WASHINGTON \u2014 Democrats are in wide agreement the post-2001 war authorizations should be repealed, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Thursday.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But what to replace it with opens up a tough conversation about where the military should be used, and where it shouldn\u2019t. The House Armed Services Committee\u2019s top Democrat, Rep. Adam Smith of Washington, said as much in a C-SPAN<\/a> interview Thursday.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cLegislatively, to craft the language \u2014 in such a way that it makes sure the president doesn\u2019t have a blank check to use military force wherever and whenever he wants, but at the same time, making sure that he does have the authority to use it when necessary \u2014 is difficult,\u201d Smith said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cCongress needs to pass an AUMF, we need to work together together to figure out: What is our policy?\u201d Smith said, using the acronym for Authorization of Use of Military Force. \u201cWhat should we be using our military for to protect our national security?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Democrats for the most part seem to agree, according to Pelosi, who said the House Democratic Caucus discussed at its meeting Wednesday how to unite Congress around replacing the current war authorizations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That pits Democrats against the Trump administration and House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., who said this week he won\u2019t allow any bill to come to the House floor that he thinks would restrict military commanders\u2019 ability to fight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Earlier this week in the Senate, a bipartisan group of senators on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unveiled a major rewrite of the AUMF, which would give President Donald Trump new abilities to fight terror groups while reserving Congress the ability to limit the president.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The bill contains no expiration date, fueling criticism from Democrats and others that the proposal is too expansive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The renewed debate over the authorization comes after Trump approved missile strikes in Syria<\/a> late last week to punish Syrian President Bashar Assad for allegedly carrying out recent chemical attacks against civilians there.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The proposed war authorization does not address Assad and Syria, as it\u2019s focused on terrorist groups.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The administration holds that Trump had the authority to carry out the strikes under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which permits the president to use military force to protect the national interest from immediate threats. Many Democrats and some Republicans disagree, saying that interpretation would give the president almost unlimited war powers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIt\u2019s beyond illegal \u2014 it\u2019s unconstitutional,\u201d Republican Rep. Thomas Massie said Tuesday after a classified briefing on the strikes from Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Marine Gen. Joe Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n