2002 AUMF
How the 2002 Iraq AUMF Got to Be So Dangerous, Part 2: Interpretation and Implications
Repeal isn’t just good housekeeping. It would help ensure that Congress weighs in before pursuing another major war in the Middle East.
Latest in 2002 AUMF
Repeal isn’t just good housekeeping. It would help ensure that Congress weighs in before pursuing another major war in the Middle East.
Congress originally enacted the 2002 AUMF to remove Saddam Hussein. But in the subsequent 20 years, it’s been used for so much more.
Current congressional action related to the possible repeal of outdated force authorizations against Iraq will do little to affect the executive branch’s use of military force behavior in the region.
For the past two months, the Middle East has teetered on the edge of war. Tensions over the U.S. “maximum pressure” campaign have led Iran to target maritime shipping in the Persian Gulf, launch rockets on U.S.
On Dec. 11, the New York City Bar Association hosted a session on “The Global War on Terrorism: Do We Need a New AUMF?” William Castle, deputy general counsel of the Department of Defense, explained why the Trump administration contends that the 2001 and 2002 authorizations for the use of military force (AUMF) suffice to justify President Donald Trump’s ongoing war against terrorist groups.
Early Sunday evening, a US Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet shot down a Syrian Air Force Su-22 that had just completed a bombing run targeting US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in the Raqqa region. The episode raises important questions under the U.N. Charter (see Adil Ahmad Haque’s analysis here). But what about U.S. domestic law?
As several colleagues noted last week, Representative Adam Schiff has revived his effort to get Congress to replace the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs with a new “Consolidated AUMF” that would explicitly name the Islamic State (he had a similar bill in the last Congress, which Jack endorsed here). What follows below is a section-by-section analysis of H.J. Res.
As I explained in a New York Times op-ed today, Captain Nathan Smith has gone to court for a declaratory judgment on the legality of President Obama’s undeclared war against the Islamic State. While I encourage readers of Lawfare to read the entire Complaint submitted by David H.