Skip to content

Tag Archives: AUMF

“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 »

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 »

National Security Network Proposes Plan to Repeal AUMF

By
Wednesday, August 13, 2014 at 6:34 PM

The National Security Network has released a new report entitled “Ending the Endless War: An Incremental Approach to Repealing the 2001 AUMF.” The report suggests a series of measures to cap and eventually roll back the authorization, which it outlines in three major steps: Limits in time by inserting a sunset clause to put the law . . .
Read more »

What Lisa Monaco Actually Said

By
Monday, July 28, 2014 at 4:21 PM

Over at Just Security, Steve Vladeck objects to the piece Jack, Bobby, Matt and I wrote over the weekend on Lisa Monaco’s AUMF comments at the Aspen Security Forum. He argues that we are over-reading her comments. I’ll let readers judge that for themselves. Here’s a transcript (thanks to our intrepid intern, Tara Hofbauer) of . . .
Read more »

A New White House Signal on AUMF Reform?

By , , and
Sunday, July 27, 2014 at 1:51 PM

Josh Gerstein of Politico reports that “[a] top White House official suggested Saturday that Congress pass new legislation to support President Barack Obama’s authority to act against an array of terrorist groups not clearly linked to the September 11 attacks.”  Gerstein quotes White House counterterrorism czar Lisa Monaco as stating this weekend at the Aspen Security Forum: “The 2001 AUMF has provided us . . .
Read more »

Why Imminence? The Assassinations Ban and that OLC Al-Aulaqi Memo

By
Thursday, June 26, 2014 at 1:44 PM

The other day, I tried to read the tea leaves and figure out where the notion of “imminent threat” comes from in the administration’s legal views of targeted killing. I speculated that the source of the “imminent” threat standard may well be language in the presidential covert action findings authorizing the CIA’s broad campaign against Al Qaeda . . .
Read more »

The Key Amendments to the Defense Appropriations Act

By
Monday, June 23, 2014 at 10:00 AM

Last week the House of Representatives passed its version of the Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2015, H.R. 4870, with a series of amendments with major implications for national security policy. Here is a list of those amendments, brief summaries, and what happened to each one. Curbing NSA Activities Representatives Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and . . .
Read more »

Civilian Trial is the Only Option for Abu Khattala

By
Wednesday, June 18, 2014 at 7:08 AM

Many have criticized the Obama administration’s plans to try the alleged leader of the Benghazi, Ahmed Abu Khattala, in civilian court.  “Ahmed Abu Khattala should be held at Guantanamo as a potential enemy combatant,” said Senator Lindsey Graham.  Representative Trey Gowdy, who is leading the House committee investigating the Benghazi attack, argued for “a noncivilian . . .
Read more »

The Unreality of “Ending the War”

By
Friday, June 13, 2014 at 10:32 AM

The march of ISIS across Iraq (and in Syria), and the Obama administration’s scramble to react to it, and the new round of drone strikes in Pakistan, and continuing and growing Islamist terrorist threats from North Africa to Yemen to Afghanistan and many places in between, all got me thinking about President Obama’s NDU speech . . .
Read more »

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 »