Published by The Lawfare Institute
in Cooperation With
Donnelly: Would you call the al Nusra front in Syria an AQ affiliated terrorist group? Sheehan: Yes sir, I would. Donnelly: Would you say that the AUMF applies to the al Nusra front? . . . Taylor: As with many things with Syria, we’re looking very hard and very carefully and I don’t have a definitive answer for you at the moment. Donnelly: . . . Would we have the ability to act against al Nusra today under the AUMF? Sheehan: Yes sir, we’d have that ability to act against al Nusra if we felt they were threatening our security. We would have the authority to do that today. Donnelly: Do we feel today that al Nusra is threatening our security? Sheehan: I don’t want to get in in this setting for how we target different groups and organizations around the world.At the end of the first panel, Sheehan attempted to walk back some of his testimony when he stated:
When I said that he did have the authority to put boots on the ground in Yemen or Congo I was not necessarily referring to that under the AUMF. Certainly the President has military personnel deployed all over the world today, in probably over 70-80 countries, and that authority is not always under AUMF. So I just want to clarify for the record that we weren’t talking about all that authority subject to AUMF.Sheehan’s walk-back raises many questions, including: If the authority for U.S. military personnel to be in 70-80 countries “is not always the AUMF,” how many of those deployments are justified under the AUMF? (The phrase “not always” suggests a high number.) Moreover, Sheehan did not walk back Taylor’s claim about AUMF authorization for Syria, Mali, or Libya, and did not attempt to modify the exchange that implied serious DOD consideration of using force against al Nusra in Syria. Yesterday’s hearing also reveals that the SASC – which, in anticipation of the supposed transfer of drone control from CIA to DOD has been playing up the robustness of its oversight – has no idea how DOD is interpreting the AUMF. Senator Levin asked whether DOD would provide a list of “associated forces” under the AUMF, implying that the Committee did not know which groups are covered. The Committee also seemed generally clueless and surprised about the legal standard that DOD applies in practice. Yesterday’s hearing makes plain that the AUMF-war is much broader and much more easily expandable than I (and many on the SASC, it appears) had previously thought. The DOD testimony strongly suggested that DOD has a low legal threshold for identifying the all-important and benign-sounding “associated forces” under the AUMF. Fundamental questions about the scope of the war that Congress has authorized – the groups that constitute the enemy, the nations into which Congress has authorized force, and how determinations of such groups and nations are made – should not be the mystery to DOD’s main oversight committee that yesterday’s hearing made plain it is. It shouldn’t be a mystery to the American people either. But at a minimum, the SASC itself must get a full accounting from the administration about which groups are covered and into which nations DOD thinks Congress has authorized the President to use military force. Those lists should as a matter of law be reported regularly to Congress. They should also, I think, be made public. It should not be a surprise to the American people – and certainly not to DOD’s main oversight Committee – where and against whom Congress has authorized the President to use military force.