The United States has not had any troops in Afghanistan for four years Al Qaeda A stealth attack on the United States on September 11, CongressThe president’s mandate to retaliate the global war on terrorism remains full.
It has surpassed four presidential governments, as well as Usama bin Laden and his successor Ayman al-Zawahiri. It has been used to justify U.S. military operations in more than 20 countries, from Kenya to Kosovo and Pakistan to the Philippines.
Be the first president trump card A potential strike against Iran was suggested, which was the authorization to use military power in 2001 – a military power of the AUMF in a DC speech – his assistant suggested that he grant him legal authorization without attacking Congress Get new approval.
When President Biden ordered bombs to be put into Iraq last year, he also cited the 2001 AUMF.
To supporters, the AUMF proves that the United States has learned the lessons of 9/11, allowing the president to make up for the emerging dangers in the bud. For opponents, it was a symptom of the U.S.’s position of aggressive wars over the past 24 years, causing all collateral damage to civil liberties, not to mention Uncle Sam’s wallet.
However, it turns out to be difficult to kill.
See also: Trump commemorates 9/11th anniversary at the Pentagon; Vance heads to ground zero
Rep. Greg Meeks, the top Democrat of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, attempts on the last Congress. He wrote laws granted with more limited terrorist powers to repeal and replace the 2001 AUMF with a focus only on pre-approved “terrorist hotspots.”
His proposal failed to gain appeal.
Carlissa Carson, a law professor at Samford University, former Army intelligence officer and Army Reserve Judge defense attorney, said the sheer breadth of the AUMF, or at least it happened, is one of the reasons it has such lasting power.
“The 2001 AUMF has no expiration date and no geographical restrictions. In addition, phrases such as ‘relevant forces’ have led the president to extend the 2001 AUMF beyond its original purpose,” she told the Washington Times in an email. “It is a direct response to the 9/11 attack, but it is used to fight the ISIL that did not exist in 2001.”
AUMF is Congresswithout seeking the approval of legislators when the president repeatedly imposes troops on foreign entanglement. According to the War Powers Resolution formulated in 1973, a president who wishes to keep his troops involved for more than a few months must seek the AUMF.
Congress Granted them the 1991 war to promote the Iraqi army in Kuwait and the 2003 war to expel Saddam Hussein.
Indeed, both of them remain on books despite the U.S. House of Representatives this month as part of a broader defense policy bill.
Congress The 2001 AUMF was passed a week after the 9/11 attack. It was approved as 98-0 in the Senate and 420-1 in the House.
Former Democratic Rep. Barbara Lee, now mayor of Oakland, California, is a lonely dissident.
“September 11 changed the world. Our deepest fears are now haunting us. But I firmly believe that military operations will not stop further acts of terrorism against the United States,” she said.
The language authorizes the use of force to “prevent future international terrorist acts against the United States” and that the country, organization or persons deemed to be responsible for 9/11.
Twenty years later, in 2021, Brown University’s war cost calculated that the AUMF is considered a justification for military operations in 22 countries.
These include accommodation provided by the Taliban for Afghanistan Al Qaeda then. But it also proves direct attacks on targets of Djibouti, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria and Yemen; support operations by other countries in Cameroon, Chad, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Kenya, Kosovo, Jordan, Lebanon, Niger, Nigeria, the Philippines and Turkey; and the ongoing detention of terrorist suspects in Cuba.
President Obama uses AUMF to deploy troops to fight “colleagues” Al Qaeda. In fact, this means that groups like the Islamic State or ISIS did not exist even in 2001.
At any time the president takes military action, legal issues still surround.
When the U.S. Navy said the Trump administration said that a ship left Venezuela with numerous drugs and 11 crew members, Democrats demanded to know the legal reasons.
Brown University professor Stephanie Savell oversees the project on the cost of war, wondering if Mr. trump card Will quote the 2001 AUMF.
“The information has not been revealed yet and his administration may call for the authorization to report retroactively to the action Congress,straight line. ” she told The Times in an email.
Ms. Carson said another problem of abolishment is the nature of the terrorist threat itself, which is developing faster than Congress Legislation can be made.
She said that without the AUMF, the president could quote his inherent commander-in-chief under the Constitution, but it was a grey area because Congress There is also war power.
“The overlapping grants of war powers have both branches for decades. So, using the mandate, the president is more comfortable.”
