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 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.
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.
Eisenhower believed that a congressional authorization of force, including the possible use of nuclear weapons, to protect Taiwan from Communist China would help prevent all-out war from breaking out across the Taiwan Strait.
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.
A new bill would give Congress a more central role in shaping the scope of U.S. counterterrorism operations.
Last Wednesday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee heard testimony about the Corker-Kaine AUMF proposal, S.J. Res. 59, from former State Department legal adviser John B. Bellinger and Georgetown law professor Rita M. Siemion. Sen.
Here are three reasons why.
The Corker-Kaine AUMF would prevent the president from designating a nation as an “associated force” under the bill, regardless of whether it is a state sponsor of terrorism. But it doesn’t take much imagination to see how that prohibition could be evaded in practice.
The New York Times editorial board thinks so.