If you are referring specifically to AUMF-2001 under which both President Bush and then President Obama used as justification to bomb anything they disliked in the middle-east - including drug crop fields of the Taliban, I would point out that is an extremely flimsy supporting argument. The authorization was stretched until it was less than paper-thin. Many of the folks that the US bombed also became funded by the US just a few years later.
Head-chopping terrorists magically became "moderate rebels" - famous term by President Obama.
(I don't support these strikes - my only point was that former US Presidents unfortunately setup this tradition and culture of military strikes that has now been normalized. Congress needs to firmly reclaim the use of lethal international force under their authority.)
The point is that there isn't anything like the AUMF that authorizes these recent strikes in the Caribbean/pacific. The administration reported them to Congress at the outset, but now that the 60 day limit (on continuing something without Congressional authorization) they've switched to claiming they don't need Congressional authority.
Overbroad application of the AUMF in no way authorizes these actions. The administration claims it has a legal memo articulating why they're OK, but refuses to disclose it, citing security concerns. That's applicable to the specific intelligence they use, but not to legal arguments that supposedly justify their use of force.
Head-chopping terrorists magically became "moderate rebels" - famous term by President Obama.
(I don't support these strikes - my only point was that former US Presidents unfortunately setup this tradition and culture of military strikes that has now been normalized. Congress needs to firmly reclaim the use of lethal international force under their authority.)