Congress begins debate this week on a defense bill that some fear would grant President Obama expansive new authority to wage the war on terror, reigniting a debate over just how much unfettered power the commander-in-chief should be allowed to exercise to protect the country. Lawmakers first passed the “Authorization to Use Military Force” in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, but now supporters want to alter the law to allow future presidents to crack down on an increasingly diverse global network of terrorists.
Unlike the original authorization, the new legislation would allow the president to order military action against al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces rather just those responsible for Sept. 11 and countries that harbor them.
The White House remains silent on the issue, but liberal lawmakers, human rights groups and some defense experts argue that such a shift grants the executive branch carte blanche in approving military endeavors worldwide.
“This is the ultimate slippery slope,” said Jeffrey Addicott, director of the Center for Terrorism Law as St. Mary’s University. “It’s way too broad. It sends too many mixed signals. It’s too confusing and too ambiguous. It could almost mean anything. We have no internationally accepted definition of terrorism.”
Addicott predicted the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately have to rule on the constitutionality of such powers.
Tucked into a defense bill, the proposed provision raises questions about the scope of terrorism and how wars against it should be waged.
Critics point to the death of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden as evidence that Obama’s justification for broader executive powers has deteriorated. New unchecked authority would allow the president to broadly define terrorist groups while removing any legislative or judicial checks and balances on decisions to go to war.
“That’s nonsense,” countered Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, who focuses on legal issues related to fighting terrorism. “It doesn’t expand [White House power] at all. The bill largely codifies the administration’s current position.”
Wittes said the provision provides a “legal framework to describe the war we are fighting rather than the war of 10 years ago.”
“You’ll have people we’ll need to engage with militarily who weren’t responsible for 9/11,” he said.
Supporters say that without new authorization, a president might resort to less comprehensive approaches for combating ever-changing terrorist elements.
Michael B. Mukasey, attorney general under President George W. Bush, told House members that the defense bill would “add order and rationality to what has been an improvisational exercise overseen by judges who do not have the fact-finding resources of Congress or the accountability that comes from being responsible for protecting national security.”
However, congressional Republicans who support the provision have faced an outcry from human rights groups, which contend that Hezbollah, Iran and an assortment of groups or nations with terrorist ties would be more susceptible to attacks in the name of the war on terror.
“Let’s make one thing clear,” said House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon, R-Calif. “This bill does not expand the war effort. Instead, the legislation better aligns the old legal authorities used to detain and prosecute those intent on attacking America with the threats our country faces today.”
