The Folks Who Brought You Military Detention in the NDAA Are Rewriting the AUMF

Yesterday, the Senate Armed Services Committee announced a hearing to revisit the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force. In addition to a bunch of DOD figures (but not the recently departed Jeh Johnson, the DOD-connected person who said the most interesting things about the AUMF), it’ll have (I’ve linked their most salient comments on the AUMF):

Rosa Brooks, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center

Geoffrey Corn, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law

Jack Goldsmith, Professor of Law, Harvard Law School

Kenneth Roth, Executive Director, Human Rights Watch

Charles Stimson, Manager, National Security Law Program, The Heritage Foundation

Curiously, John Bellinger who (as far as I understand) started the discussion of a new AUMF is not slated to testify. Also note that the Deputy Director of Special Operations for Counterterrorism will testify, but no one from CIA is scheduled to; while JSOC can operate under the President’s inherent authority, it likely prefers the legal cover of an AUMF (and therefore may be one of the entities pushing for an AUMF that matches reality on the ground).

Politico reports that this hearing is more than speculative: Levin and no-longer-SASC-Ranking-Member-but-he-might-as-well-be John McCain are planning to rewrite the AUMF, with help from Bob Corker, Dick Durbin, and Lindsey “all detainees must be military” Graham.

And if the inclusion of Graham in that group doesn’t scare you, remember that this crowd is substantively the same one that enshrined military detention in 2012′s NDAA. While that effort might be regarded as “reasonable” Carl Levin and John McCain’s attempt to present something more reasonable than House Armed Services Committee Buck McKeon was pushing for, and while the NDAA originally included exceptions for US citizens, in the event, the White House pushed Carl Levin to effectively rubber stamp its claims to unlimited authority, including detaining (or killing) US citizens.

And if that doesn’t have you worried enough about this effort, consider this quote, which mocks the contributions Rand Paul or Ted Cruz might make to this debate.

“Can you imagine what Paul or Cruz would do with this?” said one top Democratic aide. “It could be a disaster. And it would be worse in the House.”

As a threshold matter, a top aide who can’t distinguish between Paul’s more heartfelt libertarianism from Cruz’ authoritarianism pretending to be libertarianism is a concern. But to call the influence of both as “a disaster” is troubling.

Ultimately, though, what is likely to happen with this debate is that all players will be unwilling to discuss openly what we’ve actually been doing in the name of war against al Qaeda, up to and including waging war in the “homeland.”  That’s one thing the 2001 AUMF was written to exclude. And I can almost guarantee you, it’s an authority the President — and the top Democratic aides who mock Rand Paul — will want to preserve.

Tweet about this on Twitter73Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook89Google+2Email to someone

2 Responses to The Folks Who Brought You Military Detention in the NDAA Are Rewriting the AUMF

  • 1
  • 2

Emptywheel Twitterverse
emptywheel Why does 9/11 report say we need more fearmongering if counterterrorism performance as good as it say it is? http://t.co/LnVR7IAW9T
4mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel 9/11 Report warns of "creeping tide of complacency" v rising threats in ME. Why threat rising if CT performance good? http://t.co/LnVR7IAW9T
7mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @BradMossEsq Justifies? That your client was able to say things he almost certainly wouldn't have before? That's your question?
13mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @BradMossEsq Yes, there is a whistleblowing process. Yes, in this case that was made easier bc Snowden leaked the info first.
23mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @BradMossEsq No, your original, fanciful claim is this info is not declass bc of Snowden. Unless Clapper was lying abt his actions it is.
24mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @BradMossEsq But to invent world in which Clapper didn't declass all that info in response to Snowden is simply fanciful.
27mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @BradMossEsq And again, that's NOT to take away from your client. Now people will finally read what was in public domain bc of Snowden leaks
28mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @BradMossEsq Very basic point: Snowden leaks. Clapper releases info saying he did so to respond. Your client writes op-ed on info.
30mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @BradMossEsq Again, PLEASE stop mischaracterizing what I say so you can pretend things are something other than they are.
31mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @Jj_nyappdefense Did I say that? Nope. But let's start w/McMillan's access to press, which not all inmates have.
32mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @BradMossEsq That Clapper released all the info your client did, saying it was so he could respond to Snowden leaks.
33mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @BradMossEsq Again, are you accusing Clapper of LYING abt his declass? otherwise, your point is false. @Paulmd199 @ashk4n
34mreplyretweetfavorite