Skip to content

Category Archives: AUMF

The Significance of Harold Koh’s Legal Defense of the Administration’s Interpretation of the 2001 AUMF

By
Wednesday, October 1, 2014 at 7:02 AM

Harold’s Koh’s grudging defense of the domestic legal basis for President’s Obama’s use of force against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria is important.  It adds little new to other defenses of the President’s position – a legal position, I have argued in past posts, is politically stupid and constitutionally imprudent but nonetheless legally . . .
Read more »

Ongoing “Covert” Training of Syrian Rebels: But Is It Still Covert . . . , And, If So, Why?

By and
Monday, September 22, 2014 at 8:45 AM

[Cross-Posted at Just Security]  Last week Congress approved, and the President signed, legislation that authorizes the Secretary of Defense (see section 149) to “provide assistance, including training, equipment, supplies, and sustainment, to appropriately vetted elements of the Syrian opposition and other appropriately vetted Syrian groups and individuals,” for three specified purposes, including “defending the Syrian people from . . .
Read more »

Honorable Mention: Sen. Tim Kaine

By
Friday, September 19, 2014 at 9:21 AM

I have spent a lot of time over the past several years—as have many Americans—marveling at the horribleness of the United States Congress. And like many people of a romantically historical bent, I have often wondered how political institutions created and once occupied by such intellectual giants as were ours came to be dominated by . . .
Read more »

Too Soon to Assess the President’s Invocation of the 2001 AUMF as to ISIS?

By
Wednesday, September 17, 2014 at 4:17 PM

Over the past week there has been much talk about the President’s invocation of the 2001 AUMF in connection with ISIS. Many (including me) expressed considerable surprise, and doubt, about the merits of that argument. Which raises the question: will anything come of objections? One view is that this ship has sailed. Writing today at . . .
Read more »

Senator Kaine’s ISIS AUMF

By
Wednesday, September 17, 2014 at 12:59 PM

Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) will introduce an authorization for the use of military force against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) today. The proposal comes as no surprise. Earlier this week, Senator Kaine penned an op-ed in the New York Times, both arguing that “when the mission shifts from defense to offense, congressional approval is essential;” and objecting . . .
Read more »

Rep. Adam Schiff’s ISIS AUMF

By
Tuesday, September 16, 2014 at 6:26 PM

Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, introduced an authorization for the use of military force against ISIS yesterday. According to a press release from Rep. Schiff, “First, the authorization would give temporary, tailored authority for the combat ongoing against ISIL in Iraq, and for strikes against ISIL targets in Syria.  . . .
Read more »

House Amendment to Arm Syrian Rebels

By
Tuesday, September 16, 2014 at 12:18 PM

The House Rules Committee has released an amendment to the Continuing Resolution (CR) that would authorize the Department of Defense to begin arming and training moderate Syrian rebels as identified by the Obama Administration; however, the measure provides no new funding for the initiative. The Hill has more on the proposal, which you can read . . .
Read more »

In Re Directives Documents Released

By
Thursday, September 11, 2014 at 8:48 PM

As we noted earlier today, documents bearing on the In Re Directives litigation have now been declassified. The voluminous materials—including briefs and an apparently less redacted version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review’s 2008 opinion—indeed can now be found at the DNI’s Tumblr site, and below. We’ll likely have more to say on this; stay . . .
Read more »

ISIL as al Qaeda: Three Reactions

By
Thursday, September 11, 2014 at 1:52 AM

Like Bobby, Wells, and Ben, I, too, was surprised to discover that the Obama Administration’s legal theory (for the moment) appears to be that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) can be targeted under the 2001 AUMF despite its very public split from al Qaeda. That said, I think all three of my friends miss the animating premise of the . . .
Read more »

The 2001 AUMF Covers 2014 Counterterrorism Operations Against ISIS?

By
Wednesday, September 10, 2014 at 10:05 PM

What Ben said. I certainly can see why the executive branch would want to adopt a reading as aggressive as this one: it nips some War Powers Resolution questions in the bud, and helps to make it more likely that, going forward, talk of any additional congressional authorization can be held in best practices terms rather than legal ones. . . .
Read more »

“The Legal Basis for Striking ISIS”

By
Wednesday, September 10, 2014 at 8:24 AM

That’s the title of an hour-long panel discussion which will be held at noon on September 25, and hosted  by the Heritage Foundation’s Cully Stimson.  He’ll be joined by Dechert’s Steve Bradbury, and our own Bobby Chesney and Steve Vladeck.  More details can be found here; the event’s description is below. As the Obama Administration . . .
Read more »

A White House Trial Balloon Trying Out the 2002 Iraq AUMF?

By
Tuesday, September 9, 2014 at 10:59 PM

According to this story in the Post, an unidentified administration official–maybe the President, maybe not–has raised the possibility that the plans for a ramped-up campaign against IS will not need fresh congressional authorization because…wait for it…the 2002 Iraq AUMF remains on the books: The president “thinks he has the legal authority he needs” to increase . . .
Read more »

Four of The Would-be ISIS AUMFs

By
Tuesday, September 9, 2014 at 6:32 PM

While Congressional leadership may be hesitant to take up a vote authorizing the president to use military force in Iraq and/or Syria against ISIS in the coming weeks, we’ve seen several different authorizations put into play—with different requirements, and by different members of Congress. Below, I note four of the would-be ISIS AUMFs that are kicking around . . .
Read more »

More on Iraq’s Implications for the Continuing Relevance of the 2001 AUMF

By
Monday, September 8, 2014 at 3:55 PM

Yesterday I posed the question whether the 2001 AUMF has any continuing significance, legally-speaking, for counterterrorism activities (especially drone strikes) in Pakistan, Yemen, etc., given that the President is “confident that [he] has the authorization that [he] need[s]” to do what has been done in Iraq and also to support the expanded role that he . . .
Read more »

If We Don’t Need an AUMF for Iraq, Why Would Repeal of the 2001 AUMF Matter?

By
Sunday, September 7, 2014 at 6:59 PM

This coming Wednesday evening, President Obama will address the country on the topic of Iraq and the Islamic State, describing his strategy and making the case to the public to support an approach that not only will involve a continuation of the ongoing pattern of airstrikes (see here for a description of the latest set . . .
Read more »

More on CIA Drone Strikes, Covert Action, TMA, and the Fifth Function

By
Sunday, September 7, 2014 at 6:16 PM

Yesterday Kevin Heller and I exchanged views on the possible sources of domestic authorization for the CIA to conduct drone strikes. His two initial posts are here and here; my response is here; and the first part of Kevin’s reply (focused on whether the drone strike program counts as covert action given the traditional military . . .
Read more »

CIA Drone Strikes and the Public-Authority Justification

By
Saturday, September 6, 2014 at 4:01 PM

In a pair of posts (here and here), Kevin Heller at Opinio Juris explores a very interesting question: What exactly is the domestic legal foundation for the CIA’s use of lethal force given that the 2001 AUMF refers explicitly to US armed forces only? As he points out, the question matters especially in connection with . . .
Read more »

A New Drone Strike in Somalia: Is the 2001 AUMF Needed?

By
Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 2:49 PM

To the best of my knowledge, the U.S. government has not asserted that al Shabaab as a whole is an associated force of al Qaeda engaged in hostilities against the United States subject to the 2001 AUMF. Nonetheless, the public record reveals that we do use lethal force, from time to time, in Somalia against . . .
Read more »

The Case for a Broader ISIS AUMF

By
Thursday, August 28, 2014 at 3:33 PM

Like all red-blooded national security law nerds, I have been following Jack’s excellent posts over the past week on the politics and the advisability of a potential ISIS AUMF—the last of which post, which ran yesterday, offered strategies for narrowing a potential authorization to make it more politically doable. Jack writes: “One way to make an IS . . .
Read more »

A Politically Palatable Authorization to Use Force Against IS [UPDATED]

By
Wednesday, August 27, 2014 at 2:20 PM

One senses growing pressure, within and without the White House, for the President to seek authorization from Congress for what he and his aides say will be a long battle against the Islamic State (IS).  Last week I outlined the political concerns in Congress and the White House, and earlier this week I argued that . . .
Read more »