No need to expand war powers

Coming nearly a decade into the global war on terror, a rewrite by the House of Representatives of the authorization for the use of military force, which would give the president even more latitude to act without the approval of Congress, is a flawed bid to address a nonexistent problem.

There is simply no evidence that the current authorization, enacted three days after 9/11, has ever restricted the commander-in-chief's ability to do whatever is necessary to take the fight to the nation's enemies. There is no need for a new one, and certainly not the broad version the House approved May 25. The Senate should reject the House language when it begins work on its spending bill next week.

The 2001 authorization greenlighted military action against those who "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the 9/11 attacks, or harbored the people who did. It appropriately targeted those who attacked us. The House has now voted to scrap that language and instead authorize military force against "nations, organizations and persons who are part of, or substantially supporting, al-Qaida, the Taliban or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners." Also included was approval to detain belligerents until the end of hostilities.

That's essentially a blank check for war that would allow the president to order attacks on anyone suspected of terrorism anywhere in the world until the end of time.

U.S. presidents already have almost unlimited power to send armed forces into battle. But they're constrained by the War Powers Act, which requires congressional approval to go on fighting beyond 60 days. If the House action becomes law, that minimal constraint would effectively be eliminated. It's a bad policy born of a bad process.

The new authorization was tucked into a massive $690-billion military spending bill that covered everything from pay to funding for submarines. A bipartisan amendment to strip it out of the bill was debated on the House floor for all of 20 minutes before it was rejected.

Outlining when it would be acceptable to use force against terrorists in the years to come is too important to reduce to an afterthought.

A lot has happened since the 2001 authorization was enacted, including two foreign wars, the death of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida's evolution from a top-down command to reliance on lone actors.

Armed Services Committee chairman Rep. Howard McKeon (R-Calif.) and other proponents of the new language said the authorization needs to be updated to meet the evolving threat. They insist the new language would clarify, but not alter, the president's existing authority. But it would do both. Eliminating the need for a direct connection to the 9/11 attacks, adding vague "associated forces" to those targeted and explicitly authorizing indefinite detention are significant changes. The Obama administration said the new authorization, "in purporting to affirm the conflict, would effectively recharacterize its scope."

Ten years into a largely successful battle against al-Qaida, there's just no reason for a more expansive authorization for war.