been provisions to get rid of that, and they have never been able to do it. To me, I think Congress has abdicated their role,” she said.

“It’s very, very dangerous to give Trump, Obama or any other president war making powers without Congressional oversight,” said Green candidate Lisa Savage, who also intends to challenge Collins in the ranked-choice election this November.



“I think I understand pretty well what my neighbors are struggling with, what their lives are like, and I don’t feel like they have a voice in Congress. I don’t think they want to go to war with Iraq and Iran. They certainly don’t want World War III,” said Savage.



“I think on a number of issues we’ve needed Congress to step up and take a firm stand, particularly in regard to a potential war,” said Democratic candidate Bre Kidman, who said they would have voted for the executive branch restrictions attached to the NDAA. “It’s going to be a crucial moment, and I hope what we saw happen in the lead up to the Iraq war won’t happen again.”

Maine House Speaker Sara Gideon, also campaigning against Collins, did not respond to Beacon‘s request for comment.

Top Photo: Bar Harbor residents join mass anti-war protests over the weekend. | Indivisible MDI