The Authorized Use of Military Force and giving up power

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/05/29/187059276/why-obama-wants-to-change-the-key-law-in-the-terrorism-fight

“Almost all of the federal government’s actions against terrorism – from drone strikes to the prison at Guantanamo Bay – are authorized by a single law: the Authorization for Use of Military Force.  Congress passed it just after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.  Now, President Obama says he wants to revise the law, and ultimately repeal it.”

If you consider the president a war criminal, I challenge you to listen to this NPR story above.  The vote in 2001 on the AUMF law was nearly unanimous and that president used it for all it was worth.  You can ignore that this president is working to roll it back and ultimately repeal it despite pressure not to, or that he’s cutting back on drone strikes and devising an official policy, and you can pretend that presidents routinely voluntarily give up power and authority, or you can give Obama some credit.  He tried to close Guantanamo early on and will try again.  People like Jeremy Scahill and Glenn Greenwald and other know-it-alls, who have built careers around criticizing Obama, will probably never admit it, but the speech last week and the policies he’s proposed and is committed to are a big deal and positive steps, and the repeal of this law is almost unprecedented. 

I’ve listened to Scahill’s Town Hall lecture three times now, including tonight, and I grow more and more impatient with the selective way he views politics and national security and the excuses he makes for poor, put-upon Anwar al-Awlaki and the sympathetic way he portrays him while ignoring what his mission was, but when you have a book, a movie, or a column dependent on that characterization, you’re not likely to call it into question or admit that perhaps you didn’t have it right after all. 

If you prefer to see the president as a war criminal, that’s your choice.  If you can hear the president say, "We can't keep doing what we're doing because that's not who we are" and not appreciate what that represents, perhaps your inability open your mind means you have a personal agenda that you can't or won't see past.  For some people it's monetary in basis.  Whatever is behind it, you're not alone, but I'm happy not to be included in that crowd.  I wasn't included in the love fest in 2008 and I won't be included in the whine fest this year.

You could give Obama some credit for the patient way he listened to and respected self-aggrandizing Medea Benjamin (who also has a new book out).  Contrary to the view of some, I don’t believe the president is entitled to respect just because s/he holds the office -- we learned this with Bush -- but s/he does deserve it when the president's policies are mostly right and above-board.   And when is the last time YOU heard about somebody in power voluntarily giving some up?