WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Representative Peter Meijer (R-MI), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, today participated in a hearing entitled, “The 2001 AUMF and War Powers: The Path Forward.” During the hearing, Rep. Meijer questioned Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman about how the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which was enacted in response to 9/11, could be used by presidents of both parties to circumvent congressional authority over matters of war and peace.
Last year, Rep. Meijer introduced a bill to repeal the 1957, 1991, and 2002 AUMFs, formally ceasing congressional authorization for the Gulf and Iraq Wars, as well as an open-ended Cold War-era authorization of force in the Middle East.
The full text of Rep. Meijer’s remarks as delivered is below:
Meijer: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses here today. Deputy Secretary Sherman, you mention in response to my colleague Ms. Wild that one prong of the two-prong test was affiliation to Al-Qaeda, and you also mentioned ISIS kind of in that same breath, and I know we combine the two of them as nihilistic, Salafist, bloodthirsty, terrorist groups, but just to be clear – ISIS was not involved in the September 11 attacks, correct?
Sherman: It was Al-Qaeda, yes sir.
Meijer: Yes, because ISIS was an outgrowth of the Islamic State of Iraq, which was an outgrowth of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which was affiliated, but then kind of split off.
Sherman: Yes.
Meijer: I guess that's where, you know, I want to dive in a little bit on those associations, but stepping back, you're invoking the two-prong test after there has been determination that the American military involvement would qualify as hostilities?
Sherman: Repeat that. I'm not sure I understood your question.
Meijer: You know, before we even get into the question of whether or not the involvement of a group could be tied to Al-Qaeda, we first have to say that the military action being undertaken by the United States is action that would be bounded by an Authorization for Use of Military Force?
Sherman: So, the 2001 AUMF does not authorize the president to use force against every terrorist group. The mere fact that an entity has been labeled a terrorist group or has committed terrorist acts does not bring it within the scope of the 2001 AUMF.
Meijer: Of course, but I guess, just stepping back more broadly, we talk about the Article 2 powers, and that's self-defense, we talk about the Authorization for Use of Military Force which come out of that War Powers Resolution, but neither of which was cited in the 2011 support of fighting against Gaddafi in Libya, where we were dropping bombs, so that would be considered hostility, that would be considered military action. But that was neither done under Article 2 justification nor under any existing AUMF?
Sherman: I don't remember personally; I don't know if Ms. Krass may remember the authorities used?
Krass: Yes, the authorities used to take military action in the Libya context was the president's Article 2 Power. There was a determination that it was both in the U.S. national interest and that involvement would not lead us into a war in the constitutional sense.
Meijer: Yes, Article 2 is usually interpreted to mean self-defense, which very arguably there, but I know that has been a kind of broadly contested notion. But I just want to say, I really appreciated the clarity of the Biden Administration when it comes to saying that we are not putting American troops in the Ukrainian conflict. I think there has been unanimity in terms of the Biden Administration’s messaging and discussions on that, as well as on the congressional side, with very few exceptions, and only on the periphery with discussion of a no-fly zone or similar component. But in general, I think we're in broad, near-unanimous agreement that we shouldn't be involving U.S. troops in this conflict, and I want to get at that a little bit more deeply, but saying from the outset, I'm not asking what the Biden Administration’s policy is, I'm not asking what the Biden's Administration’s interpretation is. I'm asking what a president, a theoretical, hypothetical president, could do. Understood?
Sherman: Understood, but we'll hear your questions.
Meijer: Ok. Getting to that nexus with Al-Qaeda, right: we have bombed under the 2001 AUMF groups that didn't exist on 9/11, we have bombed under the 2001 AUMF groups that were actively involved in hostilities against Al-Qaeda. For example, ISIS, which was fighting them in a rivalrous circumstance, we have involved ourselves in conflicts engaging in hostilities, dropping bombs, but saying that didn't qualify as action that will be bounded by an Authorization for the Use of Military Force. You all said no, that the 2001 AUMF could not be justified, and I, again, am saying I appreciate that that is the interpretation of the policy of the Biden Administration. Could a future administration stretch that definition, that nexus? You know you have Russian forces that have cooperated with Hezbollah, you've had Hezbollah that has cooperated with Al-Qaeda, you can take a multi-step jump. Now it strains credulity, but I'm not asking what the credulous policy is. I'm asking hypothetically, some incredible interpretation down the line, could that be shoehorned in? Or frankly, could a president say our involvement does not qualify as hostilities? So, I don't even need the AUMF. I don't even need to cite Article 2. I can just do what I did in Libya?
Sherman: Let me defer to my legal counsel, both Mr. Visek and…
Meeks: The gentleman's time has expired.
Original source can be found here.
