It doesn't explain anything. In fact it is even broader than this whitepaper:
>the President is authorized 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, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations,
organizations or persons
Hamlily v. Obama (2009) crystallizes the legal interpretation of the phrase a bit. Some key points:
>The key inquiry, then, is not necessarily whether one self-identifies as a member of the organization (although this could be relevant in some cases), but whether the individual functions or participates within or under the command structure of the organization
>The Court also concludes that the authority claimed by the government to detain those who were "part of ... Taliban or al Qaida forces" is consistent with the law of war
>the government has the authority to detain members of "associated forces" as long as those forces would be considered co-belligerents under the law of war
But note that Hamlily applies to detention and not execution. And in this execution whitepaper, it clearly states that the definition of associated forces "includes a group that would qualify as a co-belligerent under the laws of war". The phrase includes leaves a lot of room for the term "associated forces" to apply to other things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Milita...