http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/09/the-administrations-proposed-syria-aumf-is-very-broad/
****
The Administration’s Proposed Syria AUMF Is Very Broad [UPDATE on Ground
Troops]****

The administration’s proposed Authorization for the Use of Military Force
(AUMF<http://www.volokh.com/2013/08/31/thoughts-text-obama-administrations-proposed-authorization-use-military-force-syria/>)
for Syria provides:****

(a) Authorization. — The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of
the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in
connection with the use of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass
destruction in the conflict in Syria in order to –****

(1) prevent or deter the use or proliferation (including the transfer to
terrorist groups or other state or non-state actors), within, to or from
Syria, of any weapons of mass destruction, including chemical or biological
weapons or components of or materials used in such weapons; or****

(2) protect the United States and its allies and partners against the
threat posed by such weapons.****

There is *much *more here than at first meets the eye.  The proposed AUMF
focuses on Syrian WMD but is otherwise very broad.  It authorizes the
President to use any element of the U.S. Armed Forces and any method of
force.  It does not contain specific limits on targets – either in terms of
the identity of the targets (e.g. the Syrian government, Syrian rebels,
Hezbollah, Iran) or the geography of the targets.  Its main limit comes on
the purposes for which force can be used.  Four points are worth making
about these purposes.  First, the proposed AUMF authorizes the President to
use force “in connection with” the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war. (It
does not limit the President’s use force to the territory of Syria, but
rather says that the use of force must have a connection to the use of WMD
in the Syrian conflict.  Activities outside Syria can and certainly do have
a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war.).  Second, the use
of force must be designed to “prevent or deter the use or proliferation” of
WMDs “within, to or from Syria” or (broader yet) to “protect the United
States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such
weapons.”  Third, the proposed AUMF gives the President final interpretive
authority to determine when these criteria are satisfied (“*as he determines
* to be necessary and appropriate”).  Fourth, the proposed AUMF
contemplates no procedural restrictions on the President’s powers (such as
a time limit).****

I think this AUMF has much broader implications than Ilya Somin
described<http://www.volokh.com/2013/08/31/thoughts-text-obama-administrations-proposed-authorization-use-military-force-syria/>.
Some questions for Congress to ponder:****

(1) *Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to take sides in the
Syrian Civil War, or to attack Syrian rebels associated with al Qaeda, or
to remove Assad from power?*  Yes, as long as the President determines that
any of these entities has a (mere) connection to the use of WMD in the
Syrian civil war, and that the use of force against one of them would
prevent *or deter* the use or proliferation of WMD within, *or to and from*,
Syria, *or *protect the U.S. *or *its allies (e.g. Israel) against the
(mere) threat posed by those weapons.  It is very easy to imagine the
President making such determinations with regard to Assad or one or more of
the rebel groups.****

(2) *Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to use force against
Iran or Hezbollah, in Iran or Lebanon?  *Again, yes, as long as the
President determines that Iran or Hezbollah has a (mere) a connection to
the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and the use of force against Iran
or Hezbollah would prevent *or deter *the use or proliferation of WMD
within, *or to and from*, Syria, *or* protect the U.S. *or *its allies
(e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons.  Again,
very easy to imagine.****

As the history of the 9/11 AUMF shows, and as prior AUMFs show (think about
the Gulf of Tonkin), a President will interpret an AUMF for all it is
worth, and then some.  The proposed Syrian AUMF is worth a lot, for it
would (in sum) permit the President to use military force against any
target anywhere in the world (including Iran or Lebanon) as long as the
President, in his discretion, determines that the the target has a
connection to WMD in the Syrian civil war and the use of force has the
purpose of preventing or deterring (broad concepts) the use or
proliferation of WMDs in, to, or from Syria, *or *of protecting the U.S.
and its allies from the mere threat (again, a broad concept) of use or
proliferation of WMDs connected to the Syrian conflict.****

Congress needs to be careful about what it authorizes.****

UPDATE: Moon of
Alabama<http://www.moonofalabama.org/2013/09/obamas-carte-blanche-war-resolution.html>
 and Emptywheel <http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/09/01/the-aumf-crescent/> have
related analyses of the proposed AUMF.****

UPDATE 2: I neglected perhaps the most salient implication of the proposed
AUMF: The phrase “The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of
the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate” would
include authorization for ground troops, should the President decide they
were “necessary and appropriate.”  And yes, if history is any guide,
Congress can authorize the President to use force in a limited fashion with
limited means (i.e. just the Navy, or just the Air Force).  Curtis Bradley
and I went through this history on pp. 2072 ff. here <http://v>. ****

** **

** **


__._,_.___






__,_._,___

-- 
-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to