home

Obama Submits Draft of AUMF Against ISIS

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 01:43:33 PM EST
Tags: ISIS, AUMF, Iraq, Syria (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Here is Obama's draft of the Authorization for Use of Military Force against ISIS. Here is the statement he released about it.

It does not authorize combat troops on the ground on an "enduring" basis:

[c] LIMITATIONS.— The authority granted in subsection (a) does not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces in enduring offensive ground combat operations.

[More...]

Who is targeted?

In this joint resolution, the term ‘‘associated persons or forces’’ means individuals and organizations fighting for, on behalf of, or alongside ISIL or any closely-related successor entity in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.

It will be good for three years. It also repeals the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

< Tuesday Night Open Thread | ISIS Releases Issue 7 of Dabiq Magazine >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama Submits Draft of AUMF Against ISIS | 55 comments (55 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Just how long (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Zorba on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 03:27:29 PM EST
    does not "enduring" last?  What does it mean?
    One week?  One month?  Thirteen years?
    Anything short of forever ... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 03:40:03 PM EST
    and they'll be fine.

    ;)

    Parent

    Or more like (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Zorba on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 04:10:00 PM EST
    :-(

    Parent
    So I guess the moniker (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 07:43:24 PM EST
    'Operation Enduring Ground Force' is off the table?

    Parent
    At moments like this, I miss Frank Zappa (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 07:58:05 PM EST
    OMG
    For sure, for sure,
    It's enduring war,
    And we got no cure...

    Parent
    The resolution (none / 0) (#5)
    by FlJoe on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 03:48:29 PM EST
    has a three year sunset at least.

    Parent
    Which, (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by lentinel on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 03:54:04 PM EST
    as anyone knows, is renewable ad infinitum.

    Parent
    I don't believe (none / 0) (#8)
    by FlJoe on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 04:02:13 PM EST
    2001 and 2002 have sunsets.

    Parent
    This new AUMF will eliminate (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by caseyOR on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 04:42:39 PM EST
    the one from 2002, but the original one, the 2001 AUMF, will still live on.

    So far today I have neither heard nor read a good explanation for keeping the one from 2001 in effect. It does give the president ridiculously broad and seemingly never-ending war powers. Perhaps that is why Obama is hanging on to it.

    Still, if the one from 2002 is outdated, surely the AUMF that preceded it is also outdated.

    Parent

    Haven't at least some war powers... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 07:39:58 PM EST
    been hanging on since Nixon's time?

    Parent
    I think we have declarations... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by unitron on Thu Feb 12, 2015 at 06:16:07 AM EST
    ...of states of emergency going back to Wilson that have never been withdrawn, so theoretically whoever's President could impose martial law and stuff on the strength of something from a century ago.

    Parent
    The Hypocrite in Chief ... (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 03:33:44 PM EST
    ... strikes again!

    I'd feel so much better about all of this (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 12, 2015 at 08:20:33 AM EST
    if I had the sense that there's truly enough understanding among those who ultimately get to decide of what it is we're doing, and that the discussion leading up to the eventual decision was more participatory in terms of "we, the people."  

    I'm not saying we don't need this new authorization, but I think it maybe muddies the water having to also take the existing 2001 authorization into account.  I think people are confused by that, and I think confusion is not something we should be accepting as a normal state.  And what I find most confusing is that we've have years and years to craft something better.  The problem, I suppose, is that there exists within the Congress a fight between the we-want-to-be-able-to-do-what-we-want-when-we-want coalition and the blanket-authorizations-are-dangerous group.  We find ourselves out here in the real world engaged in the same kind of division, and feeling like no one's really hearing us.  

    Cora Currier at The Intercept:

    Speaking at New York University School of Law this afternoon, Harold Koh, the State Department's legal adviser until 2013, said that the Obama administration is currently on shaky legal grounds, tying the airstrikes to a law passed days after 9/11.

    Koh said that stretching the law like that is inconsistent with Obama's stated goal of bringing the U.S. off of "perpetual wartime footing." Acting without a new authorization from Congress "doesn't promote the end of the `Forever War,'" Koh said.

    Since August, the U.S. and other nations have carried out more than 2,300 airstrikes, according to data released by the U.S. military and compiled by journalist Chris Woods.

    The administration currently justifies those airstrikes by invoking self-defense and the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force. Passed one week after the September 11th, 2001 and just 60 words long, that law in broad language gave the White House the power to go after anyone connected to the 9/11 attacks.

    Thirteen years on, it is still the main legal backing for the war in Afghanistan and for the targeted killings of alleged Al Qaeda affiliates in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia-though there is now a growing consensus among legal scholars and some members of Congress that the law is being used to justify military action it wasn't originally intended to cover.

    War is important enough to require having serious and thorough discussions about it before engaging, but I feel like we're at such an information disadvantage that we're essentially relegated to making noise that no one wants to hear and ends up being too easy to ignore.

    We're not "making" noise, Anne; (none / 0) (#33)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Feb 12, 2015 at 08:53:48 AM EST
    we are the noise.

    Parent
    I want this (