home

Senate Committee Approves Draft of Authorization for Use of Force Against ISIS

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has approved Sen. Melendez' draft of an Authorization for the Use of Force against ISIS. It has a three year sunset provision, unless reauthorized. It also provides that the 2001 Authorization for Use of Force will sunset 3 years after this one takes effect.

The authorization excludes the use of ground forces with exceptions (see below.) The White House has said so long as 5 conditions were met, it would support the authorization. (See below for the State Department's reaction to the committee's approval.)

The full text of the bill is here. [More....]

What it authorizes:

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized,
subject to the limitations in subsection ©, to use the Armed Forces of the United States as the President determines to be necessary and appropriate against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant or associated persons or forces as defined in section 5.

The limitations:

© LIMITATIONS.—The authority granted in sub-section (a) does not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces for the purpose of ground combat operations except as necessary—

(1) for the protection or rescue of members of
the United States Armed Forces or United States
citizens from imminent danger posed by ISIL; or

2) to conduct missions not intended to result in ground combat operations by United States forces, such as—

(A) intelligence collection and sharing;

(B) enabling kinetic strikes;

© operational planning; or

(D) other forms of advice and assistance to forces fighting ISIL in Iraq or Syria.

How long it will last

This authorization for the use of military force shall terminate three years after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution, unless reauthorized.

Who is an "associated" person or force?

SEC. 5. ASSOCIATED PERSONS OR FORCES DEFINED.
In this joint resolution, the term ‘associated persons or forces’’ means individuals and organizations fighting for or on behalf of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant or a closely-related successor entity, for the purposes of action authorized to be taken under this joint resolution.

The State Department released this statement Thursday night. It was a response to a question at a news briefing:

We continue to believe the Menendez draft AUMF text provides a reasonable basis for continued discussions. As Secretary Kerry indicated at this week's hearing, the Administration would like to continue to work with members to further refine the language, including how the authorization defines associated forces, the manner in which the sunset of the new authority is handled at the end of three years, and how it addresses ground combat force limitations.

< Thursday Open Thread | Senate Passes $600 Billion Defense Authorization Bill >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Obama wants the 9/11 enhanced AUMF (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 12, 2014 at 09:37:39 AM EST
    Retired, and semi-boots on the ground to deal with ISIL.  Pretty upfront, and all the Conservatives, how can they deny him this?

    They (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by lentinel on Fri Dec 12, 2014 at 09:56:02 AM EST
    won't deny him that.

    It is their dream come true.

    "Semi-boots" -- I hadn't seen that one before.
    Like being a little bit pregnant...

    Parent

    Wasn't my wordology (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 12, 2014 at 06:18:00 PM EST
    Semi-boots comes from the past Ambassador to Morocco.  He gave a moment to cable news on the 10th and threw semi-boots out there.  I knew something fresh was up then.  It caught me like a good neuro linguist framed talking point would.  Is it specifically designed for this new combat moment?  We'll find out on Sunday.

    Parent
    I love govt language (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 12, 2014 at 10:02:06 AM EST
    SEC. 5. ASSOCIATED PERSONS OR FORCES DEFINED.
    In this joint resolution, the term `associated persons or forces'' means individuals and organizations fighting for or on behalf of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant or a closely-related successor entity, for the purposes of action authorized to be taken under this joint resolution.

    Why didn't they just say "anyone we don't like"

    Double talk... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by lentinel on Fri Dec 12, 2014 at 10:04:33 AM EST
    "...sunset provision, unless reauthorized..."

    The sun never sets on these authorizations...
    We'll be there forever - to "protect" someone or other, or the ubiquitous "our interests".

    And as for:

    LIMITATIONS.--The authority granted in sub-section (a) does not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces for the purpose of ground combat operations except as necessary--

    "Except as necessary"  ... means that there are no limitations.

    Yeah (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 12, 2014 at 10:06:48 AM EST
    the whole thing could have been one sentence-

    .....anyone we don't like for as long as we want.

    Parent

    It went so well (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Dec 12, 2014 at 02:04:16 PM EST
    The last time.

    The Administration (none / 0) (#7)
    by KeysDan on Fri Dec 12, 2014 at 02:55:58 PM EST
    is claiming 2001 AUMF and 2002 AUMF authority for its ongoing military actions against ISIS.  The Senate Foreign Relations Committee draft will repeal the 2002 AUMF (which has no sunset) and sunset the 2001 AUMF three years after the replacement military authorization takes effect.

    It would seem that these repeals repudiate the Administration's position on the existing authority.  This has not gone unnoticed by several senators on the Democratic side of the aisle, such as Senators Murphy and Kaine, as well as Republican  Senator Rand Paul.

    "The Administration maintains that a war resolution that had us going against the people who attacked us on 9/11 has something to do with ISIL,"  Paul said .." I think that is absurd on the face and almost embarrassing that anyone even makes that argument."  

    While I would like to give kudos to those newly courageous members of Congress, the replacement authorizations are unlikely to, in reality, have any better effect, save for a "healthy debate" and patina of congressional involvement.  And, whatever finally emerges will have the waring hand of the new Republican congress--probably much more to the liking of the Administration than even that offered up at this time by the Democrats.  

    The Administration's reliance on the reliquary of Iraq and Afghan military authorizations may be a long stretch, but any replacement will be more dangerous.  The restrictions of the draft are meaningless based on the language, the manner of effecting sunsets could wind up as being automatic (unless the congress signals a halt), and ground troops will be authorized (and, dollar to a donut, deployed.)   The draft does omit (unless this is to be "associated forces") the even more dangerous and ready to attack the US, terrorists, the Khorasan.  Hope they have not forgotten them.