Its plain meaning limits its applicability to those nations, organizations and people involved in 9/11. Not my fault it’s poorly worded.
Does it give the legal authority to attack an Al Qaeda operative or cell in Germany? Of course it does. Why wouldn’t it? I also think it would not be a good idea to do so.
I stated some time ago, I think it was in this thread, that I do not believe that the AUMF seriously contemplated military action within the United States. If one looks at the resolution, there are references to the national security and foreign policy of the US, and some words on the danger of international terrorism, not to mention that the authorization extends to other countries that supported the attacks. This would tend to mean to me that the ambiguity in the wording of the resolution should be interpreted not to authorize the use of the military within the US.
What do you think?
You aren’t reading it correctly. It says “nations, organizations, or people.” Clearly, Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11. People have joined Al Qaeda since 9/11, but Al Qaeda still exists. So can we attack people who have joined Al Qaeda after 9/11?
Ah. I see your point.
But I really do you raise an interesting point, which is, at what point must we snap the chalk line and say, even though some group is like Al Qaeda, they weren’t really associated with the 9/11 attack, and therefore aren’t covered by a strict reading of the AUMF?
It is an excellent question, and sometime we’re going to have to deal with it.
I have no idea. I don’t know enough about this area of law. I would hope it doesn’t, because I think that would be fundamentally wrong and inconsistent with American understanding of due process, but it might.
Everywhere in the world is what the AUMF covers. In that sense, downtown Chicago isn’t any different from Afghanistan either. The AUMF doesn’t limit the scope to anywhere.
But the fact remains, we have current military operations in Afghanistan, and we don’t in Yemen. Nor downtown Chicago. I’m much more willing to extend the “battlefield” concept to Afghanistan than Chicago, or, for that matter, Yemen.
I didn’t cite the Geneva conventions and the law of war for a precise definition of what a “battlefield” is, but rather for the reasons the Geneva Conventions and the laws of war exist.
John Mace asked a question, and I tried to answer it. But yes, I am asserting there are places that are not “battlefields”.
You seem to believe that, once military force is allowed, the whole world is fair game. But one of the rationales involved in devevloping the laws of war and Geneva Conventions was to stop the “everything goes” idea in war. POWs, for example, are provided protections once they are removed from the battlefield. On the battlefield, shoot them in the head. Off the battlefield and no threat, don’t shoot them in the head.
Did you actually think this was some kind of “gotcha” point? As I pointed out, we have current military operations in Afghanistan and I am much more likely to declare it a “battlefield” than Yemen.
I think you’re reading something you really want to exist into the AUMF. Lest we forget, Bush had argued that the AUMF did, in fact, apply in the US when Jose Padilla, a US citizen, arrested in the US, was detained as an “enemy combatant” for years. Just another problem with granting the President unlimited power.
This is a loaded question (but valid). The AUMF is authorized to use military force against the enemy, wherever they are found.
The loaded part is what do you mean by assassinate? I’ll describe two situations:
(1) This guy is walking down Germany Blvd after having lunch. There’s a US sniper on a roof nearby. Shot to head. This is illegal. First, you’re violating German law that would afford anyone inside its borders due process. They are able to enforce their law. Second, this guy is a US citizen, and you’d be violating his constitutional rights which would protect him from this kind of action by the US Government. Just because the AUMF allows the military to be used anywhere, doesn’t mean that use would be legal.
(2) This guy is in Afghanistan embedded with Al Qaeda’s 055 Brigade. The State has failed and there is an ongoing war in that State against AQ. The Taliban has a long history of supporting AQ. The rebel Gov’t is itself attacking AQ. This is a warzone. Shoot to kill this guy. His constitutional rights would not follow him into a war.
The “actual” situation…
Definitely between 1 and 2. I posted up-thread why I believe it’s closer to situation 2. Yemen has declared war against Al Qaeda. Yemen has asked us to help them fight it (leaked cable states we are in fact dropping bombs there). This guy is in Yemen. This guy supports AQ and supports attacking US targets. This guy is the enemy described in the AUMF. Military force would (likely) be legal here.
Lastly, just because the AUMF authorizes forces to be used anywhere they are needed, they are not be needed in Germany. There is no state of war in Germany. We would not, and it would be illegal, to violate Germany’s sovereignty in that manner (even though it’s not illegal to authorize it, if needed. ie, Germany asks, the German State fails). The AUMF does not define the entire world as a de-facto “battlefield.” It says military force can be used anywhere in the world (if the situation warrants military force; you gotta read this into it).
But I’m saying that the battlefield is any place where battles are taking place. They can arise spontaneously and go away just as fast, because fighting can begin and end without planning or regulation. There’s nothing in international law that says, “You can’t fight here because this isn’t a battlefield.” Instead, international law says, “You’re fighting here, so this is a battlefield, and therefore these laws apply.”
If there is fighting in Yemen, it is a battlefield; just like Afghanistan wasn’t a battlefield before we invaded. If we choose to attack Yemen, that makes it a battlefield. There is no pre-ordained definition of battlefield that prohibits us from attacking bad guys in Yemen.
I’m not following your argument: are you saying that the AUMF has universal jurisdiction, and it does in fact authorize the use of force in the United States, and therefore Bush made a valid claim?
Because I’m saying I don’t think Bush’s claims were valid. I don’t get why you’re calling me out on this point, I think we actually agree.
Judge Bates dismissed father’s case yesterday but asked particularly interesting question:
When there is a legitimate battle taking place, of course our military can use deadly force to respond. If terrorists start shooting up Chicago, Sana’a, or Kabul, the military can respond with deadly force to stop it.
But that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about the planned assasination of a US citizen who is not on the battlefield. If he suddenly takes to the battlefield, even in Yemen, he’s clearly a imminent and substantial threat and can be killed without violating the due process clause. But, again, that’s not what we’re talking about.
I am saying that the wording of the AUMF does not make a distinction between the US, the territorial US, Afghanistan, or the moon. But, as I said at the very begining of the thread, Congress cannot authorize the president to violate the Constitution, whether it is in the US or for US citizen abroad. You seemed to be trying to draw a distinction between the president authorizing the assasination of a US citizen in Yemen, and one in a Yemenese restaurant in New York. I don’t think that distinction is supported by the AUMF, the Constitution, or the caselaw.