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
By the time we founded Lawfare, there had been years of debate, policymaking and court decisions on the legal legacy of Sept. 11, yet the big questions all still seemed open.
It’s hard to imagine a successful counterterrorism campaign in the years that followed Sept. 11 without the invasion of Afghanistan, which played a decisive role in dismantling what had become a major and persistent threat to American lives.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is holding a hearing on authorizations of use of force. Members are hearing testimony from officials from the State Department and Department of Defense.
Current congressional action related to the possible repeal of outdated force authorizations against Iraq will do little to affect the executive branch’s use of military force behavior in the region.
The White House has sent a notice to Congress outlining its legal and policy justifications for the Jan. 2 airstrike that killed Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani. This disclosure is a legally mandated reporting requirement introduced through Section 1264 of the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, a measure intended to increase transparency in U.S. national security policy.
Recent moves and countermoves by the U.S. and Iran in the Persian Gulf over the past few months have increased speculation about the prospect of war in the region. Some members of Congress, including a few Republicans, have stated that the president cannot use military force against the Islamic Republic without the approval of the legislature.
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.
On this date in 1955, President Dwight Eisenhower signed a congressional joint resolution authorizing military force to protect Formosa, as Taiwan was then called by the U.S. government, and surrounding islands. It’s one of the most interesting force authorizations in American history: It reflected Eisenhower’s complicated ambivalence toward constitutional powers, it was open-ended, it contemplated the possible use of nuclear weapons, and it was never actually invoked.
Should courts review the decision-making process when the U.S. government determines to target an American citizen as part of the armed conflict authorized by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force? Courts have refused to allow such cases in the past. On June 13, however, Judge Rosemary Collyer of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia gave an emphatic yes to the question, in a ruling that deserves much more attention than it has received thus far.
Nearly 17 years after the 9/11 attacks, a bipartisan coalition of senators has put forward legislation that promises to overhaul the legal framework for America’s worldwide campaign against terrorism. Proponents of this measure argue the existing authorization for military force—an AUMF in wonk-speak—passed back in September 2001 has become woefully outdated. The failure to modernize it, supporters say, represents a dereliction of duty by Congress.