Because the alternative, a “magic words” requirement for invoking the power to declare war, is (1) inconsistent with the way every other Article I power is treated, and (2) was conclusively rejected by the courts while the ink was still practically wet on the ratification of the Constitution, in Bas v. Tingy (1800).
> Plenty of Senators disagree with you.
There are all kinds of false beliefs publicly embraced (and perhaps actually believed, but that's harder to assess) by plenty of Senators, but I don't see any evidence that the particular one I took issue with upthread is one of them.
It's interesting how you dismiss things you don't agree with as "magic words". What is the existing AUMF other than a set of "magic words" that gives the President the ability to send soldiers into any country at any time for almost any reason?
Any idea how many countries we are currently fighting in based on this AUMF? Does it bother you that there were/are soldiers fighting in Niger without Congressional knowledge? Did all of these terrorist organizations exist when the AUMF was passed? If not, how can it possibly apply to them?
Only if you adhere to the false belief that a declaration of war requires particular magic words and that the 9/11-motivated AUMF is not an open-ended conditional (on Presidential determination) declaration of war.
> without any regard for the Geneva Convention
Which of the Geneva Conventions is being ignored, and how?