Skip to main content

Sign up for our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values. Direct to your inbox.

Dear Common Dreams Readers:
Corporations and billionaires have their own media. Shouldn't we? When you “follow the money” that funds our independent journalism, it all leads back to this: people like you. Our supporters are what allows us to produce journalism in the public interest that is beholden only to people, our planet, and the common good. Please support our Mid-Year Campaign so that we always have a newsroom for the people that is funded by the people. Thank you for your support. --Jon Queally, managing editor

Join the small group of generous readers who donate, keeping Common Dreams free for millions of people each year. Without your help, we won’t survive.

"We cannot afford to wait any longer while these wars expand," said Rep. Barbara Lee at a congressional ad hoc hearing Tuesday. (Photo: Dandelion Salad/flickr/cc)

The Vital Congressional Hearing on the Endless War That Probably Nobody Watched

The "2001 AUMF," said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), "has become a blank check for any president to wage war anytime, anywhere, anyplace without the consent or oversight of Congress."

Andrea Germanos

Taking "an important step towards a long overdue debate and vote," a bipartisan congressional hearing Tuesday afternoon put a spotlight on what is often dubbed a "blank check for war"—the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF).

For over 16 years—a time period spanning the George W. Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations—the executive branch has leaned on that AUMF to justify wars across the world—from the Philippines to Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia—in the name of defeating supposed terrorist organizations, without prior congressional approval.

"We cannot afford to wait any longer while these wars expand. For too long, Congress has ignored our duties on these ongoing wars," said meeting co-chair Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) at the start of the hearing.

Rep. Lee, it should be noted, was the sole member of Congress to vote against the AUMF, which was passed in the wake of the Sept. 11 attack.

The "2001 AUMF has become a blank check for any president to wage war anytime, anywhere, anyplace without the consent or oversight of Congress," she continued.

As the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which co-hosted the ad hoc hearing along with the House Liberty Caucus, tweeted, "It's time to revisit the U.S. role in military operations around the globe."

Among the experts offering testimony at the hearing was Rita Siemion, international legal counsel at Human Rights First, who noted that not only has the AUMF "been interpreted as authorizing military operations that Congress never intended," it has also been used to justify "a range of human rights abuses from detention without charge or trial to extrajudicial killings via drone strikes far from any battlefield."

Congress, she argued, "must discuss and debate the difficult question of whether the war-centered approach [to counterterrorism] of the past 16 and a half years has been effective." If Congress does decide that continued military force is needed, she laid out what she believes a new AUMF should include:

First, any new AUMF should name the specific enemy that military force is authorized against and specify the permitted mission objectives to prevent the executive branch from overstepping Congress's intent.

Second, any new AUMF should include robust reporting requirements to promote democratic accountability and enable Congress to fulfill its critical oversight functions.

Third, any new AUMF should require compliance with U.S. obligations under international law to demonstrate to our allies and enemies alike that the United States is a nation that complies with the rule of law and is committed to its obligations to respect state sovereignty, human rights  and the law of armed conflict.

Fourth, any new AUMF should include language that makes it clear that it is the sole source of statutory authority to use force against the enemy named in the authorization to avoid overlap, confusion, or loopholes.

And last, but perhaps most importantly, any new AUMF should include a sunset provision that sets a timetable for ensuring continued congressional approval and oversight as the conflict evolves, providing a safeguard against perpetual armed conflict or overly expansive executive interpretations

The executive director of Veterans for Peace, Michael McPhearson, spoke at the hearing as well. "The cost of war to people should compel us to rethink U.S. foreign policy and specifically these current wars," he said, citing the suicide risk veterans face, the pain of "Gold Star families," the pain felt by Iraqis whose children were killed at the hands of U.S. forces, and torture committed by U.S. forces at places like the Abu Ghraib prison.

Veterans for Peace, Human Rights First, and other groups as well as members of Congress took to Twitter to highlight comments from the hearing and the importance of repealing the AUMF:

(Rep. Amash co-chaired the hearing with Rep. Lee.)

In a press statement following the meeting, Lee asserted that the "critical hearing showed that a growing, bipartisan group of Members are calling for a debate and vote on our ongoing wars. We are saying that enough is enough. The 2001 AUMF is a blank check for war—plain and simple."

"For far too long, our brave service members have risked their lives around the world, while Congress has failed to even debate these military operations," her statement continued. "Every day that Congress delays, we become further entangled in these conflicts. We owe it to our men and women in uniform to hold a debate on these endless wars."

Also on Tuesday, 106 members of Congress (including 10 Republicans) signed on to a letter to House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) calling on him to lead the chamber in allowing "a serious debate and vote on the use of military force (AUMF)."

"The debate should also allow members the opportunity to debate and vote on the long-term costs and consequences of and alternatives to military action," the letter said.

While praising the signatories "for adding their voices to this critical issue," Yasmine Taeb, director for human rights and civil liberties at Friends Committee on National Legislation, decried how "Congress has abdicated its constitutional duty to decide where and when the United States goes to war."

"This cannot be allowed to continue," she added, "and these representatives recognize the duty and responsibility they have to the American people and the need for Congress to assert its proper role and oversight responsibilities in determining when and where the U.S. goes to war."

Watch the hearing in its entirety below:


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

"I'm sure this will be all over the corporate media, right?"
That’s what one longtime Common Dreams reader said yesterday after the newsroom reported on new research showing how corporate price gouging surged to a nearly 70-year high in 2021. While major broadcasters, newspapers, and other outlets continue to carry water for their corporate advertisers when they report on issues like inflation, economic inequality, and the climate emergency, our independence empowers us to provide you stories and perspectives that powerful interests don’t want you to have. But this independence is only possible because of support from readers like you. You make the difference. If our support dries up, so will we. Our crucial Mid-Year Campaign is now underway and we are in emergency mode to make sure we raise the necessary funds so that every day we can bring you the stories that corporate, for-profit outlets ignore and neglect. Please, if you can, support Common Dreams today.

 

Pointing to 'Recently Obtained Evidence,' Jan. 6 Panel Calls Surprise Tuesday Hearing

The announcement came less than a week after the House panel delayed new hearings until next month, citing a "deluge" of fresh evidence.

Common Dreams staff ·


Looming US Supreme Court Climate Decision Could 'Doom' Hope for Livable Future

"The immediate issue is the limits of the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gases," said one scientist. "The broader issue is the ability of federal agencies to regulate anything at all."

Jessica Corbett ·


Supreme Court Takes 'Wrecking Ball' to Separation of Church and State With Prayer Ruling

After decades of affirming that prayers led by school officials are unconstitutional, said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, "the court now charts a different path."

Julia Conley ·


Louisiana Judge Blocks State's Post-Roe Abortion Ban

"Abortion care will resume in the state and a hearing has been set for July 8th," said the Center for Reproductive Rights.

Jake Johnson ·


Progressives Launch 'Four More' Campaign to Demand Supreme Court Expansion

"In a true democracy, power rests with the people," one campaigner asserted. "And the only way to take our power back is to take back the court."

Brett Wilkins ·

Common Dreams Logo