Authorization for Use of Military Force
The Trump Administration Would Rather Release A Man It Says Is A Terrorist Than Defend His Imprisonment
The government appears eager to avoid a court battle over whether a 2001 military force authorization applies to ISIS.
The congresswoman was the only "no" vote on a sweeping 9/11 war authorization that's still in use.
Under the guise of increased transparency, the administration has revealed partial information about its targeted killing program.
The senator argued Congress' votes to target Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein nearly 15 years ago apply to foreign jets in Syria, too.
Even Republicans who are a little worried about Trump are fine letting him take the reins of an undeclared war.
It is not my intention, for example, to pass any overall judgment of Hillary's hawkishness. That would require more detailed knowledge than I possess. But I do have a couple of observations to offer that, in my view, should lessen the weight of evidence for this characterization of Hillary as a superhawk.
To Democrats, President Barack Obama's final State of the Union address in front of a national audience was quintessential Obama. But to Republicans, Obama's speech was the "same old, same old."
Senator proposes granting the White House sweeping authority to attack the terror group anywhere.
For now, Republican leaders haven't given any indication that they're prepared to move a new AUMF through the process. Jones
Democrats forced the House to take votes Thursday on authorizing the war against the Islamic State group, making it the first time the House has touched the issue since the U.S.-led bombing campaign began 10 months ago.
"While this is another setback for a Congress long derelict in its duty, I will keep pushing for a debate and vote on a new
The full text of the Kaine-Flake AUMF is below: Democrats say Obama's proposal is too broad, Republicans say it's too restrictive