Jeh Johnson on Reaffirming the AUMF

CULLY STIMSON: . . . there are proposals on the Hill regarding reaffirming, and perhaps some would say extending, the Authorization for Use of Military Force, which was passed on September 18, 2001. And could you spend a little time with us, giving us your thoughts on that topic, whether it make sense, how it works or doesn’t work in practice? JEH JOHNSON: I have a couple thoughts about that.  There is in the House Authorization Bill a provision to essentially renew the AUMF from 2001 and makes express reference to--as I recall the bill--the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and associated forces. The Senate version of the Defense Authorization Bill renews the AUMF in the respect of detention only, not to imply that it’s not renewed in other respects, or it’s not viable in other respects. But the Senate bill makes an express reference to detention authority. I was asked about this in March by the House Armed Services Committee, and I testified then and continue to believe that the authorities we have now in the Department of Defense are adequate, given our interpretations of those authorities, to address the threats that I have had occasion to evaluate.  And I think that’s almost exactly what I said word for word.  Now having said that, I do think that the, I think that the provisions, particularly the House provision, have become very controversial.  There was a lot of debate about the House provision on the House floor, when it came to the House floor as part of the Authorization Bill. And a lot of people in debate interpreted that language as an effort somehow to prolong the operations in Afghanistan. That frankly is not my…there is not an effort to make some sort of global war on terror indefinite.  And, in that respect I think that the political debate [h]as become somewhat overheated. My understanding of the intent of the draftsman of that provision was to more or less codify what they believed to be our existing interpretation of our authorities. Now, I think the reason that we in this administration have concerns about efforts to do that is because at the end of the political process what I don’t want to end up with is something less than what we thought we already had by way of legal authorities through the authorities on the books and our interpretation of our authorities that are on the books.  And in the detention context, as I said earlier, the courts have largely accepted our interpretation. So, at the end of this process, at the end of this legislative season, and I have been very plain about this with those involved in this that we don’t want to end up with less than what we thought we already have. So, I am sure that this will work its way through, once the Authorization Bill gets to the Senate floor, once they get to conference, but those are my thoughts.