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 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:
//-->The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard oral argument on Tuesday in Al-Alwi v. Trump. The panel was composed of Chief Judge Merrick Garland and Judges Karen Henderson and Thomas Griffith. Sonia M. Carson argued for the government. Ramzi Kassem argued for al-Alwi.
A review of David Barron's Waging War: The Clash Between Presidents and Congress, 1776 to ISIS (Simon & Schuster, 2016).
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.
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.