Latest in AUMF
A federal judge says courts should review the U.S. government’s decision-making process when it decides to target a U.S. citizen as part of the armed conflict authorized by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force.
A new authorization for use of military force against terrorists is constitutionally desirable. But Congress has even more powerful tools to shape the trajectory of this fight for the better.
Here are three reasons why.
The new draft AUMF promotes greater transparency and congressional involvement in deciding on the scope of U.S. counterterrorism operations, but it primarily serves to give Congress political leverage. As a legal matter, it leaves the president firmly in control.
A quick take on what to make of the new draft authorization for use of military force.
Sens. Bob Corker, Tim Kaine, Jeff Flake, Chris Coons, Todd Young, and Bill Nelson introduced the following draft authorization for use of military force against designated terrorist groups on Monday:
//-->An examination of what may be the next fronts in the war against the Islamic State.
A first-hand account of D.C. Circuit arguments in Smith v. Trump—concerning the applicability of the 2001 and 2002 AUMF to justify military action against the Islamic State—provided by Bruce Ackerman, counsel for Nathan Smith
Highlights from the Oct. 30 testimony of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Defense Secretary James Mattis at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the authorization for the use of military force.
Lawfare livestreamed Monday's Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on authorizations for the use of military force (AUMF). Secretary of State Tillerson and Defense Secretary Mattis testified.