Latest in AUMF
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.
There are a few legal questions worth considering.
On Oct. 27, the D.C. Circuit will hear Smith v. Obama, a case concerning whether the 2001 and 2002 authorizations for the use of military force (AUMF) cover the war against the Islamic State.
In a scathing New York Times op-ed today, Micah Zenko lays into the Trump administration both for maintaining the “counterproductive” and “immoral” counterterrorism policies of its predecessors (particularly those involving the use of military force), and for makin