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
Latest in AUMF
September 10 marks a significant milestone in the "Forever War."
Even though Republicans and Democrats have overwhelmingly labeled the Orlando mass-murder a terrorist attack, it’s unlikely that either side will introduce an AUMF. Both sides talk about Orlando in national security terms without being willing to step up to the constitutional plate.
These kinds of advocacy lawsuits against the President in the national security arena often have perverse effects on the resulting law. The intent is generally to force constraints onto the executive branch, but the further along this lawsuit gets, the greater the risk it will result in less, rather than more, accountability and constraint on the Executive’s power.
An outline of the key points in the complaint submitted by Captain Nathan Smith challenging the legality of President Obama's war against the Islamic State.
Charlie Savage’s piece on the legal basis for the March 5 U.S. strike against an al Shabaab training camp, which allegedly killed 150 fighters, raises the intriguing question of whether the AUMF has been stretched yet again, this time to justify U.S. operations against al Shabaab as a whole.
President Obama has sent 39 letters to Congress “consistent with” the War Powers Resolution requirements. The letters are a fascinating read and provide a 30,000-foot view of the Administration’s use of military force abroad.
By voting on a single sentence, Congress can give the President the symbolic support he wants in the fight against ISIL, affirm the President’s current authorities against al Qaeda, the Taliban, and ISIL (but no more), and wipe away the old AUMFs.
The President addressed the nation tonight in an effort to explain our strategy against ISIL, to specify some steps he would like Congress to take, and to underscore some things he thinks we should not do.
British Parliament voted late Wednesday evening to participate in the bombing campaign in Syria against the Islamic State. The U.K. appears to be embracing a regime of legislative approval for war, as the U.S. appears to be turning away from Congressional approval for the use of armed force.