Congressional authorization of military force after September 11th

AUMF

A cross-examination of AUMF

AUMF Background

Terrorism acts of September 11; this was a dark day in American history. Such acts necessitate the need to initiate appropriate self-defense measures against the proponents of such heinousness. The state shall therefore do anything through the powers bestowed upon the president to deter any attempt to mete such acts against American citizens. Public law as stipulated in act 107 section 40 points to the authorization of the use of force to counter such acts. There was a consensus, therefore that the president is bestowed with powers to authorize the United States forces to use force even outside the borders of the United States to make sure that such forces of terrorism are defeated. Proponents including individuals, organizations and even countries shall be pursued and suppressed to prevent them from committing terrorist acts against United States citizens.

Needed Amendments

Authorization for the use of military force has not attained consensus amongst Congress members yet but there are indications that some lessons have been learnt from the free willed passage of AUMF in 2001. There are proposals that have specific attention to the wording and language intricacies. The new proposals impose some caveats and limitations to the extent of the power of the president to act in self-defense of the nation with regard to boundaries. There is one undoing in all the restrictive proposals before Congress though. A critical examination of the proposals reveals that none of them seeks to place timelines on the war against ISIS. This situation, therefore, means that the war can go on indefinitely. There are no clearly defined objectives that can be achieved (Bradshaw, 2014). There is a debate as to whether there should be any AUMF for the ongoing war against Islamic State; either way, there is need for Congress to pass a thoroughly researched, and defined high quality AUMF with clear and achievable objectives that prevent the U.S. forces from engaging in a never-ending war. Such war seems to only escalate risks of attack against the U.S. Such an AUMF would ensure that the next president does not digress from the initial objectives set in the war against ISIS. Such digression and abuse has been observed in the current administration that claims that both AUMFs of 2001 and that of 2002 are applicable in the war against Islamic State.