Authorization For Use Of Military Force

Thus, the immediate federal response to the World Trade Center attack by some terrorist group was the creation of the Patriot Act which contains the following contents with some to strengthen domestic security and ethical issues. According to the U.S Department of justice.gov. “It stated that the creations of the act, pertains to the country’s protection of civil liberties, which authorizes federal money to accomplish much of the act 's provisions, it allows the Secret Service to create a nationwide electronic crime task force. The president can confiscate the

In the following months and years, then president George W. Bush and the military began planning the retaliation. It quickly became clear that the president’s goal was not simply to defeat bin Laden and al-Qaeda, but to eliminate other terrorist groups as well. On September 20th, 2001 during a speech Bush said the following “Our ‘war on terror’ begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.” (Bush, 2001)

During the past decade of military operations combating terrorism, members of the U.S. government have thoroughly debated the power of the President and the role of Congress during a time of war. A historical review of war powers in America demonstrates the unchecked power of the executive when it comes to military decision-making and the use of force. Throughout history the power of the President to initiate, conduct, and sustain military operations without oversight has greatly increased. Through a historical lens, this essay will

Congress intended the War Powers Resolution to halt the diluted ability of Congress to participate in war-making decisions. The terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11, 2001, however, created new complications for the separation of powers within the war powers sphere. After September 11, the United States Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force against Terrorists (AUMF). President George W. Bush began offensive campaigns against Afghanistan to neutralize the Taliban government, which controlled Afghanistan and permitted the Al Qaeda terrorist network to conduct terrorist training within the country 's borders.

On the other hand, by taking the country into a war with Libya, Barack Obama's administration is breaking new ground in its construction of an imperial presidency — an executive who increasingly acts independently of Congress at home and abroad. Obtaining a U.N. Security Council resolution has legitimated U.S. bombing raids under international law. But the U.N. Charter is not a substitute for the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress, not the president, the power "to declare war."

In the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Congress sprang into action. Within a month, U.S. lawmakers overwhelmingly approved the USA Patriot Act of 2001, giving law enforcement and intelligence agent’s broader authority to fight terrorists operating in the United States.

Post measures lead to the view of international law on the military action against non-state groups. The question was asked. “To what extent can a state actor use force, in self-defense, on the territory of another state, in order to punish a non-state group, if that state is not directly responsible for the actions of the non-state group” (Jennifer 2011, 1). The US has informed the UN Security Council citing that they will use its right of self-defence, under the terms of the UN Charter, to attack al-Qaeda training camps and Taliban military installations in Afghanistan (Martyn 2002, 1). Dramatic measures had to be taken by the US being a state actor; there was a status they had to

1. In President Obama’s speech at West Point, he announced that 30,000 additional troops would be sent to Afghanistan. He made this decision because he said it was vital to the United States’ national interest. The vital national interest at risk in President Obama’s address is the security and safety of the American people as well as the “security of our allies and the common security of the world.” By involving the military and increasing the troop strength, President Obama can achieve the objectives of his strategy. His objectives are to keep the Taliban from becoming powerful, prevent them from government rule, improve Afghanistan security forces and government so they can manage their own country and prevent Al Qaeda from

The reauthorization of Defense Department funding was expected, in part because it has happened every year for the past 50 years (Fox-Rouch, 2012); however, the most recent version generated considerable controversy among civil and human rights advocates due to a provision that allows indefinite detention of American citizens (Fox-Rouch, 2012; Kuipers, 2012).

The USA PATRIOT Act is an Act of Congress that was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001. Its title is a ten-letter backronym that stands for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001".

Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, Bush issued an executive order that authorized the President's Surveillance Program. The new directive allowed the National Security Agency to track communications between suspected terrorists outside the U.S and parties within the U.S. without obtaining a warrant, which previously had been required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

In President Barack Obama’s speech addressing the action taken in Libya, he said that the United States reserves the right to unilaterally use military force to address direct threats to "our people, our homeland, our allies, and our core interests" (Morici). To save the collapsing rebellion, air attacks had to target Gadhafi’s tanks, artillery, motorized columns, and government installations (Hanson). The problem that Congress faces is the question of whether unilateral action is constitutional. Unilateral action

For the purposes of this paper, the history of targeted killings will begin with the modern role of political assassinations near the end of the twentieth century, as they loosely fall under the previously established definition for target killings. In response to public outcry regarding post-Watergate revelations that CIA organized and orchestrated a series of assassination attempts on the life of Cuban President Fidel Castro, then President Gerald Ford issued Executive Order 11905. This executive order, under section 5(g) entitled “Prohibition on Assassination,” states that, “No employee of the United States Government shall engaged in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.” Both succeeding presidents, Carter and Reagan, affirmed the assassination prohibition; and as there has yet to be a piece of legislation that overrides it, it still remains in place. This prohibition is critical in a legal context because it provided the founding directive that specifically precluded targeted killings. However, administrations ranging as far back as Reagan, and as recent as today’s, have both stated that such directives do not apply when the United States is acting in self defense, such as in the proposed cases of the bombing the home of former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in the 1980s, by the Reagan administration, or missile strikes on the

Then, on October 7th, President Bush announced operations in Afghanistan were underway. In his address to the nation, President Bush enumerated the demands given to Taliban leadership as, “close terrorist training camps; hand over leaders of the Al Qaeda network; and return all foreign nationals, including American citizens, unjustly detained in your country.” It was clear “none of these demands were met,” as President Bush announced military strikes were underway in Afghanistan. This concludes the first element of contemporary evidence.

The Global War on Terror is a military campaign led by the United States and the United Kingdom and supported by other NATO members. It was originally against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with the purpose of eliminating them. This paper discusses how the Bush Administration handled the War on Terror as well as different aspects of it, including its terminology, its objectives, its military operations and criticism against it.