But Ron paull........

More on reddit.com

If you want to brainstorm ways the AUMF could be better, then go ahead and keep them in your back pocket to refute any Cons that try to argue that the current AUMF could not have been written more narrowly and still been effective. But outside that circumstance, re-writing the AUMF would likely violate the plan rule.

More on reddit.com

This is a tough question. I found this [article] ( http://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Daskal-Vladeck-Final1.pdf ), written in 2014 and published in the Harvard National Security Journal, and it's where I'm getting most of this. I think the bill was a mix, of success and failure. The AUMF was a success in terms of public relations, G.W. Bush's approval rating [skyrocketed] ( http://www.gallup.com/poll/116500/presidential-approval-ratings-george-bush.aspx ) after the attacks. As a result of the AUMF, law enforcement tools coupled with counterterrorism capabilities became more effective and experienced. The United States has successfully prosecuted over 500 terrorists in civilian courts, and defendants often provide accurate, reliable information in exchange for plea deals (pg. 130: article). An overall improvement in fighting terrorism is a success. The bill gives a lot of power to the President to use force on those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. A dispute centers around the interpretation of the phrase 'Associated Forces'. A [report] ( https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/framework.Report_Final.pdf ) (pg. 4) from the Obama admin. in 2016 defines it as: To be considered an “associated force” of al-Qa’ida or the Taliban for purposes of the authority conferred by the 2001 AUMF, an entity must satisfy two conditions. First, the entity must be an organized, armed group that has entered the fight alongside al-Qa’ida or the Taliban. Second, the group must be a co-belligerent with al-Qa’ida or the Taliban in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. Thus, a group is not an associated force simply because it aligns with al-Qa’ida or the Taliban or embraces their ideology. Merely engaging in acts of terror or merely sympathizing with al-Qa’ida or the Taliban is not enough to bring a group within the scope of the 2001 AUMF. Rather, a group must also have entered al-Qa’ida or the Taliban’s fight against the United States or its coalition partners. A future President may interpret their powers under this bill differently. There has been [discussion] ( http://www.heritage.org/defense/report/the-case-law-concerning-the-2001-authorization-use-military-force-and-its ) whether ISIS can be defined as an 'associated force'. A better option would have been legislation with less room for interpretation. However, this bill was already a compromise between congress and the Bush administration who wanted an even broader authorization (pg. 1: article). The article proposes three better options, one of which is a more transparent 2001 AUMF, then states that clearly, time has come to debate a change to the present bill to preserve constitutional values while also protecting the people. More on reddit.com

I mean this sort of misinterprets the resolution. The resolution doesn’t at all talk about getting rid of AUMF, it is simply asking us to analyze it’s impact. More on reddit.com