Skip to content

Tag Archives: AUMF

Is the AUMF Next?

By
Friday, January 17, 2014 at 7:34 AM

Hmmmm. Here’s a very interesting few paragraphs from the Wall Street Journal: The president’s speech, to be delivered at the Justice Department, caps a process that was similar to the one he undertook on other controversial, post-Sept. 11 issues, such as the use of armed drones and closing the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. . . .
Read more »

The Effect of the Proposed Repeal of the 2002 Iraq AUMF

By
Friday, January 10, 2014 at 3:07 PM

The Washington Post reports that Senator Paul “plans to introduce legislation to repeal the use-of-force resolution that paved the way for the Iraq war,” and notes that President Obama supports the repeal of the Iraq AUMF.  The 2002 Iraq AUMF authorizes the President to use necessary and appropriate force to “(1) defend the national security . . .
Read more »

Al Laithi Reply Brief Before the D.C. Circuit: Defining the Scope of Employment

By
Friday, December 27, 2013 at 7:54 AM

In response to the government’s brief, counsel for the Plaintiffs in Al Laithi v. Rumsfeld et. al.  filed a reply brief on Dec. 18th.  (The Plaintiffs—all former Guantanamo detainees—allege various abuses at the hands of U.S. government officials, and seek, among other things, civil damages from the officials in their individual capacities.) For the most part, the Plaintiffs chose . . .
Read more »

Thoughts About the Obama Administration’s Counterterrorism Paradigm in Light of the Al-Liby and Ikrima Operations

By
Sunday, October 13, 2013 at 11:17 AM

Mary DeRosa and Marty Lederman, both of whom were senior national security lawyers in the Obama administration, have a helpful if somewhat hopeful post at Just Security on the significance of the recent al-Liby and Ikrima capture operations.  The post is long, but I would summarize it as follows (this is my summary, not theirs): . . .
Read more »

Recent Presidential Remarks on Syria

By
Wednesday, September 4, 2013 at 6:25 PM

President Obama has recently made the case for taking action in Syria in two very different arenas: yesterday, in a statement made prior to his meeting with Members of Congress; and today, in Stockholm, during a joint press conference with Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt. Among the most notable moments: yesterday, when asked directly whether . . .
Read more »

Response to Peter Spiro on the Senate’s Syrian AUMF, and a Request for Clarity

By
Wednesday, September 4, 2013 at 11:17 AM

I disagree with Peter Spiro’s take on Section 4 of the draft AUMF. Section 4 terminates the congressional authorization after 60 (or 90) days, but it does not affirmatively prohibit the President from using force at that point, and thus it allows the President to fall back on his claims of inherent presidential power (which, . . .
Read more »

The Senate Draft AUMF for Syria is Narrower Than the Administration’s Draft, But Still Broad In Some Respects

By
Wednesday, September 4, 2013 at 5:03 AM

The draft Senate Syria AUMF contains a narrower authorization for the use of presidential force than the one the administration proposed.  But it is in some respects still broad, and it actually enhances the president’s claims of independent constitutional authority to intervene in Syria. Before parsing the draft, a few background points to keep in . . .
Read more »

The Administration’s Proposed Syria AUMF Is Very Broad [UPDATE on Ground Troops]

By
Sunday, September 1, 2013 at 7:27 AM

If you like this post, please like our Facebook page and follow Lawfare on Twitter: Follow @lawfareblog The administration’s proposed Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) for Syria provides: (a) Authorization. — The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate . . .
Read more »

A Quick Primer on AUMFs

By
Sunday, September 1, 2013 at 6:06 AM

Via Ilya Somin at Volokh, I see that the administration has proffered its proposed Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) for Syria.  Now it is Congress’s turn to decide what proposal(s) it wants to debate and possibly approve.  And it appears that the scope of the authorization will be an issue in Congress. . . .
Read more »