Yesterday, I commented on the strikingly broad authority the Obama administration proposed in its draft Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Syria, and argued that Senate leaders' attempts to narrow the proposed authorization were misguided: "Congress shouldn't 'fix' what the president shouldn't have."
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee's revised AUMF, released this morning, hasn't changed my mind.
- They’ve added some adjectives to the operative clause, authorizing the president "to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in a limited and tailored manner" (bespoke airstrikes?) against “legitimate military targets,” and tightened the stated goals somewhat. But again "he determines” whether those conditions have been met.
- They've added some time limits--60 days, with a one-time 30-day renewal if the president certifies he needs it—much like the limits in the War Powers Resolution. But recall that Obama blew past the WPR’s time limits two years ago in Libya, becoming the second president ever to do so. (Bill Clinton--like Obama, a former constitutional law professor--was the first. Remember, “Never Let Law Profs Near the Oval Office”)
- Worst of all, despite purporting to bar "the use of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Syria for the purpose of combat operations" (Sec. 3) and limit airstrikes to targets "in Syria," (Sec. 2(a)), the draft (unwittingly?) undermines those restrictions at the outset. The revised AUMF gives away the game in the last clause of Section 1 with a gratuitous and overbroad concession about the scope of the president's authority to use force without congressional authorization: "the President has authority under the Constitution to use force in order to defend the national security interests of the United States." That's far broader than the WPR's description of the president's independent constitutional authority to take action in "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States... or its armed forces"--and broader than the original understanding that the president retained the power to "repel sudden attacks." The language in the Committee's draft AUMF implicitly endorses a power to launch sudden attacks when the president deems them in "the national security interests of the United States."
Former Bush OLC head Jack Goldsmith calls it "the broadest such clause I have ever seen"--"the draft AUMF enhances, through congressional recognition, the President’s claims of independent constitutional authority to use force in Syria." Coupled with other provisions in Section 1 affirming that Syria's possession and use of unconventional weapons "constitute a grave threat to . . . the national security interests of the United States,"--that phrase again--it gives President Obama additional cover to go beyond what's authorized in the resolution--flouting the time limits, introducing ground troops, striking targets outside of Syria, and the like.
Goldsmith sums up: "If the Senate draft becomes law, the President should be very pleased." Americans, who are rightly sick of Middle Eastern entanglements and Tomahawk humanitarianism, will likely have a very different view.