In the aftermath of the September 11th attacks, Congress voted to authorize military force against against those who had “planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks” or who "harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States. . . ." More than a decade later, the United States continues to conduct military operations against Al Qaeda and affiliated groups—including, somewhat surprisingly, against the Islamic State—pursuant to this 2001 authorization. In the spring of 2015, despite claiming that a new AUMF for airstrikes and limited operations in Syria and Iraq was not legally required, the Obama Administration presented draft language to Congress for a new AUMF. Riven by disagreements over details, Congress has thus far refused to support the President’s proposal.
Latest in AUMF
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing today on a new Authorization to Use Military Force Against terrorist groups.
The bill that Senators Flake (R-AZ) and Kaine (D-VA) introduced this week would be a welcome update the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), explicitly authorizing the armed conflict with the Islamic State while also adding further important reforms to that foundational instrument.
Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) have introduced a new Authorization for the Use of Military Force against ISIS, al Qaeda, and the Taliban.
Representative Adam Schiff has revived his effort to get Congress to replace the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs with a new “Consolidated AUMF” that would explicitly name the Islamic State. What follows below is a section-by-section analysis of H.J. Res. 100, intended to highlight the key moving parts while also flagging a few issues that deserve further attention should the bill move forward.
A transcript of President Obama's final planned national security address.
A detailed summary of the White House report on the legal and policy frameworks guiding the use of military force and related nation security operations.
It just is not possible to read this document and not come away with a sense that the administration has endeavored to think through the range of issues it confronts in overseas terrorism operations in a systematic fashion and to make the framework it has developed as public as possible.
Why Congress should update the 15+ year-old AUMF.
In a post earlier today, I highlighted a variety of recent developments in which the Obama administration has adjusted constraints on using force under color of the AUMF, based in part
September 10 marks a significant milestone in the "Forever War."