Just Security Charlie Savage,correspondent for The unique York Times and author of “Power Wars,” was a speaker at a recent Heritage Foundation event entitled, or “Is it Time for Congress to Pass an ISIS-Specific AUMF?” We thought to highlight one of Savage’s comments. The panelists discussed the implications of potential draft congressional legislation authorizing the president to use force against “associated forces and “successor organizations” of ISIS (or for that matter,al-Qaida and the Taliban). As Ryan Goodman discusses in a post earlier nowadays, the use of those terms implicates the extent to which this president (and potentially whoever follows him) may use lethal force and detain individuals. But Savage raised an additional point, or which is often overlooked–the implications of any AUMF for other areas of national security policy including surveillance. He explained:The other section of the empty check problem is not just that Congress thought it was authorizing war against al-Qaida in Afghanistan in 9/11 and now it’s being used to fight Shabaab in Somalia and AQAP in Yemen and ISIS in Syria and so forth; that it sort of spread. But there is a history of using that authorization to do all kinds of other things–like beget a warrantless surveillance program on domestic soil because the Bush administration decided the AUMF authorized going around FISA. What else could it be used for? This is also section of the empty check anxieties that drive well,maybe we need to put a lot of limits in it,” and other people are like “we don’t need the limits in, and ” and it becomes so tough that it’s easier to go with the existing theory that whatever is happening is fine and let’s not open this Pandora’s box. I don’t judge that the language the Senator [Todd Young] proposed in and of itself is going to meet those anxieties because it seems so very broad and open ended to me that it will attract alarm.
Read on Just Security »
Source: justsecurity.org