Forging a durable legal and policy framework to guide our counterterrorism operations

Part 2 of 3

The president and the Congress must work together to "forge a durable legal and policy framework to guide our counterterrorism operations."

Today, the organization that attacked us on 9/11 is a shadow of its former self. Different al Qaeda affiliates and extremist groups have emerged ' from the Arabian Peninsula to Africa. The threat these groups pose is evolving. But to meet this threat, we don't need to send tens of thousands of our sons and daughters abroad, or occupy other nations. Instead, we will need to help countries like Yemen, Libya, and Somalia provide for their own security, and help allies who take the fight to terrorists, as we have in Mali. And, where necessary, through a range of capabilities, we will continue to take direct action against those terrorists who pose the gravest threat to Americans.

As we do, we must enlist our values in the fight. That is why my Administration has worked tirelessly to forge a durable legal and policy framework to guide our counterterrorism operations. Throughout, we have kept Congress fully informed of our efforts. I recognize that in our democracy, no one should just take my word that we're doing things the right way. So, in the months ahead, I will continue to engage with Congress to ensure not only that our targeting, detention, and prosecution of terrorists remains consistent with our laws and system of checks and balances, but that our efforts are even more transparent to the American people and to the world. - President Barack Obama, 2013 State of the Union Address

In Part 1 of my discussion of the president's policy on targeted killings outside of acknowledged theaters of battle of persons deemed to be enemy combatants, I argued the policy was legal under existing authorities. It led to a spirited debate. While many disagreed with my analysis, I think there is a consensus that whatever the legal status of the current policy, it is inadequate and requires significant changes.

The first step in the analysis requires, at the least, a review and amendment to the 2001 AUMF (PDF). Even better would be a repeal of the 2001 AUMF, as  advocated by Rep. Barbara Lee:

The administration is using the Authorization for the Use of Military Force passed by the House on Sept. 14, 2001, as one of the justifications for the lethal use of drones. As the only member of Congress who voted against this blank check, I believe now more than ever that we must repeal it.

I wholeheartedly agree. But I believe an equally important issue is what authority and framework replaces the 2001 AUMF. My thoughts on this on the other side.