I'm surprised the left-o-sphere hasn't given more attention to the fact that Obama recently publicly asked Congress to repeal the AUMF. The Authorization for the Use of Military Force, from 2001, is the font from which all kinds of "national security" evils have sprung, over the last 12 years. From the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, to torture, to the problems in Guantanamo, to drones, our perpetual war, the targeting of American citizens, etc. - they all spring from this little, hastily-passed, law that gives the President the authority to go after al Qaeda, and anyone that aids or harbors al-q, anywhere in the world, in almost any way he wants to. And Obama just asked Congress to revoke that authority.

"I look forward to engaging Congress and the American people in efforts to refine, and ultimately repeal, the AUMF's mandate," he said. "And I will not sign laws designed to expand this mandate further. Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue. But this war, like all wars, must end."

That's huge, in my opinion.

For a decade now, I've been getting good use out of the notion that "national security" is a ratchet: once the Presidency is given (or takes) power under the national security guise, that power will never be put aside, relinquished, or left unused, by him or his successors. I've always assumed no President would want to be seen as wanting to give up any such powers, for fear of being seen as "soft" on security matters. But, Obama just asked Congress to take them away.

Certainly, he would be far more praiseworthy had he never used those powers in the first place - and many now-bitterly-disappointed people who hoped that he wouldn't are more than happy to list his failings in this area. But, use them he did. Though now, perhaps after another long evolution, he's saying he wants things to change. And, ultimately, getting Congress to repeal AUMF is the right way to do it. Because even if a hypothetical Obama had never used what AUMF provides, nothing guarantees his successor would be as high-minded.

I hope Congress takes him up on the offer.

Tea For Hitler

VW's 261-MPG Diesel-Electric Supercar

Thinkin bout Medea Benjamin, Obama's heckler. I'm reminded of comment on a Balloon Juice thread that, over the years, I've found to be wonderfully handy when discussing these kinds of leftier-than-thou people; and so, from commenter, "Joe From Lowell", here is Joe's Protest People Hypothesis:

The most important thing to Protest People is their self-image as Protest People. If they’re the first to denounce something, that gets them mega-points on the Protest People scale. If they’re wrong, whatever loss of credibility they gain in terms of being reality-based is outweighed by the demonstration of what awesome Protest People they are. Heck, it actually helps their credibility among their intended, Protest People audience to be so wrong, because it’s just more evidence of how ideologically hard core they are.

Oh the poor little dears. They have become detached from reality and convinced that their wild Benghazi fantasies actually happened.

I recommend clozapine and cognitive behavioral therapy. As a secondary effort, electro-convulsive therapy may prove useful.

'Tornado Truthers'

Return of the Jedi was released.

Old. But not as old as ethernet. Or me.

Paranormal, Australia-Style

From what I've read, Fox New reporter, James Rosen didn't learn about the FBI's investigation into his solicitation of classified documents until this weekend, when the Washington Post did their story. And the WaPo only found out about Rosen's investigation because they were looking into the investigation and prosecution of the person who leaked the documents - they didn't know Rosen had ever been investigated as part of the matter; and neither did Rosen. Rosen wasn't charged. He was never told of the investigation.

That means at least three years passed between the investigation and the discovery of the investigation. And, if the WaPo didn't basically stumble upon the info, the investigation may have never been discovered.

But the media (who love stories about themselves), and the GOP (who jump at any chance to make Obama look bad), and the permanently-paranoid, are all sure this is intimidation. But how was the DOJ "intimidating" anyone ?

Surely, to intimidate someone, the person has to know he's being intimidated. Knowing that someone out there is watching you and can act against you is what intimidation means. But if you don't know they're looking at you (as Rosen didn't), and they make no effort to tell you (which the DOJ didn't), and make no effort to retaliate (which the DOJ didn't), they're not intimidating you. They're investigating you, spying on you maybe, but definitely not intimidating.

But one can be intimidated after the fact, sure. Reporters can worry that future attempts to procure classified info might get them investigated. But why wouldn't they already assume this? In instances like these, reporters have traditionally been allowed immunity from prosecution (as Rosen was), but that's not the same thing as immunity from investigation.

Surely you, as a reporter, would expect that the govt would run down every connection to the leaker in such a case - especially when your methods were so sloppy. You would likely be more surprised to find out that you weren't investigated, since that would mean the govt was letting an obvious connection to the leaker go unexplored - and that might be an even better story to investigate.

The options are: assume the government is laughably incompetent when it comes to tracking down and investigating leakers and will not look at you when they find emails from you asking the leaker to get more and more of the information the leaker is charged with leaking; or you can assume the government is going to look at everyone who has made significant contact with a leaker, especially the person soliciting and receiving the information that the leaker is charged with leaking. The first option seems unlikely. If you're encouraging someone to break the law, you should expect the govt to wonder why.

OK, I get that the media is in frenzy mode right now, but this one still seems way overblown. Rosen attached himself to someone who broke the law (at Rosen's urging, no less); and the govt did what it should do in a case like this; it figured out where the info went, and for what purpose. Which necessitated looking at Rosen. Then it ultimately determined that since Rosen was a journalist, doing journalistic things, and it did what govt has always done in such cases: it declined to bring charges. Rosen suffered no real harm. He got his story. His source got prosecuted. Rosen didn't even know anything had happened.

Or, if that's too much - if looking at a journalist to verify that he's acting as a journalist, and not as a foreign agent (or whatever) is too much - what should the process be? When the govt discovers a leaker of classified info, and the info is received by someone who works at a media outlet, should the government immediately stop all investigation of the receiver? If so, I can tell you what the official job title of all future spies will be.

RIP Ray.

I love the Doors. And I'm not ashamed to say it.

But that's the Doors song I wish was just a little bit better because I like some parts of it so much.