Transcripts For CSPAN3 Experts Tell Senate Panel New AUMF Is

CSPAN3 Experts Tell Senate Panel New AUMF Is Needed For Military Action In Syria June 23, 2017

The hearing ran an hour and a half. The Foreign Relations committee will come to order. We thank our the Foreign Relations committee will come to order. The senators who i know care deeply about this issue. I would like to thank you for being here to testify, your insights and experience will be helpful as we begin to reengage on this difficult topic. Its been well over a decade since 9 11, and theres an interest on the part of many members to revisit and refresh the authority we used to fight terrorism. In 2014 we saw the rise of isis which feeds territory in iraq and syria and has seen thousands of foreign fighters and conducted repeated attacks against the United States or our allies. As a result of these types of threats and others, multiple president s have use the 2001 authorization for the use of military force by necessity to conduct hundreds of drone sites around the world and to put american troops on the ground in multiple countries. However, there are a multitude of terrorist groups operating today that pose a direct threat to the United States and have lesser connection to the 9 11 attacks. Many have questioned whether 2001 covers these groups. Ive always believed its important for congress to exercise this constitutional role to authorize the use of force and that our country is better off when congress clearly authorizes the wars we fight. As a matter of fact, we are approaching today when an american soldier will deploy to combat under Legal Authority that was passed before they were born. In 2014 i wrote absent congressional action the president will continue to operate under an outdated authorization leaving the door open for future president s to claim undue and unbounded powers that will over time erode the balance of power fundamental to our constitutional system. Three years later that statement remains true. Its also one they think most members of congress will agree with, but there are very rally reasons why congress has been unable to pass the authority and they are worth outlining. First and most importantly the the 200 1 continues to provide military with the authority they need from very real threats. In the past Year American forcers have been on the Ground Fighting terrorism in at least five countries. I believe that the president has the authority under the 2001 a. M. Act to take action against isis as the Obama Administration repeatedly testified before this committee. The act, while stretched provides a necessary, Legal Authority for us to continue this fight. We should not risk its expiration without a replacement. Second, some members of congress will use this debate for the single purpose of imposing limitation on the president. Its just a fact. Others may refuse to limit a president at war in any way. Thats a fact and thats a wide gap to bridge. Finally, many argue that while passing an act may not be a legal necessity. Its a moral one. They believe that Congress Must fulfill its constitutional duty of authorizing war and showing the men and women fighting around the world that there are elected representatives to support the war, and i too share many of those sentiments and believe we must also guard against an outcome that could have exactly the opposite effect. While congress, in fact, strongly supports the fight against isis and has repeated lead funded the effort, the failure to bridge differences in the past could create a false impression of disunity during a time of war. So its the backdrop of these challenges, i intend to conduct this debate in a way that serves boast our National Interest. I hope that the administration will brief this committee to present their Counter Terrorism strategy and engage us constructively to ensure that any new authorization is appropriately tailored to observe the National Interest to avoid this fight, and i want to thank senators cane and flake for their tireless effort. I want to thank senator young for presenting their own amf and i want to thank senator menendez for chairing a meeting for a markup, and i a preesh all of the work thats been done to develop bipartisan solution. I want to thank you for your presence today that is most useful and helpful to us and i look forward to your questions and responses. With that, i would like to turn to our distinguished Ranking Member and i think what we did last week on the senate floor through intense negotiations struck exactly the right balance to continue to cause this committee in the senate in extending foreign policies. I want to thank everybody for that and with that ill turn to senator cardon. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I totally concur in your comments about the actions last week. I think it was the United States senate indicted by this committee that did exactly what we needed to do in regards to the appropriate role of congress. I thank you very much, and i also thank you for holding this hearing. Much of what you said in your Opening Statement i fully support and agree with. There are some differences that i will point out in my Opening Statement, but i do agree that this is one of the most important responsibilities that we have and one in which hearings are very important for us to get this right. You cant run away from this responsibility and i thank you for holding this hearing. I also join you in thanking senat senator cane, for many years in pointing out that congress has the responsibility on the use of military force and the interpretations of both democratic and republican administrations from the 2001 authorizations go well beyond what congress intended and i thank them both for their leadership. Senator young, thank you for your leadership, and this committee took up this issue under senator menendezs agreement. We did not come to an agreement and the administration was not in the wake of september 11, 2001, Congress Passed an aumf targeting the purpose trae trarts of those attacks and the taliban in of course afghanistan. Congress passed a second uamf, when written, these aumfs supplied the president with latitude in order to better combat the threat of terrorism. Unfortunately, this latitude has been stretched far beyond what congress intended. We are now 16 years beyond the 2001 aumf and yet it continues to be used as justification for a wide range of military operation. This includes military operation against terrorists in the middle east and africa and connections to al qaeda in the 9 11 attacks are tenuous, at best. Mr. Charm an, lirman let me jus what the authorization has said that the president has authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force to use all nations, organizations and persons who he determined planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on september 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations a person in order to prevent any future acts of International Terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations. It was clear to me when i voted for it that i was giving the presence the Necessary Authority for those who attacked our country on september 11th. It is now being used well, well beyond what congress intended. Theres no question to me. We saw the most recent use of this in regard to activities in syria and it hads nothing to do with the attacks on the country on september 11th and thats true as i said initially about the interpretations under both the Obama Administration and now under the trump administration. The iraq aumf is still used in part as justification for u. S. Military operations in iraq. 14 years past the u. S. Invasion and long after the end of the Saddam Hussein regime. These aumfs are now becoming near convenient for president s to conduct military activity anywhere in the world. This is no longer acceptable. To permit this situation to continue is dereliction of Congress Duty under the constitution to direct and regulate the president s use of his commander in chief authority in activities of war is an invasion of our responsibility to the American People to assure that the United States does not stumble into war or involve itself in illconceived wars that arent ours to fight or are not in with the needs and princels of our nation. It is for our brave men and women when we do not clearly define the battle and the objective for which they must fight and risk their lives. This is especially the case now. The president has yet to tell us or the American People what the strategy is for defeating isil in iraq and syria and in other relevant theaters like afghanistan where violent extremist groups have u. S. Interests and you see the president del bait gaiting the most vital responsibility to decide what military operations are conducted and how many u. S. Troops are to be committed to combat to combat foreign countries. It is critical to the future security of the United States and our friends and allies that congress provide the president with Proper Authority to target and combat isil and its affiliate. In 2002 iraqs aumf should be repealed and the 2001ee 9 11 should be repealed and replaced with one specifically targeted isil and other terrorist groups. The authorities provided a new aumf to allow the president to go after direct threats to the United States and also to avoid granting the president unilateral authority to engage in operations practically anywhere in the world. Mr. Chairman, let me just point out, you and i have both asked the administration to present us with their strategy. They have yet to do that. There are numerous examples of where weve asked them to present to us what they need. It is difficult for us to carry out our responsibilities unless we know what the commander in chief needs as far as the use of military force in combatting isil forces. So it will be a challenge for us. I think we need to repeal the 2001 or replace it, but we need to know what the administrations strategy is and they havent done that. We do know theyre using the 2001 and 2002 authorizations well beyond what we ever intended. Of particular concern to me is the meaningful restrictions on deploying u. S. Ground forces to combat isil. I do not believe significantly escalating our direct involvement in current combat operations is beneficial to actually solving the crisis inciti bated by isil. There is no easier or assured way for the u. S. To unintentionally commit to a quagmire as this. As we know too well, once committed and then under attack, it becomes nearly impossible to withdraw those troops. However, im not at all convinced that evolving threat from isil to uses and to our friends and partners necessitates committing more of our brave men and women to ground the combat operation. The need for significant combat military operations to diminish as isils control over territory is diminished and the organizations shifted the focus to terrorist attacks around the globe. It is at this point that the battle becomes one of assisting and Building Local partner military and improving Counter Terrorism Security Forces and Law Enforcement units and intelligence, investigative and judicial agencies as well as combatting isils activity. As we heard in ricent hearings, isils global reach and the organization is moving from a physical caliphate to a virtual caliphate and that is not something one fights with combat troops. For all these reasons i believe this is yet hearing is important, but its equally as important we hear from the administration. We have a vote at 11 00, and we have two votes and what we should do is power through those and keep going so if people can Pay Attention to when their time is up and well move back and forth and continue on. Our first witness is John Bellinger iii state adviser from 20052009 and before that he was National Security adviser from 2005 to 2009. We thank you very much for being here. Second is the honorable dr. Kathleen hick, director of the interNational Security program at csis. She served for the department of defense during the Obama Administration and we thank you very much for being here, and as you know, you can summarize your comments to five minutes and look forward to our questions and i appreciate your expertise and begin in the order that you were introduceded. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, i agree with your comments that its a privilege for me to be back in this distinguished committee. I want to command you for your efforts to reach the authorization against isis and i applaud the contributions for senator mccain and senator flake and i know youve had this for quite some period of time and it was a privilege to meet with you, and senator young for your recent contribution. Thank you. I served as National Legal adviser in the bush administration. I was in the white house situation room on 9 11, and i was involved in the drafting of both the 2001 and 2002 aumf. For my sins i then spent the next eight years engaged in almost daily discussions on the legal issues relating to the use of military force including detention arising under aumfs. 16 years after the enactment of the aumf and 16 years after the conflict with isis, congress should repeal the outdated 2001 aumf and replace it with a comprehensive aumf that authorizes the use of force with appropriate limitations against names, terrorist groups including al qaeda, the taliban, isis and associated groups. Congress should also repeal the 2002 aumf which is no longer necessary. And. An updated aumf is legally necessary to ensure that our military has clear authorization from congress to use force against terrorist groups engaged in hostility against the United States and to ensure that you have detention operations withstand legal challenges in u. S. Court. An updated uamf to organizations that committed the 9 11 attacks. It is increasingly difficult and i have been there to demonstrate that new terrorist groups that have emerged in the last few years are associated with al qaeda. It is not clear that the 2001 aumf authorizes the use of force against isis because isis did not exist, at least in its current form in 2001 and was not the group that committed the 9 11 attack. A new aumf specifically authorizes the use of force against isis and provides a clearer legal basis for detention of members of isis. An updated aumf should authorize the president to use all Necessary Force against named terrorist groups and associated organizations that have attacked or have an intention to attack the United States or u. S. Persons. The aumf should include a list of specific groups which would presently include at least the taliban, al qaeda and isis and may include other named groups and allow the president to use force against Additional Organization if he Notifies Congress if he determines that the Additional Organizations are associated with the named organizations and are engaged in hostilities or plan to engage in hostilities against the United States. In my view a new aumf should not be limited geographically to certain countries. Even if a new aumf does not limit the use of force to certain countries, the United States is still required by International Law to limit its use of force in or against other countries. As a purely legal matter, i would oppose a sunset provision. A sunset creates legal uncertainty for the president and the military. However, i can certainly understand that some kind of a sun set or review provision may be politically necessary to achieve consensus on a new aumf, i would improve conditions that would micromanage the use of force by the president and the military such as an absolute prohibition on Ground Combat operation. If a limitation is necessary, i would support a clearer prohibition such as this authorization does not include authorization for the Ground Invasion or occupation of any sovereign country or parts thereof without further congressional authorization. It might include provisions providing certain procedural protections for the use of legal force against americans who join terrorist groups, authorizing might also authorize, but might provide procedural guards for detection of terrorist suspects captured by the United States and congressional reporting requirements. They should update the national war powers, which was a Bipartisan Commission by Warren Christopher called impractical and ineffective and i applaud the war powers consultation act of 2014 which was drafted by senators mccain and came to implement the recommendations of the commission. Members of congress have understandable concerns about approving a broad, new authorization and extending what many view as a forever war. However, i am convinced that congress can come together to agree on a new aumf to the clear legislative authorization and congressional support t

© 2025 Vimarsana