Where In The World Is Osama Bin Sandiego?
Computer game reference, in case you didn't know.

Republican Senator Bob Corker, of Tennessee, writes in the WaPo that Congress needs to update the 9/11 resolution on use of military force, reasserting congressional oversight:

One week after the 9/11 attacks, Congress authorized the president "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." More than 12 years later, the president continues to rely on this 60-word authorization to fight terrorist organizations around the world. This week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on this subject, the first step in an effort to reassert congressional oversight of this issue, which has fundamentally changed from the initial hunt for Osama bin Laden.

A recent State Department report revealed how the diminishment of al-Qaeda's central leadership corresponds with the growing strength and proliferation of its affiliates and other terrorist groups, contributing to a 43 percent increase in global terrorist attacks in 2013. Today's terrorists may invoke the brand and methods of al-Qaeda, but they have evolved in ways that suggest that our legal foundation for conducting drone strikes or raids is outdated and inadequate.

For example, al-Qaeda's recent expulsion of the ruthless Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant from its ranks has forced the Obama administration's lawyers to question whether, under the auspices of the 9/11 law, the president still has the authority to target that group. In other words, there are legitimate doubts about whether the president can take necessary actions against the most dangerous terrorist group in Syria in a conflict that -- according to recent congressional testimony from the director of national intelligence -- has attracted more than 7,000 foreign fighters from 50 countries, some with aspirations to attack the U.S. homeland. This follows the testimony of Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who conceded that the terrorists responsible for killing four Americans in Benghazi are not covered under the current resolution.

These incidents seem to suggest that the September 2001 Authorization on the Use of Military Force (AUMF) is too narrow and that the president is hamstrung by stale semantic distinctions. But there are also legitimate reasons to believe it is too broad. Both the Obama and Bush administrations have stretched the resolution's authority well beyond its words to go after groups that have little to no connection to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

We are having some serious strains on the limits of powers, and we need to restore checks and balances on them.

Related: Check out all the African countries the U.S. military has troops in.