House Democrats are protesting House Armed Committee Chairman Buck McKeon's plans for a new Authorization to use Military Force:
Among the many troubling aspects of the Detainee Security Act are provisions that expand the war against terrorist organizations on a global basis. The Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) of 2001 was widely thought to provide authorization for the war in Afghanistan to root out al Qaeda, the Taliban, and others responsible for the 9/11 attacks. That war has dragged on for almost ten years, and after the demise of Osama Bin Laden, as the United States prepares for withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Detainee Security Act purports to expand the "armed conflict" against the Taliban, al Qaeda, and "associated forces" without limit. By declaring a global war against nameless individuals, organizations, and nations "associated" with the Taliban and al Qaeda, as well as those playing a supporting role in their efforts, the Detainee Security Act would appear to grant the President near unfettered authority to initiate military action around the world without further congressional approval. Such authority must not be ceded to the President without careful deliberation from Congress.
It's fair for new AUMF supporters to point out that the administration isn't going to stop doing what it believes it already has the authority to do, and that a new AUMF puts the administration on firmer legal ground for its current activities. But I'm very sympathetic to the concerns about "terrorism creep" and the likelihood that this will end up granting far more authority than it intends.
Still, it seems more than a little absurd that this is happening at the same time:
The House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday approved a resolution directing the Pentagon to provide information about consultations with Congress before President Barack Obama launched airstrikes against Libya.
Frankly, I think Congress should be taking their responsibilities under the War Powers Act more seriously, especially since the president's 60 days expire next week. But at the same time that the Republicans are trying to give the president to go to war against an ill-defined enemy anywhere, anytime, without the approval of Congress, they're demanding to know more about why the administration didn't consult them more before going to war in Libya. Not that Congress is actually going to vote on the whole Libya thing. They want the president to go to war, and they want to be able to criticize him for it, but they don't want much responsibility for it.The resolution, approved without dissent, is a sign that lawmakers have not let go of concerns that they were not adequately notified when Obama ordered U.S. military forces into action on March 19. It now goes to the full House for a vote.
