Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #AUMF

Most recents (4)

3. The legacy of US, UK, Australia, Poland and NATO in Iraq

#Iraq #CrimesAgainstHumanity #WarCrimes #CrimesAgainstChildren
1. The legacy of US, UK, Australia, Poland and NATO in Iraq 🤨👇🏼
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1135299…
2. The legacy of US, UK, Australia, Poland and NATO in Iraq 🤨👇🏼
Read 67 tweets
1. @HouseForeign demands administration's legal opinions on use of force against #Iran

Letter cites this great essay by Just Security's Brian Egan and @bridgewriter which concludes that efforts to shoehorn #IranWar into #AUMF is "thoroughly unconvincing": justsecurity.org/64645/top-expe…
2. Letter by Chairman @RepEliotEngel and @RepTedDeutch:

"Given the life-and-death stakes of the current situation between the United States and Iran, we can think of no issue where it is more imperative for the Department to explain its rationale."

foreignaffairs.house.gov/2019/6/engel-d…
3. Readers may also be interested in this essay by @jgeltzer (former NSC, DOJ), @LukeHartig (former NSC, DoD) and @rgoodlaw (former DoD)

reaches same conclusion as Egan and @bridgewriter

justsecurity.org/64650/asking-t…

[end]
Read 3 tweets
1. Defect in US War Powers Act & its #AUMF & what @RT_Erdogan and his #ISIS army exploited in Syria is fact that an AUMF only authorizes war. It identifies the enemy but if @POTUS is a traitor like @realDonaldTrump he/she can surrender under and AUMF with a complicit Congress.
2. When the articles of impeachment are considered, it is critical to add treason to ISIS. Test it on @WHNSC Bolton. Trump surrendered in face of the enemy. He has adopted Turkey's doctrine in Syria that is doctrine of ISIS & Al-Qaeda. Trump & Bolton give them aid and comfort.
3. An AUMF is declaration of defined enemy under treason clause of Art. III. @Trump should have to face this charge. We need to do it before any more Americans are attacked by AQ and ISIS forces @POTUS has surrendered to in Syria. @foxandfriends @hogangidley45 @WhiteHouse
Read 3 tweets
1. At the risk of trying to bring some nuance to Twitter, what follows is a #thread on U.S. law vis-a-vis the war powers, and why the legality of the #SyriaStrikes as a matter of U.S. law (to say nothing of int'l law) is both far from certain and revealing of far deeper problems:
2. Let's start from first principles. For uses of military force to be lawful as a matter of U.S. domestic law, the authority to use such force must stem either from an Act of Congress or from the President's powers under Article II of the Constitution.
3. As the government has already implicitly conceded, no statute authorized these strikes.

Although both the Obama and Trump administrations have relied upon the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (#AUMF) to use force _in_ Syria, those strikes were against #ISIS.
Read 14 tweets

Related hashtags

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!