Not sure if this has already been covered specifically in some other similar thread, but...incredibly bored at work yet again, so....
I read this:
Jeh Johnson’s Speech on “National Security Law, Lawyers and Lawyering in the Obama Administration”, which is often cited as a more or less definitive position paper for the Obama administration's anti-terrorism policy and while I agree with most of the details and the legal justifications, there's one element that is always missing and it's (imho) central.
Yes the legal
authority is there in the AUFM, but does that authority alone constitute a
mandate to act?
Here's the short bus for the
AUMF:
Quote:
Preamble
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Section 1 - Short Title
This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force'.
Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces(a) IN GENERAL-
That 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.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
|
So, does such authorization constitute some sort of mandate in and of itself? Iow, although it doesn't outright state it, does this
require the President to act, or is it (as stated) merely the authorization to act (leaving the decision to act entirely with the Office of the President)? Note I'm not asking about how the President acts; it's about whether the President must act.
Ancillary to this is what responsibilities does the Office of the President have in regard to that authorization? Can he simply not go after Al Qaida members, for example, or would that in some way violate the
intent of the AUFM and/or constitute some sort of breach of duties opening the Pres up to possible impeachment, etc?
And I mean this to be specific to the Office of the President (not to any particular individual who may be President at any given time).
Any lawyers' input in particular would be appreciated.
