House Committee Votes to Revoke 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force

[CostinR]

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/34...-war-authority

This won't go anywhere, but it should.

The House Appropriations Committee on Thursday approved an amendment that would revoke a 2001 law giving the president authority to undertake war against al Qaeda and its affiliates unless a replacement provision is created.

Lawmakers applauded when the amendment was added by voice vote to the defense spending bill, highlighting the frustration many members of Congress feel about the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which was initially approved to authorize the response to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

It has since been used to justify the Iraq War and the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.


Despite the applause, it is unclear whether it will make it past the Senate and be included in a final version of a defense spending bill. The amendment would revoke the 2001 AUMF after 240 days following the passing of the act, forcing Congress to vote on a new AUMF in the interim.

The House Foreign Affairs Committee said the AUMF amendment "should have been ruled out of order" because the Appropriations panel does not have jurisdiction.

“House Rules state that ‘a provision changing existing law may not be reported in a general appropriation bill.’ The Foreign Affairs Committee has sole jurisdiction over Authorizations for the Use of Military Force,” said Cory Fritz, the Foreign Affairs panel's deputy staff director for communications.

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), the only member of Congress to vote against the initial AUMF, introduced the amendment.

It would repeal “the overly broad 2001 Authorization of Use of Military Force, after a period of 8 months after the enactment of this act, giving the administration and Congress sufficient time to decide what measures should replace it,” according to Lee.

That would give Congress a narrow window to approve a new AUMF, something lawmakers have struggled with for years. Efforts to move forward with a new AUMF have teetered with some members of Congress wanting to constrain the president's actions and others wanting to give the executive branch more leeway.

Wouldn't it be damned nice for Congress to actually have to vote on authorization of military force instead of just allowing the president to intervene in places like Libya or Syria or against ISIS on a very dubious legal level.

This won't go anywhere. Too many cowards in Congress unwilling to risk their necks by actually voting on authorizing military action: They didn't even vote to authorize it against ISIS.

[Skroe]

A new AUMF may not. But repealing the 2001 AUMF? Very popular in congress. Very very popular.

The former happening is not dependent on the latter.

[CostinR]

A new AUMF may not. But repealing the 2001 AUMF? Very popular in congress. Very very popular.

The former happening is not dependent on the latter.

Now wouldn't that just be a damned fine disaster. Congress could make it better, but chances are higher they'd make things worse.

Oh well. Repealing the AUMF should be done, it's a farce what it has been used for.

[Rukh]

As much as the republicans hated Obama, they never sought to strip this power from him.

[CostinR]

As much as the republicans hated Obama, they never sought to strip this power from him.

Because Republicans wanted Obama to be more hawkish. They weren't going to move against him and democrats didn't want to limit the power of one their own.

Case in point: It was a democrat that brought up this issue for a vote.

Ideally you'd have it pass and then have Congress take a long hard look and actually vote on the wars the US is engaged: Both Obama AND Trump administrations have wanted them to but like the cowards they are have they have refused.

[satimy]

How a 2001 aumf still applies today tells you how much the MIC runs this country. Terrrorism is never going to die.

[Kujako]

Because Republicans wanted Obama to be more hawkish.

Except when he was, then they criticized him for it.

[Gestopft]

Because Republicans wanted Obama to be more hawkish. They weren't going to move against him and democrats didn't want to limit the power of one their own.

Case in point: It was a democrat that brought up this issue for a vote.

Barbara Lee has been bringing this up for years; this is just the first time it's gained any real traction.

[Skroe]

How a 2001 aumf still applies today tells you how much the MIC runs this country. Terrrorism is never going to die.

It has nothing to do with the MIC running the country or any shit like that. It has everything to do with two particular other votes:

- The Iraq War vote in 2003
- The Libyan War vote in 2011.

Four years ago (2013) 62% of the 9/11 legislators had been cycled out of Congress / the Senate. In that same year 48% of legislators had been replaced since 2008. People talking, ridiculously, about term limits in Congress, neglect the fact that there's been historic turnover in the House and Senate the past 15 years.

Those two war votes were severely damaging to individual's political careers. Particularly the Iraq War one. Witness every time Hillary had to defend or apologize for the Iraq War vote since 2008. That happened not just to her. It happened to every incumbent for election big and small who voted. With the Libya episode giving a kind of repeat lesson, Congressmen came to the obvious solution: don't vote on wars.

Obama asked, repeatedly, for a AUMF for ISIS. He asked for years. He was genuine about it. And Congressional leaders wanted to give it to him too. It should be easy right? It's ISIS. An army of radical Islamist rapists, murderers, terrorists and plunderers. Should be very uncontroversial, right? On the contrary. If the vote were held, the vote would have failed. It's not that Congressmen and Senators don't want to war against ISIS - they do. It's that they don't want the political opposition to weaponize their vote against them during re-election, which is exactly what happened with Iraq and Libya.

So we have this situation where Congress, every year, votes to fund the wars, specifically through the Overseas Contingency Operations budget (a non BCA-limited supplemental to the defense budget), which pre-Obama had another name: the Global War on Terror budget. But they will not vote on the symbolic "act" of declaring war.

All of these speaks really, not to a cowardly congress, but to a cowardly American people. Americans supported, by enormous margins (77% approval) the Iraq War after Baghdad fell in April 2003. Everyone loves a winner. But in the intervening years hundreds of millions of Americans have retconned their history of support for the war or came up with some excuse. Somehow, it became something forced on the country by these elected officials. Nevermind the fact that Bush ran on a pro-War platform in 2004, won Re-election, and took it as a validation of his war policy.

This is about passing the buck. Americans didn't take ownership of the war in 2003, so why should they take ownership of the consequences. Far easier to pin it on an elected official.

Until that changes, war votes will be hard and scarce, because Congressmen and Senators will be wary of taking a bullet for a fickle electorate that is pro-war when everything goes right, and anti-interventionist when things get complicated.

- - - Updated - - -

Barbara Lee has been bringing this up for years; this is just the first time it's gained any real traction.

She has, But it's also been growing in popularity for years because it is quite clear the AUMF was meant to be used against Al Qaeda central, but it's been clearly illegally interpreted (in a kind of wink-wink-nudge-nudge bullshit manner) to extend Al Qaeda franchises that cropped up after 9/11 that are basically Al Qaeda in name only.

The Al Qaeda that launched 9/11... that set of people... have largely been killed or imprisoned for years now.

[Tijuana]

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/34...-war-authority

This won't go anywhere, but it should.



Wouldn't it be damned nice for Congress to actually have to vote on authorization of military force instead of just allowing the president to intervene in places like Libya or Syria or against ISIS on a very dubious legal level.

This won't go anywhere. Too many cowards in Congress unwilling to risk their necks by actually voting on authorizing military action: They didn't even vote to authorize it against ISIS.

I could not support a piece of legislation more than I do over this. We need to stop using war powers authorizations from 5 freaking presidential terms ago. It's time to start behaving like grown ups and return to the normal course of business. We need to start passing budgets, and getting specific permissions for war acts.

[Bullettime]

Repealing it is pretty much one of the few things everyone could agree on being a good thing. Terms for a eventually replacement is where it gets hairy, but this repeal is definitely a good move.

[Celista]

This is interesting. A lot of moves in the house and senate lately suggesting a lack of confidence in the POTUS.

[Sunseeker]

This is interesting. A lot of moves in the house and senate lately suggesting a lack of confidence in the POTUS.

Basically yes. It's a signal from Congress that they're aware that the POTUS has his finger on the button and they're not okay with him pressing it, which frankly since they were fine with Obama pressing it is a pretty sad statement.