Should the United States rescind the post 9-11 AUMF?

This is a new idea to me. I mean, yeah, anything Congress passes, Congress can rescind. But it's sort of like the suggestion to repeal the 2nd amendment...that's a new idea to me as a political goal.

There are two parts to this question. One is, is it a good idea? I don't want to write too much so as to let the discussion go where it will go, but my sense is that yes, we should rescind it, because a whole bunch of batshit insane stuff is justified in the name of the AUMF. I think if we rescind it, we would make those initiatives stand on their own merits, and either continue or stop accordingly. Further, I think it would be good for the soul of America for once, just once, to take a step backward in our march toward Spartadom.

The other part is, is it a good idea politically for progressives to push for this. (Because let's face it, conservatives aren't going to push for it, and libertarians have nowhere near enough power to get it on the table, let alone accomplish the task.) I suspect that Chris Hayes might be talking about it this weekend on Up because I saw a tweet on the topic on Maddowblog when I was reading up on Fox News' explanation as to why Germany is stronger than the US in solar power. (For details, see the Fox News Makes You Stupid thread.)

So...is it a good idea to repeal the AUMF? And is it a worthy goal for progressives to invest time and energy into?

That's not quite true.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/08/drone-support-poll_n_2647051.html

Of course, I still think that number's too high. And it's a shame that so many people don't understand that innocent civilians are already being killed.

I don't think the "new realities" of the perpetual GWOT means that we should sacrifice our principles. Didn't think so in the 2000s and don't think so now. We can try terra'rists here and jail them forever if guilty. We can have a court determine if attacking US citizens overseas is OK. America will survive. Doesn't matter who is in the president's office.

Agreed.

However, I do think we need to come up with a new legal framework for dealing with terrorists operating out of nations where the government does not have meaningful control over wide swaths of its national territory (e.g. Pakistan, Yemen). It does seem likely that we're going to have to deal with "enemy combatants" capable of inflicting damage in the U.S. but who can't be arrested by any local or international agency for the foreseeable future. I have no idea what a new international framework should look like, but I think it has to be much more transparent than the mish-mash we currently have, where we basically have to take the administration's word that they're acting with restraint and appropriate deliberation.

How many of those Democrats who have issues with the drone policy voted for Barack Obama anyway? That's the only poll that matters.

I don't know what the answer is although I know that the status quo is unacceptable. This isn't as simple as saying "innocent people are dying.". Innocent people died in Dresden and Hiroshima and Hanoi and Bahgdad and the West Bank. "War" has absolutely changed and as the bad guys have moved from battlefields to small towns mixed in with civilians, we have real issues.

Before getting high and mighty on principle, ask yourselvesmif you are okay with the bin laden attack? We cannot send in seal teams every time but the concept is pretty much the same. The President targeted one guy who was not a part of any formal state army for assassination.

To do nothing while knowing they are out there actively advancing plans to attack is risking American innocents. The problem is that we do get new technologies with no protocols. This is not unlike the nuclear bombs when Truman simply had to make an awful decision. For now, I would at least like to see decisions shifted to the military and with multiple levels. When the decision is made, there should be at least a FAISA court process. I know that is praripy a rubber stamp, but it at least requires some presentation and the opportunity for a judge to say "this one is a little too far out there."

What advantage could I possibly have gotten out of not voting for Obama because of it? Your approval?

You personally? None. But it's one thing to say you are for or oppose something, but the way to tell if it's important is if it determines who you vote for. Obviously, drone strikes weren't very high on the list of Democrats who oppose them.

They aren't helped by us having the worst voting system possible that qualifies as one, granted.

100% of those who don't live in a fantasy world where the perfect is the enemy of the good.

I know you're a big proponent of legalization. If an assclown like Michele Bachman or Christine O'Donnell was pro-legalization but was a dipshit in regards to everything else, would you vote for them? The vast majority of people aren't single issue voters.

So you support a change in our first past the post voting system that had led to the system we have today?

I would heavily object to any use of the word good when talking about Obama, but that's another thread.

I vote for people who I believe generally believe in freedom over authoritarianism. Opposing the legalization of drugs is unacceptable because IMO you can't be for freedom if you oppose legalization.

However, that's not the only determining issue (the AUMF is up there quite, um, high as well), so no, that's not enough, and thus I wouldn't vote for Bachman or O'Donnell.

In the case of OBL I think there is a near universal consensus that was a good thing. As for the disregard to Pakistani sovereignty, Oops!! I also feel that we paid for that access, and there were probably some behind closed door conversations and a "look the other way" position by the gov in Pakistan.

I don't really believe the policy of open season on terrorists is in our best political interest. I recognize that non-state actors are problematic. Ron Paul mentioned letters of marque and reprisal as a constitutional method of dealing with this. Some of the guy's ideas were sensible and this could be a method of dealing with this without engaging our military across sovereign borders. Protect our interest and still respect our constitution.

I think the doing nothing, is preferable to what we are doing now . I see what we are doing now as making the problem exponentially worse with every innocent death.

Or, you know, we could just go with our own internal experience.

The issue is somewhat clouded in the vote by the lack of any candidate who could be expected both to oppose the practice, and win. So the issue was basically a non-issue in deciding my vote.

You know, it often seems like you not only want to get rid of first past the post, but also create a universe of one- or two- issue voters. Which makes your objectives seem improbable of achievement and your posts quixotic in the most tedious way.

Yeah. I don't find Cervantes tedious at all.

Hence the small "q."

Well, there were candidates who opposed this practice, but voting for them was basically a wasted vote if you lived where your vote might matter and you favored Obama over Romney (or vice versa). It's a lovely system we have.

There are people who will vote for the red or blue team no matter what. But for everyone else, they have there top couple issues that really matter to them. So, they already are one or two issue voters. If they had multiple choices, they might have to go past that. More candidates can encourage less of that.

And, to get back on subject, it might give candidates who oppose the AUMF a chance of at least being heard in the national debate.

@argentine soccer fan, could you please prevent this thread from turning into another libertarian threadjack?

I'm guessing that Hayes' perspective is that in the long run, it benefits progressives for the US to become less militaristic. I think that's probably right. However, I worry that pushing for a rescission of the AUMF might just marginalize any voice to the left of Diane Feinstein. And that will affect EVERY vote.

if you are to the left of feinstein you are pretty marginalized already.

Ah-- there's your problem.

I believe it is called "projection."

I'd rep this twice if I could.

My real problem was my huge grammar fail. Yikes.

I am actually making suggestions that could lead to this thing actually getting repealed. It's been 11+ years. How many serious discussions have there been about its repeal? Not many, despite this being the justification for the deliberate killing of an awful lot of people, including U.S. citizens.

If progressives want to join in the debate, wonderful, nice of you to finally make it.

I don't see that happening unless a signal is given from on high that it's an acceptable position to hold.