This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/legal-basis-obama-authorisation-military-action-against-isis-q-and-a

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Q&A on legal basis for Obama's authorisation of military action against Isis Q&A on legal basis for Obama's authorisation of military action against Isis
(35 minutes later)
Does Obama need the US Congress to authorise military action against Isis?Does Obama need the US Congress to authorise military action against Isis?
The White House says not. The war powers resolution passed in 1973 by both the US Senate and House of Representatives requires a US president to seek congressional approval for military action after 60 days of informing Congress that US troops have been deployed, but in Syria at least, Obama is relying on a document hastily passed after the 9/11 attacks known as the Authorisation to Use Military Force (AUMF). The measure gave the US executive branch-wide latitude to retaliate against al-Qaida and its associates. While Isis is a splinter group from al-Qaida and has been disowned by Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaida's leader, US officials insist that Isis are the true heirs of Osama bin Laden.The White House says not. The war powers resolution passed in 1973 by both the US Senate and House of Representatives requires a US president to seek congressional approval for military action after 60 days of informing Congress that US troops have been deployed, but in Syria at least, Obama is relying on a document hastily passed after the 9/11 attacks known as the Authorisation to Use Military Force (AUMF). The measure gave the US executive branch-wide latitude to retaliate against al-Qaida and its associates. While Isis is a splinter group from al-Qaida and has been disowned by Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaida's leader, US officials insist that Isis are the true heirs of Osama bin Laden.
As for air strikes in Iraq and the 1,100 troops deployed there, Obama can use Congress's authorisation of military force against Iraq in 2002, which is still on the books. However, that measure authorised military force not against Isis, which did not exist at the time, but on "Iraq". Ironically, Obama last year said he wanted to repeal the AUMF and the 2002 congressional approval of the Iraq war.As for air strikes in Iraq and the 1,100 troops deployed there, Obama can use Congress's authorisation of military force against Iraq in 2002, which is still on the books. However, that measure authorised military force not against Isis, which did not exist at the time, but on "Iraq". Ironically, Obama last year said he wanted to repeal the AUMF and the 2002 congressional approval of the Iraq war.
Does Obama need congressional authorisation to arm Syrian rebels?Does Obama need congressional authorisation to arm Syrian rebels?
The White House is seeking approval for $500m to train and arm the Syrian opposition. It is one of the few things Obama does not believe he can do without formal congressional backing.The White House is seeking approval for $500m to train and arm the Syrian opposition. It is one of the few things Obama does not believe he can do without formal congressional backing.
Is Congress prepared to go along with Obama?Is Congress prepared to go along with Obama?
Even if Congress approves money to train and arm Syrian rebels, legal experts say this does not constitute support for Obama's broader strategy – which could involve military action for years. "The War Powers Resolution makes clear that funding cannot and does not constitute authorisation," Michael Glennon, a law professor at Tufts University told Foreign Policy. "The law was drafted with that specific argument in mind." Even if Congress approves money to train and arm Syrian rebels, legal experts say this does not constitute support for Obama's broader strategy – which could involve military action for years. "The War Powers Resolution makes clear that funding cannot and does not constitute authorisation," Michael Glennon, a law professor at Tufts University, told Foreign Policy. "The law was drafted with that specific argument in mind."
Most of Congress appears to be wheeling behind Obama, but some believe that the president should seek congressional support for military action. "I urge the president and my colleagues to resist the understandable temptation to cut corners on this process," senator Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, said from the Senate floor before Obama's speech. "There is no more important business done in the halls of Congress than weighing whether to take military action and send service members into harm's way." Most of Congress appears to be wheeling behind Obama, but some believe that the president should seek congressional support for military action. "I urge the president and my colleagues to resist the understandable temptation to cut corners on this process," Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, said from the Senate floor before Obama's speech. "There is no more important business done in the halls of Congress than weighing whether to take military action and send service members into harm's way."