Introduction - I. Green Light: The Obama Administration’s Decision to Kill al-Awlaki - A. Framing the Issue - 1. Al-Awlaki-The Facts - 2. The Doctrinal Dilemma Posed by Targeting al-Awlaki - B. Relevant Statutes & Treaties - 1. The Foreign-murder Statute - 2. Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) - 3. International Law-The Geneva Conventions - C. Recent Developments-Al-Bihani v. Obama - II. Yellow Light: Is Killing al-Awlaki Prohibited by the Foreign-murder Statute? - A. Are International Law Norms Automatically a Part of U.S. Domestic Law? - 1. Pre-Medellin Treaty Status in U.S. Domestic Law - 2. Post-Medellin Treaty Status in U.S. Domestic Law - 3. The Medellin Paradigm and the International Laws of War - B. Circumventing Non-self-execution-Has Congress Incorporated the...
A congressional resolution approved in 2001 on presidential power to use military force has outlived its purpose. Three days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Congress approved the Authorization for Use of Military Force. It was enacted with good intentions -- to give President George W. Bush the authority to invade Afghanistan and go after Al Qaeda and the Taliban rulers who sheltered and aided the terrorists who had attacked the United States.
THE U.S. HOUSE of Representatives sent the Obama administration a strong, bipartisan rebuke Friday for failing to make the case for war in Libya or seeking congressional authorization for military action. It is critical that the administration understand the significance of this vote, abandon its plans for a nonbinding resolution in the Senate and proceed to seek the requisite debate and authorization for the use of military force, as I have advocated for nearly three months. The White House called the vote "unnecessary and unhelpful," but it has only itself to blame. The administration faces bipartisan opposition in Congress because it has, for more than two months, sidestepped the clear constitutional and legislative intent that a president obtain congressional authorization to go to ...
NEW YORK - As we debate whether the two parties can ever come together and get things done, here's something President Obama could probably do by himself that would be a signal accomplishment of his presidency: End the war on terror. Or, more realistically, start planning and preparing the country for phasing it out. For 11 years, the United States has been operating under emergency wartime powers granted under the 2001 "Authorization for Use of Military Force." That is a longer period than the country spent fighting the Civil War, World War I and World War II combined. It grants the president and the federal government extraordinary authorities at home and abroad, effectively suspends civil liberties for anyone the government deems an enemy and keeps us on a permanent war footing in al...
Having failed to override the President's veto of their surrender schedule, the Democrats-led by Sen. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.)are now proposing that the war-authorizing legislation (the "Authorization for Use of Military Force" passed before the Iraq invasion) be amended to expire on a date certain-and preferably before the next presidential inauguration. President Bush and Gen. George casey (then U.S. commander in Iraq) said consistently that there has to be a political solution in Iraq that the military can enable but not compel. For about three weeks, reports coming out of Iraq have said that the Iraqi Parliamenthaving failed to deal with the most important challenges it faces, including local elections and the national oil law-would take a shorter vacation than last year: a two-mont...
Who knew keeping our enemies behind bars would be so controversial? The House of Representatives is slated to take up the 2012 funding bill for the Defense Department on Tuesday. It reaffirms that the United States is in a state of armed conflict with "al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces" and that the president has authority to "detain certain belligerents until the termination of hostilities. Neither statement presents anything new. The first simply reflects the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). The second has long been the rule in the law of armed conflict. Both reflect positions taken consistently by the George W. Bush and Obama administrations and the Supreme Court.
In the wake of the September 11 attacks, and the subsequent presidentially declared war on terror, the President and the executive branch assumed new powers to respond to the perceived terrorist threat. Some of these powers, like those granted by the Patriot Act and the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, were granted by Congress. Part I of this article examines Congress's appropriations power and the ways in which the executive branch has attempted to circumvent that authority. Part II explores the extent to which the settlement authority of the Department of Justice creates continuing loopholes in Congress's appropriations authority. Finally, in Part III, this article examines the ability of the judicial and legislative branches to oversee the Department's settlement practice...
Consistent with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), the Authorization for the Use of Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), and in order to keep the Congress fully informed,...
The attorney general has declared that the President's authority rests on the post-9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) and the president's inherent wartime powers under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which includes authority to gather "signals intelligence" on the enemy. First, the president has some latitude under the "Executive Power" and "Commander-in-Chief" Clauses of Article II, even lacking explicit congressional approval, to authorize NSA warrantless surveillance without violating Fourth Amendment protections against "unreasonable" searches. Offenses against the Law of Nations, declare War, make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water, raise and support Armies, provide and maintain a Navy, make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and na...
Polls indicate that most Democrats believe that the war in Iraq is a mistake. This creates a problem for Hillary Clinton. She enthusiastically endorsed the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002." Barack Obama opposed the resolution. In a speech before the vote, while he was still a member of the Illinois Senate and a candidate for the U.S. Senate, Obama said: "I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East and encourage the worst, rather than the best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitme...
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
© Copyright 2013, vLex. All Rights Reserved.
Contents in vLex United States
Explore vLex
For Professionals
For Partners
Company
Other interesting searches:
Erosion | Marilyn Perry | ingress database | Danny Murphy | act paperwork reduction | quissac 30260 | pronunciamiento de riego | conferenza di monaco | auditoria interna de calidad | Beneficios sociales definicion
