Armed Conflict Congress Foreign Relations & International Law

The Washington Post on AUMF Reauthorization

Benjamin Wittes
Thursday, May 16, 2013, 6:31 AM
The Washington Post this morning has this editorial on AUMF reauthorization. It opens:
THE OBAMA administration’s political and legal authority to wage war against al-Qaeda has steadily eroded. Both liberal and conservative members of Congress have challenged the administration’s lack of transparency in conducting drone attacks against alleged al-Qaeda operatives in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.

Published by The Lawfare Institute
in Cooperation With
Brookings

The Washington Post this morning has this editorial on AUMF reauthorization. It opens:
THE OBAMA administration’s political and legal authority to wage war against al-Qaeda has steadily eroded. Both liberal and conservative members of Congress have challenged the administration’s lack of transparency in conducting drone attacks against alleged al-Qaeda operatives in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. Foreign allies as well as adversaries have asked whether the United States has arrogated the right to kill enemies anywhere in the world. Meanwhile, the appearance of new branches of al-Qaeda in northern Africa and, most recently, Syria has raised the question of whether the legal authority Congress granted in September 2001 for using military force applies to those groups.
Lower down, it discusses the SASC hearing today, at which Jack will be testifying, and it discusses as well the paper on which Jack's testimony is based:
[W]e support an effort by the Senate Armed Services Committee to explore, beginning at a hearing Thursday, whether the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) should be revised. The law authorizes the president to use force against “those nations, organizations, or persons” responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington. The Bush and Obama administrations have been backed by the courts in interpreting that language to allow attacks on the Taliban and al-Qaeda as well as “substantial supporters” and “associated forces.” But many legal experts have questioned whether a law aimed at Osama bin Laden and his cadre could be used to justify a drone strike against jihadists plotting an attack against the United States more than a decade later and thousands of miles from Afghanistan. A group of legal experts, including Robert Chesney of the University of TexasJack Goldsmith of HarvardMatthew Waxman of Columbia and Benjamin Wittes of the Brookings Institution, has proposed that Congress consider revising the AUMF to authorize presidents to designate emerging al-Qaeda affiliates that pose a threat to the United States as covered by the force authorization. Such legislation could put into law criteria for adding militants outside conventional battle zones to strike lists and require greater disclosure. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has said he will seek to put together a bipartisan group to consider such reforms.

Benjamin Wittes is editor in chief of Lawfare and a Senior Fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution. He is the author of several books.

Subscribe to Lawfare