Policy makers from both political parties want to revisit the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, the resolution passed by Congress after the 9/11 terrorist attacks that gave sweeping powers to the president to wage unprecedented wars.

The expansion of power included provisions for the president to attack “nations, organizations or persons he determines … aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001,” the resolution states. “In order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States.”

Passed in the midst of the patriotic flurry that surrounded the 9/11 attacks, the resolution has been systematically abused, both by former President George W. Bush and current President Barack Obama.

The expanded powers have been the legal foundation for controversial policies such as holding terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay without charge; killing  American citizens, notably Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old noncombatant son; warrant-less wiretapping and launching drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia.

The resolution, more than a decade old, is becoming increasingly codified into law, which is dangerous given the official end of the war in Afghanistan in 2014 and Al Qaeda’s dwindling numbers. Most disconcerting is the fact that the authorization to use military force is too vague and open-ended for interpretation.

President Bush used the resolution to justify his global war on terrorism against Al-Qaeda and its affiliates worldwide. And President Obama has doubled down on the use of drone attacks, using the Authorization as a legal justification for extended conflicts.

Eliciting little domestic outrage, the resolution has ushered in an era of perpetual warfare, where traditional constraints on executive power are undermined and the killing of individuals is based solely on suspicion of terrorist activity.

“None of us, not one who voted for it, could have envisioned we were voting for the longest war in American history or that we were about to give future presidents the authority to fight terrorism as far flung as Yemen and Somalia,” Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois told Politico. “I don’t think any of us envisioned that possibility.”

A report by Stanford and New York Universities argues that of the nearly 3,000 targeted “combatants” in Pakistan killed between June 2004 and Sept. 2012 by drone attacks, 474 to 881 were civilians, and 176 were children.

The drone weapon is incredibly powerful, giving the U.S. the ability to strike targets around the world instantaneously from remote locations.

How can we use a tool that is by nature a terrorist weapon without expecting retaliation? It’s important to understand that drone strikes create more hatred and stoke anti-U.S. sentiment overseas.

Unless repealed, the Authorization will continue to legally justify such immoral attacks and incite anger across the globe. Like the war on drugs or the war on poverty that preceded it, the war on terror will never cease to be, so what was meant to be a temporary extension of power is in reality a permanent overreach — that must be repealed.