Obama’s Legal Rationale for ISIS Strikes

With a new Iraqi government in place, urging the United States to intervene against the Islamic State, and wide public support at home, US President Barack Obama announced plans to wage air strikes into Syrian territory against the terrorist group. He will not wait for congressional approval other than the $500 million in funding, instead rely on the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force “against those responsible for the recent attacks against the United States,” a reference to the 9/11 attacks 13 years ago today. Legal analysts suggest the rationale is a stretch. The AUMF notes the president may use “all necessary and appropriate force” against any who “harbor those nations, organizations, or persons” behind the 9/11 attacks “in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.” IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was once a member of an Al Qaeda affiliate before breaking away, deciding that group was not extremist enough. Spencer Ackerman concludes: “Taken together with the congressional leadership’s shrug, Obama has stripped the veneer off a contemporary fact of American national security: presidents make war on their own, and congresses acquiesce.” Obama and many others agree that time is of the essence, and attacking the extremists cannot wait for a divided Congress. – YaleGlobal