Where do you stand?

senate Bill S. 526

Phasing Out the 2001 AUMF in Three Years

Argument in favor

The 2001 authorization of military force against the perpetrators of 9/11 is outdated and should be phased out in three years. It shouldn’t be the justification for counter-terrorism operations nearly two decades later.

Michael's Opinion

···

12/30/2015

That doesn't mean we can't protect ourselves, we would simply have to decide if deploying troops is advantageous on a case by case basis.

Like (17)

John's Opinion

···

12/30/2015

I think the sponsor said it best. The AUMF is a blank check for perpetual war. There is already an AUMF for ISIS/ISIL. We don't need two.

Like (15)

Carlosm's Opinion

···

12/30/2015

A new legislation is required for today's conditions.

Like (5)

Argument opposed

The 2001 AUMF needs to remain in effect. It justifies counter-terrorism operations against groups that wish harm the U.S. Setting a timeline for ending those operations endangers military personnel.

DCMarine03's Opinion

···

12/30/2015

Unrelenting justice to those responsible for the catastrophic destruction of the World Trade Center and against those who seek to eradicate western civilization from the map does not have an expiration date.

Like (14)

SherryTX's Opinion

···

12/30/2015

The threat hasn't ended, neither should the war on terror.

Like (3)

Steve's Opinion

···

12/31/2015

The secretary of defense said it best. "there is a 14 year history of Al Quida's intention to attack our country...we have to protect ourselves."

Like (1)

What is Senate Bill S. 526?

This bill would sunset the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) three years after this legislation is enacted. The 2001 AUMF allowed for military action against those responsible for the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

In practice, the 2001 AUMF has been used as justification for U.S. counter-terrorism operations around the world against groups like Al Qaeda and “affiliated forces” — although neither Al Qaeda nor any other group were specifically mentioned in the text of the 2001 resolution. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001 — and as of December 2015, the AUMF has been used to authorize force against the so-called Islamic State (ISIS) and other Islamic militant groups.

Impact

Service members deployed under the AUMF, their targets, U.S. military forces, the Dept. of Defense, Congress, and the President.

Cost of Senate Bill S. 526

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

More Information

In-Depth: Sponsoring Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) introduced this bill to put a stop to what he views as an “unending war” against terrorist organizations:

“After more than 13 years, it is time we close this chapter of unending war and modernize our approach to terrorist threats in a thoughtful and concise way. While the ISIL AUMF outlined by President Obama is limited to three years that sunset means little if the 9/11 AUMF is still in effect as a potentially boundless, all-encompassing authorization. By leaving in place the 2001 AUMF, Congress could be authorizing a state of perpetual war, and giving this President and future presidents a blank check to keep America at war.”

Secretary of Defense Ash Carter balked when asked by Sen. Cardin if the Secretary would support sunseting the 2001 AUMF after three years in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

“I can’t give you a clear answer to this question and let me say why. There’s a difference — there’s a 14-year history of the tenacity of Al Qaeda and its offshoots, and their intent to attack our country. And I think you have to take that into account about whether it would make sense to put a sunset on that confrontation. … We have to protect ourselves.”

Media:

Summary by Eric Revell
(Photo Credit: Flickr user DVIDSHUB)

AKA

Sunset of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force Act

Official Title

A bill to sunset the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force after three years.

bill Progress

Not enacted
The President has not signed this bill
The house has not voted
The senate has not voted
IntroducedFebruary 12th, 2015

Bill Data

Issues

Committees

Committee on Foreign Relations

Sponsor

Sen Benjamin Cardin

(D - MD)

2 Cosponsors

Introduced 02/12/2015

Full text of Bill

Michael's Opinion In Favor

···

12/30/2015

That doesn't mean we can't protect ourselves, we would simply have to decide if deploying troops is advantageous on a case by case basis.

Like (17)

DCMarine03's Opinion Against

···

12/30/2015

Like (14)

John's Opinion In Favor

···

12/30/2015

I think the sponsor said it best. The AUMF is a blank check for perpetual war. There is already an AUMF for ISIS/ISIL. We don't need two.

Like (15)

Carlosm's Opinion In Favor

···

12/30/2015

A new legislation is required for today's conditions.

Like (5)

SherryTX's Opinion Against

···

12/30/2015

The threat hasn't ended, neither should the war on terror.

Like (3)

Alis's Opinion In Favor

···

12/31/2015

It is time for those elected to make decisions about waging war to debate the issues, make a plan & vote ON THE RECORD. Legislators have beaten their manly chests, whined & cast blame without having the courage to do anything for years. No one is convinced by rhetoric. Do the job you were elected to do & quit blaming President Obama for your failure to act!! Everyone knows you are a group of spineless toddlers. Prove us wrong & act now!

Like (3)

BTSundra's Opinion In Favor

···

01/03/2016

We should have another plan that lets us use more force on ISIS and other terrorist threats. That being said, we should always check in to make sure this authorization is needed, to avoid waste.

Like (3)

Manuel's Opinion In Favor

···

12/31/2015

It'd be nice to see our country make an effort to NOT be at war at some point in the near furture.

Like (2)

bhiguma's Opinion In Favor

···

12/30/2015

We need to lead by example rather than intervening in the affairs of other nations. While the War on Terror is not over, there is no imminent threat to the US. Therefore, we should support Arab boots on the ground and our middle eastern allies in order to combat terrorism. We should only reauthorize military force if there is an imminent threat to our national security or if an attack has already occurred.

Like (2)

Zachary's Opinion In Favor

···

12/31/2015

Congress needs to reclaim the war powers that rightfully belong to the legislative branch. Scrap the War Powers Resolution, as it invites the executive to commit armed forces more readily than necessary, and refuse to fund any use of force not taken pursuant to an express authorization from the Congress.

Like (2)

Don's Opinion In Favor

···

12/31/2015

It needs to be a complete overhaul of the AUMF

Like (2)

Christian's Opinion In Favor

···

12/31/2015

There is no reason that this document should not be updated to meet our current needs. Not updating the AUMF sets a dangerous precedent, and that must be avoided.

Like (2)

operaman's Opinion In Favor

···

01/01/2016

Yes, time for a new Authorization

Like (2)

Brian's Opinion In Favor

···

12/31/2015

Policy always needs updating.

Like (2)

Gavin's Opinion In Favor

···

12/31/2015

We can still fight terrorists, but we should be clear that we are no longer fighting those from 911

Like (2)

Jim's Opinion In Favor

···

12/30/2015

Close the blank checkbook and make the president and defense department seek approval for any further operations as the constitution intends. Not that it made a difference in September of 2001.

Like (1)

Mark's Opinion In Favor

···

12/31/2015

This would sunset a bill focused on Al Qaeda after 9/11. The current battles are against Daesh, a totally different entity. Congress must vote again to allow further military action.

Like (1)