After Bin Laden, U.S. Reassesses Afghan Strategy

Ok, so this is the second time I have written this post, as the first time there was an error. yay. anywho. as you all hopefully know, we have accomplished the goal that we set out to do in the afghan-u.s. war. osama bin laden is dead, and while politicians and civilians alike are still contemplating the actual significance of his death (is it crucial, or just symbolic?), there is debate over a bill introduced by california republican Representative Howard P. McKeon, chairman of the house armed services committee. the bill is riding the coattails of the concept that rather than withdraw all troops because of bin laden's death, we should actually use this moment as a catalyst for more anti-terror warfare, enough to bring al qaeda to the table for negotiation. the bill is a defense authorization bill, an update of the power granted to congress after the 9/11 attacks in 2001. it proposes that the US is in a conflict between "Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces", and that the president is able to use military force to quell those forces, including detention without trial of members or "substantial" supporters of terrorist groups. groups like the center for constitutional rights, and the american civil liberties union are in uproar about the possibility of so much open-ended power being given to the executive branch. they believe that this bill allows or the president to wage endless wars, with no time limits or ranges. although the article goes on to talk about insurgents and the pakistani government, i chose to focus on the issue of the proposed bill..how do you feel about so uch power being given to the president? and on a much-debated note, how do you react to the fact that there is the potential for detainment without trial??