Amendment to Repeal/Replace 2001 AUMF

Post Reply
User avatar
Addie
Posts: 25384
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Amendment to Repeal/Replace 2001 AUMF

#1

Post by Addie » Fri Jun 30, 2017 8:30 am

Thread title changed

----------------------------

CBS News
Key House committee approves curbing Trump's war authorization powers

A key House committee on Thursday approved an amendment that could dramatically curb the president's ability to authorize military force without congressional approval.

The House Appropriations Committee voted to repeal the AUMF, or authorization of military force, which was set in motion after the Sept. 11th terrorist attacks. To become law, it would need to pass the full House, Senate and be signed by President Trump.

The Bush-era AUMF granted the president broad powers to retaliate against anyone who contributed to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and that authorization has provided the foundation for U.S. military intervention abroad ever since. It hasn't changed in more than 15 years. ...

The 2001 AUMF declares "the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate 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, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
The House panel on Thursday approved an amendment from Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) to sunset the AUMF as a part of the Department of Defense's budget for next year. If that amendment stays in the bill, and is approved by the House, Senate and signed by the president, it will drastically scale back Mr. Trump's ability -- and future presidents' ability -- to carry out military intervention without Congress' explicit OK. The committee's voice vote approving the amendment was nearly unanimous.


¡Qué vergüenza!

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 25384
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Amendment to Repeal 2001 AUMF

#2

Post by Addie » Wed Sep 13, 2017 3:45 pm

Think Progress
Senate votes against repeal of 2001 authorization for use of military force

Almost 16 years to the day it was first passed, the Senate voted to table an amendment by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) that would have repealed the 2001 Authorized Use of Military Force (AUMF) 61 to 36. This was the first time in 15 years the full Senate has voted on Congress’ role in initiating war. ...

The vote on the amendment was tabled over concerns a repeal of the AUMF without a direct replacement would put the country’s national security in danger. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) called the amendment “premature” and “irresponsible,” however he expressed a need for an updated AUMF that is specific to the fight against ISIS. The White House, however, isn’t looking for changes to the 2001 authorization, according to Legislative Director Marc Short. ...

The amendment received three no votes from Republicans: Paul himself, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), and Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV). It also gained bipartisan support from Senators like Sen. Dick Durbin, who argued that when he initially voted for the authorization, he did not vote for endless war.

“Little did I realize having cast that vote, 15 or 16 years ago, that I wasn’t just voting to go after the terrorists responsible for 9/11. I was voting for the longest war in the history of the united States of America, a war that continues to this day in Afghanistan,” said Durbin. “I don’t think there was a single member of the senate, either party, on the floor who would have believed that that’s what we were voting for.” ...

In late June, a repeal of the AUMF tied to an appropriations bill in the House of Representatives was adopted in the majority Republican House Appropriations Committee with all but one vote. It was proposed by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), who was the only member of both houses of Congress to vote against the measure, citing concerns over its broad language. The House Rules Committee, however, quietly stripped Lee’s amendment from a defense spending bill, arguing a defense spending bill isn’t the appropriate place to put legislation that sets policy.


¡Qué vergüenza!

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 25384
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Amendment to Repeal 2001 AUMF

#3

Post by Addie » Wed Sep 13, 2017 7:02 pm



¡Qué vergüenza!

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 25384
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Amendment to Repeal/Replace 2001 AUMF

#4

Post by Addie » Sat Oct 21, 2017 12:35 pm

Politico
Niger attack fuels new push for war vote

Some lawmakers, citing the deaths of four U.S. soldiers ambushed by terrorists in Niger, called on Congress on Friday to reconsider the broad war authority it granted in 2001 — as the Pentagon telegraphed that more such missions in more places are likely in the offing.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee announced it will hear testimony next week from Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on the 16-year-old Authorization for Use of Military Force that is now being used to justify military operations in numerous countries.

Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said in a statement that current threats make it “perhaps more important than ever that we have a sober national conversation about Congress’ constitutional role in authorizing the use of military force.”

For some on Capitol Hill, the attack in Niger highlights the need for updated legislation that takes into account the myriad operations against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups on several continents. ...

Kaine and Republican Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona are pushing a new authorization to govern the military campaigns against organizations like ISIS and Al Qaeda and repeal the 2001 AUMF.

"For sixteen years, Congress has remained largely silent on this issue, allowing administrations to go to war anywhere, anytime," Kaine added. "A new AUMF is not only legally necessary, it would also send an important message of resolve to the American public and our troops that we stand behind them in their mission.”


¡Qué vergüenza!

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 16122
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: Amendment to Repeal/Replace 2001 AUMF

#5

Post by RTH10260 » Sat Oct 21, 2017 7:45 pm

crossposting from
Addie wrote:
Sat Oct 21, 2017 12:21 pm
WaPo
U.S. will expand counterterrorism focus in Africa, Mattis tells senators
:snippity:
“The war is morphing,” Graham said. “You’re going to see more actions in Africa, not less; you’re going to see more aggression by the United States toward our enemies, not less; you’re going to have decisions being made not in the White House but out in the field.”
:snippity: .
There are no enemies of the US in Africa, generally spoken. There are currently radical Muslim elements that are trying to subvert the local governments in countries with Muslim population. Some of them like to claim the well known, respected or feared, names of groups like ISIS, AlQueda and alike. But they have nothing in common with the original organizations of the Middle East and Arab world. Some may seek contact with these groups but imho they lack in general the background that will make them good fighters. The US needs to restrict its engagement in supporting the various governments and militaries, not try to create a new War on something or other. I fear that the US military will step into some mishap cause they make the policy on their own (with a nod of Congress) and not with explicit political guidance of the potus "I let the generals have their way".



User avatar
Addie
Posts: 25384
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Amendment to Repeal/Replace 2001 AUMF

#6

Post by Addie » Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:36 am

Daily Beast
Senators Stunned to Discover We Have 1,000 Troops in Niger ...

But, quietly, it’s fueling a more difficult debate than whether a phone call or a letter suffices in the aftermath of tragedy; mainly, why were U.S. troops in the country in the first place, and does Congress need to exert more authority when it comes such deployments?

Many lawmakers assiduously duck these questions. But on the Sunday shows, several were forced to address them in the aftermath of four soldiers dying under still-mysterious circumstances near the small town of Tongo Tongo. In the process, two powerful Senators tacitly admitted that they hadn’t even known the extent of U.S. involvement in Niger in the first place. ...

Graham added that as long as American military activity involves countering “radical Islamist fundamentalism and the spread of it,” Congress doesn’t need to give the Pentagon any special permission since, in his view, the AUMFs that passed in 2001 was sufficient. That AUMF, which sailed through Congress after the attacks on 9/11 has been used as legal justification for numerous campaigns beyond counteracting the Taliban in Afghanistan; most prominently in Syria to target ISIS and, now, as far-flung as Niger. ...

“And what it means, Chuck [Todd], for the war authorization, is I agree with Senator [Rand] Paul (R-KY) that we ought to look at this carefully,” Schumer continued. “We are in a brave new world, you know, there are no set battle plans.”

Paul, who occupies the other end of the foreign policy spectrum from Graham, has long argued that Congress needs to have a vote on whether or not to reauthorize American military involvement around the globe related to the War on Terror.

“It should be a simple vote,” he said in September. “It is like pulling teeth.”


¡Qué vergüenza!

User avatar
neeneko
Posts: 1154
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:08 am

Re: Amendment to Repeal/Replace 2001 AUMF

#7

Post by neeneko » Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:54 am

RTH10260 wrote:
Sat Oct 21, 2017 7:45 pm
There are no enemies of the US in Africa, generally spoken. \
Africa is another Great Game. The US has no enemies there, but our competitors have their own economic and political interests in the theater.

If nothing else, from a US perspective, a crippled Africa is great for the US economy. It keeps the things we import from there cheap, and keeps the things we export to the EU expensive. US involvement in Niger is probably more driven by screwing France than ISIS.



User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 16122
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: Amendment to Repeal/Replace 2001 AUMF

#8

Post by RTH10260 » Mon Oct 23, 2017 12:10 pm

Addie wrote:
Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:36 am
Daily Beast
Senators Stunned to Discover We Have 1,000 Troops in Niger ...
:snippity:
According to the following snippet, above title is not entirely correct:
NPR wrote:U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said Thursday that the U.S. military has more than 1,000 personnel in the region, an apparent reference to an area that includes Niger as well as Mali and Nigeria.
On Niger especially
NPR wrote:Then-President Barack Obama sent the U.S. forces to Niger in 2013, a time when extremists were on the rise in northwest Africa. Boko Haram was on the march in Nigeria, Niger's neighbor to the south. Radicals aligned with al-Qaida had taken over large parts of Mali, Niger's neighbor to the west.
Recommend reading the full article, has also a map
The U.S. Military In Africa: A Discreet Presence In Many Places

October 20, 20173:11 PM ET Greg Myre

U.S. forces work with many African militaries. While the Americans are advising and assisting in most cases, they also travel into the field, where they can face combat.

When U.S. troops were ambushed in Niger on Oct. 4, the widespread reaction was surprise. The U.S. has military forces in Niger? What are they doing there?

Yet in many ways, the Niger operation typifies U.S. military missions underway in roughly 20 African countries, mostly in the northern third of the continent. They tend to be small, they are carried out largely below the radar, and most are focused on a specific aim: rolling back Islamist extremism.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... any-places



User avatar
Addie
Posts: 25384
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Amendment to Repeal/Replace 2001 AUMF

#9

Post by Addie » Wed Feb 28, 2018 8:41 am

RARE
Republicans and Democrats join forces to call for repeal of 2001 AUMF war making powers

On Tuesday, Reps. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) and Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), hosted a bipartisan hearing on the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) that for 17 years has been used to exercise executive military action abroad under multiple presidential administrations.

The hearing focused the congressional caucus members’ desire to repeal the 2001 AUMF, hold a congressional debate and vote on a new authorization. The hearing was composed of members from both the House Liberty Caucus and the Congressional Progressive Caucus. The caucuses say the vote on war isn’t a partisan issue.

“The overly broad and outdated AUMF represents a critical deterioration of congressional oversight of military operations,” a press release from Rep. Amash for the ad-hoc hearing read.

“While our brave servicemen and women are deployed around the world in combat zones, Congress has failed to do its constitutional duty,” he said. “In this hearing, members of Congress and the public will hear from experts on the impact of the 2001 AUMF on global security and discuss potential frameworks for a new military authorization.”


¡Qué vergüenza!

User avatar
gupwalla
Posts: 2779
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:57 pm
Location: The mind of Cassandra

Re: Amendment to Repeal/Replace 2001 AUMF

#10

Post by gupwalla » Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:36 am

You realize why we're having this discussion now, don't you? Don't you?!?

There is a reason the AUMF was skimpy on naming names. Substantial portions of the 9/11 Commission report are still classified - the answer's in there.

It didn't take 16 years and change to win the war - it took 16 years and change to build the capacity to keep the resulting peace. And by gosh, I think we've done it. I certainly hope so.


In a wilderness of mirrors, what will the spider do beyond the circuit of the shuddering Bear in fractured atoms? -TS Eliot (somewhat modified)

All warfare is based on deception. - Sun Tzu

Post Reply

Return to “Congress”