McCain and King are right. The AUMF was meant as a declaration of war against core al-Qaeda and the Taliban – the groups actually responsible for 9/11. These groups, while they still exist, no longer pose a major threat to our homeland. The terror threat we face is diffuse and disorganized: our enemies can carry out local attacks on our interests abroad (such as at our consulate in Benghazi), and as always, we will face “lone wolf” domestic terrorists inside the United States, from the Boston Marathon bombers to extremists who murder abortion doctors.
But we don’t need to deal with these threats using total war powers: over 500 terrorists have been convicted in regular, civilian federal courts since 9/11 (military commissions have convicted seven).
As Congress considers the annual authorization bill for the Department of Defense, it should revisit the AUMF. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) has introduced legislation that would sunset the AUMF at the end of 2014, to coincide with the drawdown from Afghanistan. Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) has authored an amendment that would require the executive branch to report to Congress explicitly what groups it thinks are “associated forces” that can be targeted under the AUMF.
This step would be critical, because if we are going to be using military force against terrorists all over the world, everyone can agree we should at least not do it in secret. Additionally, it would also warn innocent civilians against associating with these groups. There must not only be greater transparency about the administration’s drone policy, but more clarity regarding the legal justification and basis for targeted killing.
Basic principles of democracy require, at the very least, that the American people know who we’re at war with. Indeed, Yemeni activist Farea al-Muslimi testified this year at a Senate hearing that the expansive interpretation of the AUMF, particularly regarding the use of drones, empowers extremist groups to use U.S. policy as a recruiting tool. At this point the AUMF may be doing more harm than good.
War gives a president vast and frightening authority, the kind of power the framers were afraid of when they gave us a Constitution based on separation of powers. Congress, doubtless afraid of being called unpatriotic and soft on defense, has not passed legislation designed to seriously limit or oversee the exercise of executive authority in national security in thirty-five years.
During the president’s counterterrorism speech at the National Defense University last month, he reminded us of James Madison’s warning that “No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” President Obama is right that he doesn’t need these powers anymore, and Congress shouldn’t let him keep them.
Taeb is Government Relations manager at the Arab American Institute, and Levey is Arab American Institute Legal Fellow on the AUMF.