Latest in AUMF

AUMF

The Next Wave of AUMF Expansion? The Islamic State’s Global Affiliates

The 2001 authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) authorizes the president to use force against “those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.” But presidents have steadily interpreted the

AUMF

Smith v. Trump In the D.C. Circuit: A Guided Tour of the Oral Argument

Together with David Remes, I presented Capt. Nathan Smith's challenge to the war against the Islamic State before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Oct. 27. Judge Thomas Griffith presided, with Judges David Sentelle and Raymond Randolph, joining in a wide-ranging discussion of doctrine and cases that touched on many national security law problems. While the court had officially granted 15 minutes to each side, the hearing lasted for more than an hour. The court has provided a recording of the argument.

AUMF

Livestream: Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing on Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMF)

The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations held a hearing on "The Authorizations for the Use of Military Force: Administration Perspective" at 5 p.m. EDT, Monday, Oct. 30.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson (read statement here) and Defense Secretary James Mattis testified.

AUMF

A Daisy Chain of Associated Forces? On the Potential Use of Force in Niger Against al-Mourabitoun

[Update: Several people reached out after I posted last night, drawing attention to the fact that al-Mourabitoun (also spelled al Murabitun) apparently reunited with AQIM after its initial separation from the group. On the other hand, others reached out to point to indications that the particular leader at the center of the current storm—al Sahraoui—may still lead a splinter faction that resisted/resists the return to the AQIM fold.

AUMF

Smith v. Trump: AUMF Challenge Pretrial Motion Summaries

As federal court and national security experts are noting, on Oct. 27, the D.C. Circuit will hear oral argument in Smith v. Trump (formerly Smith v. Obama). The case challenges the propriety of invoking the 2001 and 2002 authorizations for the use of military force (AUMF) to justify the war against the Islamic State (Operation Inherent Resolve).

Counterterrorism

Is the War Model of Counterterrorism a Failure? A Response to Micah Zenko

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 making the situation worse for noncombatants.

Podcasts

The National Security Law Podcast: The AUMF: All You Ever Wanted to Know (and Plenty You Didn’t)

Want a thorough backgrounder on the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force? This is the episode for you. (This also is the episode for you if what you want, instead, is an hour of legal blather followed by five minutes of speculation about Season 7 of Game of Thrones). The “AUMF” is the key statute on which the government relies for its post-9/11 uses of force relating to terrorism, and it has been the source of controversy and debate for the better part of the past sixteen years.

Subscribe to Lawfare

EmailRSSKindle