Since President Truman’s “police action” in the Korean War, scholars in law and political science have considered the possibility that presidents would attempt to substitute congressional authorization with authorization from an international organization when using military force.
Latest in AUMF
Recent moves and countermoves by the U.S. and Iran in the Persian Gulf over the past few months have increased speculation about the prospect of war in the region. Some members of Congress, including a few Republicans, have stated that the president cannot use military force against the Islamic Republic without the approval of the legislature.
On July 24, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing titled, “Reviewing Authorities for the Use of Military Force.” The committee called David Hale, under secretary of state for political affairs and Marik String, Acting State Department legal adviser as witnesses. The witnesses’ complete written submissions are available below. A video recording of the hearing will be posted online here.
Recent tensions between the United States and Iran have led many members of Congress to speculate about what legal authority the Trump administration may claim it has to go to war without congressional authorization. On June 28, the State Department gave a partial answer to these questions, at least insofar as they relate to the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs).
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.
Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Todd Young (R-Ind.) have introduced a bill that would revoke the 1991 and 2002 authorizations for use of military force in Iraq. The bill is below.
Judicial Review of Decisions to Kill American Citizens Under the AUMF: The Most Important Case You Missed Last Week
Should courts review the decision-making process when the U.S. government determines to target an American citizen as part of the armed conflict authorized by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force? Courts have refused to allow such cases in the past. On June 13, however, Judge Rosemary Collyer of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia gave an emphatic yes to the question, in a ruling that deserves much more attention than it has received thus far.
Nearly 17 years after the 9/11 attacks, a bipartisan coalition of senators has put forward legislation that promises to overhaul the legal framework for America’s worldwide campaign against terrorism. Proponents of this measure argue the existing authorization for military force—an AUMF in wonk-speak—passed back in September 2001 has become woefully outdated. The failure to modernize it, supporters say, represents a dereliction of duty by Congress.
I very much appreciate Liza Goitein’s response on Lawfare this morning to an earlier post
On Monday evening, a bipartisan coalition of senators led by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R.-Tenn.) and Sen.