Latest in AUMF

targeted killing

Judicial Review of Decisions to Kill American Citizens Under the AUMF: The Most Important Case You Missed Last Week

Should courts review the decision-making process when the U.S. government determines to target an American citizen as part of the armed conflict authorized by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force? Courts have refused to allow such cases in the past. On June 13, however, Judge Rosemary Collyer of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia gave an emphatic yes to the question, in a ruling that deserves much more attention than it has received thus far.

AUMF

Congress Should Oversee America’s Wars, Not Just Authorize Them

Nearly 17 years after the 9/11 attacks, a bipartisan coalition of senators has put forward legislation that promises to overhaul the legal framework for America’s worldwide campaign against terrorism. Proponents of this measure argue the existing authorization for military force—an AUMF in wonk-speak—passed back in September 2001 has become woefully outdated. The failure to modernize it, supporters say, represents a dereliction of duty by Congress.

AUMF

Document: Draft Counterterrorism Authorization for Use of Military Force

Sens. Bob Corker, Tim Kaine, Jeff Flake, Chris Coons, Todd Young, and Bill Nelson introduced the following draft authorization for use of military force against designated terrorist groups on Monday:

DV.load("https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4438895-AUMF-Draft.js", { responsive: true, container: "#DV-viewer-4438895-AUMF-Draft" }); AUMF Draft (PDF) AUMF Draft (Text)

AUMF

The Next Wave of AUMF Expansion? The Islamic State’s Global Affiliates

The 2001 authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) authorizes the president to use force against “those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.” But presidents have steadily interpreted the

AUMF

Smith v. Trump In the D.C. Circuit: A Guided Tour of the Oral Argument

Together with David Remes, I presented Capt. Nathan Smith's challenge to the war against the Islamic State before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Oct. 27. Judge Thomas Griffith presided, with Judges David Sentelle and Raymond Randolph, joining in a wide-ranging discussion of doctrine and cases that touched on many national security law problems. While the court had officially granted 15 minutes to each side, the hearing lasted for more than an hour. The court has provided a recording of the argument.

Subscribe to Lawfare

EmailRSSKindle