{"id":4644,"date":"2021-03-09T14:40:45","date_gmt":"2021-03-09T14:40:45","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lonecandle.com\/?p=4644"},"modified":"2021-03-09T14:40:45","modified_gmt":"2021-03-09T14:40:45","slug":"white-house-signals-support-for-replacing-decades-long-authorizations-for-military-force","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/?p=4644","title":{"rendered":"White House signals support for replacing decades-long authorizations for military force"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

\n\n“Several past presidential administrations have relied on two authorizations for the use of military force \u2014 known as AUMFs \u2014 to carry out military operations from Iraq to Afghanistan to Somalia to Syria. The 2001 version<\/a> greenlit the fight against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan after 9\/11, and the 2002 iteration<\/a> gave Bush Congress\u2019s blessing to invade Iraq \u2014 a measure then-Senator Biden voted for<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since then, Republican and Democratic administrations have broadly interpreted those authorizations as giving the US permission to, among other things, hunt down terrorists around the world, including assassinating Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani<\/a> in Iraq. However, presidents still said they still held the ultimate authority to wield the military as needed in their role as commander in chief.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Concerned about the ever-widening use of force based on these authorizations, lawmakers from both parties have for years wanted to repeal the current AUMFs and replace them with updated and more limited versions, but rarely received enough congressional or White House support.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“Now Biden, according to his team, agrees the AUMFs behind decades of war should go.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWe are committed to working with Congress to ensure that the authorizations for the use of military force currently on the books are replaced with a narrow and specific framework that will ensure we can protect Americans from terrorist threats while ending the forever wars,\u201d White House press secretary Jen Psaki said in a Friday statement to Politico<\/a> later posted to Twitter<\/a>.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“Experts and activists cite two main concerns about what comes next after the White House\u2019s announcement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, it\u2019s unclear that a new authorization will actually limit what Biden might want the military to do in the region.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If a new AUMF \u201cis truly narrowly crafted and contains a sunset clause, then it could be a really important step in the right direction,\u201d said Oona Hathaway, a professor of international law at Yale Law School. \u201cBut if it simply formalizes the forever war by creating a set of rules for using force in the Middle East in perpetuity, it\u2019s not clear that\u2019s an improvement.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The new measure, then, must be written in a way that truly limits the president\u2019s ability to interpret the law expansively.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“Second, as mentioned above, Biden didn\u2019t cite previous AUMFs for his Syria strike. He leaned on his Article II<\/a> powers in the Constitution, which names the president as the commander in chief, thereby giving him ultimate authority over all military matters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI directed this military action consistent with my responsibility to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad and in furtherance of United States national security and foreign policy interests, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct United States foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive,\u201d he wrote to congressional leaders in a letter<\/a> last week.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This means a more specific, limited AUMF might not necessarily lead Biden to always seek Congress\u2019s approval for a military attack. He might still feel legally justified in launching an operation if he feels such a move is needed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The White House\u2019s announcement, therefore, hasn\u2019t ended a roiling debate about war powers. If anything, Biden\u2019s stance has kicked it into overdrive.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/www.vox.com\/2021\/3\/5\/22315258\/white-house-biden-authorization-military-force-forever-wars<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“Several past presidential administrations have relied on two authorizations for the use of military force \u2014 known as AUMFs \u2014 to carry out military operations from Iraq to Afghanistan to Somalia to Syria. The 2001 version greenlit the fight against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan after 9\/11, and the 2002 iteration gave Bush Congress\u2019s blessing to invade Iraq \u2014 a measure then-Senator Biden voted for.<\/p>\n

Since then, Republican and Democratic administrations have broadly interpreted those authorizations as giving the US permission to, among other things, hunt down terrorists around the world, including assassinating Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani in Iraq. However, presidents still said they still held the ultimate authority to wield the military as needed in their role as commander in chief.<\/p>\n

Concerned about the ever-widening use of force based on these authorizations, lawmakers from both parties have for years wanted to repeal the current AUMFs and replace them with updated and more limited versions, but rarely received enough congressional or White House support.”<\/p>\n

…<\/p>\n

“Now Biden, according to his team, agrees the AUMFs behind decades of war should go.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe are committed to working with Congress to ensure that the authorizations for the use of military force currently on the books are replaced with a narrow and specific framework that will ensure we can protect Americans from terrorist threats while ending the forever wars,\u201d White House press secretary Jen Psaki said in a Friday statement to Politico later posted to Twitter.”<\/p>\n

…<\/p>\n

“Experts and activists cite two main concerns about what comes next after the White House\u2019s announcement.<\/p>\n

First, it\u2019s unclear that a new authorization will actually limit what Biden might want the military to do in the region.<\/p>\n

If a new AUMF \u201cis truly narrowly crafted and contains a sunset clause, then it could be a really important step in the right direction,\u201d said Oona Hathaway, a professor of international law at Yale Law School. \u201cBut if it simply formalizes the forever war by creating a set of rules for using force in the Middle East in perpetuity, it\u2019s not clear that\u2019s an improvement.\u201d<\/p>\n

The new measure, then, must be written in a way that truly limits the president\u2019s ability to interpret the law expansively.”<\/p>\n

…<\/p>\n

“Second, as mentioned above, Biden didn\u2019t cite previous AUMFs for his Syria strike. He leaned on his Article II powers in the Constitution, which names the president as the commander in chief, thereby giving him ultimate authority over all military matters.<\/p>\n

\u201cI directed this military action consistent with my responsibility to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad and in furtherance of United States national security and foreign policy interests, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct United States foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive,\u201d he wrote to congressional leaders in a letter last week.<\/p>\n

This means a more specific, limited AUMF might not necessarily lead Biden to always seek Congress\u2019s approval for a military attack. He might still feel legally justified in launching an operation if he feels such a move is needed.<\/p>\n

The White House\u2019s announcement, therefore, hasn\u2019t ended a roiling debate about war powers. If anything, Biden\u2019s stance has kicked it into overdrive.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[13],"tags":[552,619,158],"class_list":["post-4644","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-article-share","tag-conflict","tag-united-states","tag-war"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4644","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4644"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4644\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4645,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4644\/revisions\/4645"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4644"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4644"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4644"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}