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.
On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, I was at home in Washington, D.C., and listening to the news on NPR when I heard the first confusing report of a plane crashing into the World Trade Center's North Tower.
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.
How many decades has it been since high-level politicians have been allowed to refer so blatantly to the nuclear elephant
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.
Sen. Chris Murphy argues that Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's ISIS war resolution would authorize martial law and U.S. troop deployments anywhere in the world.
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."