As several colleagues noted last week, 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 (he had a similar bill in the last Congress, which Jack endorsed here). What follows below is a section-by-section analysis of H.J. Res.
Latest in AUMF
Yesterday afternoon, President Barack Obama gave a final planned national security address at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida, one day after the White House released a comprehensive report on the legal and policy frameworks guiding the use of military force. (Lawfare's coverage of the report is available here and here.)
As Ben noted, earlier today the White House released a report on the legal and policy frameworks guiding the use of military force and related nation security operations. The document, as Ben puts it “the closest thing the administration has ever produced” to a comprehensive account of its legal views. Below is a detailed summary of the report.
Part One: Key Frameworks Related to the Use of Military Force Overseas
The White House Releases a "Report on the Legal and Policy Frameworks" on American Uses of Military Force
Last year, Kenneth Anderson and I published a book entitled, Speaking the Law: The Obama Administration's Addresses on National Security Law, which is a detailed analysis of the Obama Administration's national security law views, as seen through the lens of a body of speeches given by senior administration officials.
Last Wednesday, Senator Tim Kaine devoted his first Senate speech since the election to the AUMF and the war against ISIL. The occasion for the speech was the death Naval CPO Scott Dayton, a Virginian who was killed on Thanksgiving day while disposing of bombs near Raqqa, Syria as part of Operation Inherent Resolve (the operation against the Islamic State).
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 on the report in the
We have an essay at Time.com that begins:
Tomorrow is the fifteenth anniversary of the beginning of the longest armed conflict in American history. But another significant anniversary in the “Forever War” is today, September 10, for two years ago on this date President Obama announced his “comprehensive and sustained counterterrorism strategy” to defeat the Islamic State.
The country’s reaction to the heartbreaking massacre in Orlando has been dispiritingly predictable. When guns—and seemingly no other weapon—are involved in a national tragedy, initial talk of unity rapidly devolves into talking points on both sides. Often the political talk is for naught: Monday, the Senate voted down four measures aimed at curtailing the sale of guns to suspected terrorists.
Last week, U.S. Army Captain Nathan Michael Smith sued the U.S. Government in federal court, seeking a declaration that Obama’s war against ISIS is illegal. Jack Goldsmith and Marty Lederman have put forward competing views over whether this lawsuit is a big deal.
As I explained in a New York Times op-ed today, Captain Nathan Smith has gone to court for a declaratory judgment on the legality of President Obama’s undeclared war against the Islamic State. While I encourage readers of Lawfare to read the entire Complaint submitted by David H.