Another Reason to Repeal the AUMF

As if we need another reason to repeal the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which has provided the legal fig leaf for our unending 'war on terror':
The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently affirmed the Guantanamo Bay detention of a young Yemini because, prior to 9/11/01 he had spent time in areas occupied by the Taliban in Afghanistan even though he was not captured on a battlefield and there was no evidence that he ever bore arms for or otherwise actively supported either the Taliban or al Queda.

In a concurring opinion, one of the panel's members, Judge Harry Edwards wrote that "when I review a record like the one presented in this case, I am disquieted by our jurisprudence. I think we have strained to make sense of the applicable law, apply the applicable standards of review, and adhere to the commands of the Supreme Court. The time has come for the President and Congress to give serious consideration to a different approach for the handling of the Guantanamo detainee cases."

That different approach is, of course, the repeal of the 2001 AUMF and a return to the rule of law even in cases against accused terrorists.

Representative Barbara Lee has introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives a bill to repeal the (AUMF), and has started a CREDO petition to support the bill which states in part:
   

Support HR 198 - Repeal of the Authorization for Use of Military Force - legislation that will reexamine and ultimately repeal the flawed blank check authorization to the President to wage war, anywhere at any time.

    Now is the time for the U.S. Congress to repeal the overly broad 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).