The absence of congressional authorization may not stop military action against Iran—but it likely means that any operation undertaken would be relatively small in scale.
Latest in AUMF
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.
The department’s recent letter regarding the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force says a lot less than it might seem.
And what can Congress do about it?
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
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.