You’re going to really love the new and improved  Authorization for Use of Military Force that was just given high fives by the House Armed Services Committee.  It puts the old one, passed in the wake of 9/11, to shame, fixing all those terrorist loopholes. 

The  New York Times editorial, however, wasn’t kind to the bill.

It would allow military attacks against not just Al Qaeda and the Taliban but also any “associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States.” That deliberately vague phrase could include anyone who doesn’t like America, even if they are not connected in any way with the 2001 attacks. It could even apply to domestic threats.

It allows the president to detain “belligerents” until the “termination of hostilities,” presumably at a camp like the one in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Since it does not give a plausible scenario of how those hostilities could be considered over, it raises the possibility of endless detention for anyone who gets on the wrong side of a future administration.

That’s the problem when one divorces words from meanings, relying instead on those simplistic, vagues thoughts that float through people’s heads that people have a hard time explaining, and usually end with the words, “you know what I mean” or “it’s just common sense.”  And other nod in agreement, filling in the gaps with their own vague thoughts and assuming that everybody’s vague thoughts are the same as theirs.

This follows on the heels of the killing of Osama bin Laden, with our post-killing euphoria and sense of omnipotence and self-righteousness paving the way to renewed trust in our might and right.  The public won’t stay on the government’s side for long, so expand powers while everybody is feeling pretty darned good about America.  Seal Team 6!  Seal Team 6!

In a peculiar deconstruction of the Times’ editorial,  Ben Wittes compares and contrasts its hyperbolic and hysterical cries with an editorial in the Washington Post.

Let’s start with the Post. (Disclosure: I used to work for the Post editorial page and am very attached to my former colleagues.) The body of the editorial notes with appropriate bewilderment the “surprising opposition” McKeon’s proposal concerning the AUMF has generated:

A score of liberal interest groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and MoveOn.org, sent a letter to lawmakers to express concern that the provision could appear “to be stating that the United States is at war wherever terrorism suspects reside.”

We have one question: Where have they been for the past 10 years?

It’s a darn good point, that the government has pretty much done as it pleased, where it pleased, and justified itself by repeating, “but we’re just protecting you from terrorists.”  We’re so thrilled with our nation for taking our Osama that even torture is looking pretty good these days.  Seriously, if we have to torture a few bad guys, grope a few babies at airports, whatever, isn’t it worth it?  We got Osama, baby. Yeah!

Both editorials make some points, but the fact that the government acted in excess of its authorization, broad and unfettered as it may have been, doesn’t seem to be a really great reason to now hand the government, in black letters, actual unfettered powers to do whatever it wants.  Belligerents?  That covers a fairly good portion of Kansas, not to mention Arizona.  Associated forces, like the criminal defense lawyers who represent accused terrorists?  Probably not, but who knows? 

These words have broad definitions, and even those broad definitions are subject to some artfully crafted spin by the talkers in government who will easily play upon the public’s lack of will to look the words up.  Or even know where to find a dictionary.  The words will mean what the government spinners say they mean, and Americans will shake their heads vertically, and adopt those meanings as if they came up with them on their own.  Imagine all those people who learned a new word, belligerents, today.

Yet the desire to amend and expand the law is itself a curiosity.  As the WaPo editorial notes, it’s not like the government hasn’t had its way with us for the past decade, despite authorization that fell a tad short of expressly authorizing the executive do whatever the hell he wanted.  So why does Congress now feel compelled to put it in writing? 

Maybe somebody on the Hill thinks that eventually, the pendulum will swing back toward a rational look at the excesses of this decade in the War on Terrorism, and it will be written in the history books as another monumental mistake, like the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution?  Maybe Congress doesn’t want to go down as enablers of the only bullet-shooting war against an enemy no one can actually describe?  With some post hoc changes, at least they can point to law that provides justification for a government whose fiat comes from the public’s willingness to bask in the sense of good feelings after an occasional killing?

Whether the AUMF is amended to cover war against everybody or not, our government has no plans to change its ways.  After all, the first job of the executive is to protect his nation from enemies abroad.  It’s not like whoever holds the office is going to change, or let details like lack of legal authorization stand in the way of doing his job.  And besides, anybody could be belligerent.