Twenty-five years after 9/11, America is still sliding down the slippery slope created by the War on Terror. This episode traces how the George W. Bush, Obama, and Biden administrations built, expanded, and preserved extraordinary presidential powers in the name of fighting terrorism—and how the Trump administration is now using those powers to deprive people of liberty and protections in ways that once seemed unthinkable.
Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links
- Contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal
- Support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode)
- Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com
- Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney
- Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com
- Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536.
Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish
Thank you for supporting truly independent media!
Contact Your Members of Congress: (202) 224-3121
Background Sources
Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes
CD334: Untrained and Unwarranted
CD320: One Big Beautiful Bill — a Dangerous Law
World War II Precedent
“ArtII.S2.C1.1.7 Treatment of Enemy Combatants and Nazi Saboteurs.” Accessed September 14, 2026. Constitution Annotated.
Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942). Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School.
Non-Detention Act of 1971
18 U.S. Code § 4001 – Limitation on detention; control of prisons. Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School.
Protections: the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions
5th Amendment Constitution Annotated.
Article I Section 9 Constitution Annotated.
The Geneva Conventions and their Commentaries. International Committee of the Red Cross.
W. Bush Administration
Authorization for Use of Military Force
Text and Votes
Public Law 107–40—Sept. 18, 2001
S.J.Res.23 – Authorization for Use of Military Force
Senate Roll Call Vote, S.J.Res.23. September 14, 2001.
House Roll Call Vote, H. J. Res. 64. September 14, 2001.
Barbara Lee’s Lone Opposition
“Barbara Lee’s Lone Vote on Sept. 14, 2001, Was as Prescient as It Was Brave and Heroic.” Glenn Greenwald. September 11, 2016. The Intercept.
“The 2001 authorization for use of military force: Background in brief [Memorandum].” Matthew Weed. July 10, 2013. Congressional Research Service.
“Why I opposed the resolution to authorize force.” Barbara Lee. September 23, 2001. SFGATE.
Surveillance and Warrantless Searches
Memo from John C. Yoo to David S. Kris re: Constitutionality of Amending Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to Change the ‘Purpose’ Standard for Searches. September 25, 2001. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel. Retrieved from the National Security Archive’s “Torturing Democracy” Key Documents Archive
Indefinite Detention
“Military Order — Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism.” November 13, 2001. George W. Bush. Federal Register Vol. 66 No. 222. Retrieved from the National Security Archive’s “Torturing Democracy” Key Documents Archive.
“Letter from John Yoo to Alberto Gonzales.” August 1, 2002. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel. Retrieved from the National Security Archive’s “Torturing Democracy” Key Documents Archive.
Torture
New Details of Torture at CIA ‘Black Sites’ October 28, 2021. Center for Constitutional Rights.
“Inside the CIA’s black site torture room.” Larry Siems. October 9, 2017. The Guardian.
“Report: Committee study of the Central Intelligence Agency’s detention and interrogation program”, [S. Rep. No. 113-288]. U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. December 9, 2014. U.S. Government Publishing Office.
“Senate report on CIA program details brutality, dishonesty.” Greg Miller et al. December 9, 2014. The Washington Post.
“Inquiry into the Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody.” December 11, 2008. Senate Armed Services Committee. Retrieved from the National Security Archive’s “Torturing Democracy” Key Documents Archive.
Action Memo from Jim Haynes to Donald Rumsfeld re: Counter-Resistance Techniques. November 27, 2002. General Counsel of the Department of Defense. Retrieved from the National Security Archive’s “Torturing Democracy” Key Documents Archive.
Memo from Jay Bybee to Alberto Gonzales re: Standards for Conduct for Interrogation under 18 U.S.C. 2340 – 2340A. August 1, 2002. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel. Retrieved from the National Security Archive’s “Torturing Democracy” Key Documents Archive.
Memo from President Bush to Vice President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, et. al. re: Humane Treatment of al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees. February 7, 2002. The White House. Retrieved from the National Security Archive’s “Torturing Democracy” Key Documents Archive.
The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgment Inside the Bush Administration. Jack Goldsmith. W. W. Norton & Company (2007).
Combatant Status Review Tribunals
“Petition for a writ of certiorari, Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense, et al. v. Haji Bismullah, et al., No. 07-1054.” February 2008. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Solicitor General.
“Government claims broad power over foreigners at Guantanamo.” Michael J. Sniffen. December 2, 2004. Chron.
Memo from Paul Wolfowitz to the Secretary of the Navy re: Order Establishing Combatant Status Review Tribunals. July 7, 2004. U.S. Department of Defense.
Guantanamo Bay
“The 41 Gitmo Cases Decided by Judges.” Chisun Lee. July 23, 2009. ProPublica.
“Testimony of Spc. Brandon Neely.” December 4, 2008. Center for the Study of Human Rights in the Americas.
“Ex-Afghanistan Detainee Alleges Torture by U.S.” Carol D. Leonnig. March 28, 2008. The Washington Post.
“Evidence Of Innocence Rejected at Guantanamo.” Carol D. Leonnig. December 4, 2007. The Washington Post.
“David Hicks: A timeline of key events.” May 18, 2007. ABC News (Australia).
“Panel Ignored Evidence on Detainee.” Carol D. Leonnig. March 26, 2005. The Washington Post.
The Human Toll
“Statement of Jon Retzer, Department of Veterans’ Affairs, Assistant National Legislative Director.” June 21, 2023. House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs.
“Update to Annex One of the Second Periodic Report of the United States of America to the Committee Against Torture.” Submitted by the United States of America to the UN Committee Against Torture. October 21, 2005. U.S. Department of State Archive.
Targeting U.S. Citizens
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004)
Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004)
Obama Administration
Killing of Anwar al-Awlaki
“A Summary of Friday’s Decision in al-Aulaqi v. Panetta.” Matt Danzer. April 7, 2014. Lawfare.
“Remarks of President Barack Obama.” May 23, 2013. The White House, Office of the Press Secretary.
“Al-Aulaqi v. Obama: Government Kill Lists Target U.S. Citizens Far From Any Armed Conflict.” September 2, 2010. Center for Constitutional Rights.
“Memo from David Barron to Eric Holder Re: Applicability of Federal Criminal Laws and the Constitution to Contemplated Lethal Operations Against Shaykh Anwar al-Aulaqi.” July 16, 2010. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel.
2012 NDAA
H.R.1540 – National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
“Statement by the President on H.R. 1540.” December 31, 2011. The White House, Office of the Press Secretary.
“Detainee Provisions in the National Defense Authorization Bills,” [R41920]. December 8, 2011. Congressional Research Service.
“Roll Call Votes During Full Committee Markup of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.” June 21, 2011. Senate Armed Services Committee.
“Senate Armed Services Language on Detainee Matters.” Benjamin Wittes. June 19, 2011. Lawfare.
Trump Administration
Status of Authorization for Use of Military Force
“Report on the Legal and Policy Frameworks for the United States’ Use of Military Force and Related National Security Operations.” February 2026. The White House.
S.1061 – A bill to prospectively repeal the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force March 2023.
Increasing ICE Arrests and Detention
“Trump’s Mandatory ICE Detention Challenges Move Toward Supreme Court.” Dan Gooding. August 28, 2026. Newsweek.
“ICE Arrests Soar as People With No Criminal Record Are Increasingly Targeted.” Albert Sun and Allison McCann. August 27, 2026. The New York Times.
“Trump’s ICE Has Detained More People Than the Population of Atlanta.” Beth Schwartzapfel and Anna Flagg. August 25, 2026. The Marshall Project.
“Trump’s immigration crackdown has detained more than 50 military spouses and parents.” Jack Brook et al. August 5, 2026. PBS News.
“‘Deprivation of liberty’: Trump admin hits trifecta of federal courts rejecting ICE’s indefinite detention policy” Colin Kalmbacher. May 12, 2026. Law & Crime.
“Refugees in the U.S. could be arrested under a new immigration memo.” Ximena Bustillo. February 19, 2026.NPR.
“Immigration Detention Expansion in Trump’s Second Term.” January 14, 2026. American Immigration Council.
“Trump’s border czar earned consulting fees from immigrant detention firm.” Douglas MacMillan and Aaron Schaffer. May 27, 2025. The Washington Post.
Designating Cartels as Terrorist Organizations
“Designating Cartels And Other Organizations As Foreign Terrorist Organizations And Specially Designated Global Terrorists.” January 20, 2025. The White House.
Alien Enemies Act
Trump v. J. G. G., 604 U.S. ___ (2025). Supreme Court of the United States.
A.A.R.P. v. Trump, 605 U.S. ___ (2025). Supreme Court of the United States.
“President Trump Delivers Justice to Terrorists, Security for Americans.” March 17, 2025. The White House.
“Statement from the Press Secretary” Re: Alien Enemies Act. March 16, 2025. The White House.
“Proclamation 10903—Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion
of the United States by Tren de Aragua.” Donald Trump. March 14, 2025. U.S. Government Publishing Office.
Venezuelan Boat Bombings
“Rubio says US is working with allies to counter drugs but will ‘still blow up ships if need be.’” Matthew Lee. September 9, 2026. AP News.
“Report on the Legal and Policy Frameworks for the United States’ Use of Military Force and Related National Security Operations.” February 2026. The White House.
“Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Designates Fentanyl as a Weapon of Mass Destruction.” December 15, 2025. The White House.
“Designating fentanyl as a weapon of mass destruction, [Executive Order No. 14367].” Donald J. Trump. The White House.
Family Separation and Detention
“Migrant Families Would Face Indefinite Detention Under New Trump Rule.” August 21, 2019. The New York Times.
“Squalid Conditions at Border Detention Centers, Government Report Finds.” Zolan Kanno-Youngs. July 2, 2019. The New York Times.
“The ‘Flores Settlement’ and Alien Families Apprehended at the U.S. Border: Frequently Asked Questions,” [R45297.] Ben Harrington. September 17, 2018. Congressional Research Service.
“Affording Congress an Opportunity to Address Family Separation,” [Executive Order No. 13841]. Donald J. Trump. June 20, 2018. The White House.
Legalizing Indefinite Detention
CD320: One Big Beautiful Bill — a Dangerous Law Jennifer Briney. July 31, 2025. Congressional Dish.
“ICE declares millions of undocumented immigrants ineligible for bond hearings.” Maria Sacchetti and Carol D. Leonnig. July 15, 2025. The Washington Post.
H.R.1 – One Bil Beautiful Bill Act
CD311: The Laken Riley Act Jennifer Briney. February 23, 2025. Congressional Dish.
House Roll Call Vote, S. 5. January 22, 2025.
Senate Roll Call Vote, S. 5 January 20, 2025.
Detention of Children
“Migrant kids are often being held in a South Texas detention center five times longer than a court order allows .” Uriel J. García et al. August 12, 2026. The Texas Tribune.
“These Immigrant Kids Were Once Protected. Under Trump, Their Deportations Have Tripled.” Mica Rosenberg and Jeff Ernsthausen. July 6, 2026. ProPublica.
Flores v. Meese, No. 2:85-cv-04544. June 15, 2026. U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
“Judge denies Trump administration request to end a policy protecting immigrant children in custody.” Valerie Gonzalez. August 15, 2025. AP News.
ICE Black Sites
“ICE Detention Trends.” Updated August 28, 2026. Vera Institute of Justice.
“Colorado lawmakers demand answers over ICE sub-office detentions amid claims of rule violations.” March 12, 2026. Official Website of Rep. Brittany Pettersen.
“Secret ICE Detention Facilities Exist Around Colorado, Data Shows.” Logan M. Davis. March 4, 2026. Colorado Times Recorder
“Into the Black Hole: Navigating the Center of Trump’s Deportation Force in Louisiana.” Nora Ahmed. February 10, 2026. ACLU.
Torture
18 U.S. Code § 2340A – Torture
“ICE’s tactics look increasingly like torture.” Judith Levine. August 24, 2026. The Guardian.
“ICE plans to give officers gloves that can deliver painful electric shocks.” Ryan J. Foley. August 11, 2026. AP News.
“Detainees at ICE facility in Texas were beaten and abused, rights groups say.” Kanishka Singh. July 15, 2026. Reuters.
“Trump Moves to Hide Immigrant Detention Conditions as Prisoners Describe ‘Torture.’” Whitney Curry Wimbish. May 20, 2026. The American Prospect.
“Year One: Immigrant Detention in Louisiana Under The Trump Administration.” Nora Ahmed and Andrew Perry. January 19, 2026. American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana.
“Trump’s deportation hub: inside the ‘black hole’ where immigrants disappear.” Oliver Laughland et al. September 12, 2025. The Guardian.
Contract between U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and LaSalle Economic Development District [DROIGSA-07-0015]. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Guantanamo Bay
Luna Gutierrez v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-01766 December 5, 2025. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
“Inside Trump’s First 100 Days.” Eric Cortellessa. April 25, 2026. Time.
“SECDEF Hegseth visits Naval Station Guantanamo Bay.” Staff Sgt. ShaTyra Reed-Cox. February 26, 2025. U.S. Army.
Alligator Alcatraz
“Unannounced Inspection of ICE’s Florida Soft-Sided
Facility (‘Alligator Alcatraz’) in Ochopee, Florida,” [OIG-26-22]. September 11, 2026. Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
“ICE Arrests Illegal Aliens including MS-13 Gang Member and Other Violent Criminals with Convictions of Manslaughter and Drug Trafficking.” July 24, 2025. U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
“Trump visits ‘Alligator Alcatraz,’ sending a political message.” Cat Zakrzewski et al. July 1, 2025. The Washington Post.
Deaths on ICE’s Hands
“Family of Haitian immigrant who froze to death in Pittsburgh to sue.” Finch Walker. August 3, 2026. USA Today.
“Death rate in ICE immigrant detention centers more than doubles under Trump, Reuters analysis finds.” Ted Hesson et al. June 17, 2026. Reutuers.
“Medical Examiner Rules That a Rohingya Refugee’s Death Was a Homicide.” Ana Ley. April 1, 2026. The New York Times.
Private Prison Campaign Contributions
“Private prison behemoth is first corporation to max out to Trump.” Robert Maguire and Lauren White. July 3, 2024. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
Third Country Deportations
“‘I do not know what happened to the others’: Trump’s third country deportations spark global debate.” Christian Putsch and Evelyn Kpadeh Seagbeh. August 28, 2026. Politico.
“US/El Salvador: Torture of Venezuelan Deportees.” November 12, 2025. Human Rights Watch.
“The Men Trump Deported to a Salvadoran Prison.” July 23, 2025. ProPublica, The Texas Tribune, Alianza Rebelde Investiga and Cazadores de Fake News.
“US judges block Trump’s Venezuelan deportations that used 1798 wartime law.” Luc Cohen and Ted Hesson. April 9, 2025. Reuters.
“Explainer-What is El Salvador’s mega-prison holding Venezuelans deported from the US?” Nelson Renteria et al. March 19, 2025. Investing.com.
Alien Terrorist Removal Court
“Justice Department secures deportation order in first-of-its-kind case brought in secretive court.” Tierney Sneed and Evan Perez. September 11, 2026. CNN.
“The Alien Terrorist Removal Court, Explained.” Margy O’Herron and Katherine Yon Ebright. August 27, 2026. Brennan Center for Justice.
“Alien Terrorist Removal Court, 1996-present.” 2026. Federal Judicial Center.
“Assessing the Constitutionality of the Alien Terrorist Removal Court.” John Dorsett Niles. 2008. Duke Law Journal.
Legal Immigrants
“Migrants who entered U.S. via Biden-era CBP One app stripped of legal status, told to leave ‘immediately.’” Camilo Montoya-Galvez. April 8, 2025. CBS News.
Doe v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 25-cv-12245-ADB, Memorandum and Order. March 31, 2026. U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
“Domestic Terrorism”
“18 U.S. Code § 2331(5) – Domestic Terrorism.” Eisner Gorin LLP.
“Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence,” [National Security Presidential Memorandum 7]. Donald J. Trump. September 25, 2025. The White House.
“Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Develops New Strategy to Counter Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence.” September 25, 2025. The White House.
Antifa
“Trump Administration Delivers Another Crushing Blow to Antifa Terrorist Network.” June 17, 2026. The White House.
“15 Members of Direct Action Minnesota, a Minneapolis-Based Direct Action Group with Antifa Ties, Indicted.” June 16, 2026. U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Minnesota.
“Designating Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization,” [Executive Order]. September 22, 2025. The White House.
Habeas corpus
“Trump’s immigration agenda fuels surge in court cases, US judiciary data shows.” Nate Raymond. March 3, 2026. Reuters.
“Courts have ruled 4,400 times that ICE jailed people illegally. It hasn’t stopped.” Nate Raymond et al. February 14, 2026. Reuters.
“Judicial Business 2025.” United States Courts.
“The ‘Invasion’ Invention: The Far Right’s Long Legal Battle to Make Immigrants the Enemy.” Molly Redden. May 23, 2025. ProPublica.
“Trump officials suggest suspending habeas corpus. Here’s what it means.” Maegan Vazquez. May 10, 2025. The Washington Post.
Audio Sources
Closing Guantánamo: Ending 20 Years of Injustice
Senate Judiciary Committee
December 7, 2021
Witnesses:
- Colleen Kelly, Co-Founder, 9/11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows
- Katya Jestin, Co-Managing Partner, Jenner & Block
- Charles “Cully” Stimson, Deputy Director, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies; Manager, National Security Law Program The Heritage Foundation
- Brigadier General John Baker, Chief Defense Counsel For Military Commissions, United States Department of Defense
Clips
20:10 Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL):
Today, we live in a world in which the war in Afghanistan, our Nation’s longest war, has finally come to a close, and yet Guantanamo remains open. Thirty-nine detainees remain, and more than two-thirds of them have never been charged with a crime. Let that sink in. Two-thirds have never been charged, in 20 years. How can that possibly be justice?
46:30 Colleen Kelly:
Family members want a measure of accountability and justice before our deaths. Today, I’m asking this commission to acknowledge that the military commissions have failed and to help us gain some form of resolution through plea agreements in the 9/11 case. We understand that, in exchange for guilty pleas, the Government would likely drop the death penalty. What we would hope to finally get, however, is answers to our questions about 9/11, information we’ve been denied for two decades.
Some may not see this as justice. Indeed, it is not the outcome that our organization advocated for at our founding, but it is a way forward.
1:07:30 Katya Jestin:
The commissions is merely a thin veneer of a legal process that serves one objective, and that is to keep the detainees under wraps so that they cannot describe what happened to them in CIA detention.
That, above all else, appears to be the goal of the military commissions. Not truth, not justice, not accountability.
1:26:45 Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC):
I think it’s absurd to criminalize a war. You can hold somebody until they die, as an enemy combatant, if it’s unsafe to release them, if the war’s not over. Does anybody doubt we have the ability today to kill somebody who’s part of Al-Qaeda, if they’re up to no good? Can we kill them? Mr. Stimpson, can we kill them?
Cully Stimson:
We can use deadly force under the two thousand –—
Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC):
We did it last week.
Cully Stimson:
Yes.
Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC):
What absurd conclusion would there be, that you can kill somebody, but you can’t capture them? And once you’ve captured them, you have to let them go if you don’t have the evidence necessary to prosecute them at a criminal venue?
No war has ever been conducted that way for a reason. The reason we’ve never done war that way–because it’s stupid. We’re not fighting a crime. We’re fighting a war. I don’t want to torture anybody, I want to give them due process consistent with being at war, and, if necessary, I want to hold them as long as it takes to keep us safe, or we believe that they’re no longer a threat.
To the 39 at GITMO, I believe all of them are a threat. If we can try them, great. If we can’t, let’s hold them. This idea of closing GITMO, I embraced it with President Obama. Here’s the problem. I couldn’t get the administration to agree that if you moved them back to the United States, indefinite detention would still be available.
I don’t care where you house them, you can house them in Illinois, as long as you don’t let them go, if the circumstances under the law of war prevent them from being let go. We can never cross that bridge.
House Homeland Security Hearing on National Security Threats
House Homeland Security Committee
September 17, 2026
Witness:
- Christopher Wray, Director, U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (2017-2025)
Clips
28:40 Christopher Wray:
We look at Antifa as more of an ideology or a movement than an organization.
Guantanamo Detention Facility and Future of U.S. Detention Policy
Senate Armed Services Committee
February 5, 2015
Witness:
- Brian P. McKeon, Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Department of Defense
Clips
1:06:15 Brian McKeon:
As to the question of the legal authority to continue to hold them, the–we are relying on the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), and it’s informed by the Law of War. So, if we did reach a point where the 2001 AUMF is either repealed by the Congress or we’ve decided it was no longer sustainable, based on the situation in Afghanistan, then we would have an authority issue to wrestle with. There’s no question about that.
The Law of Armed Conflict, the Use of Military Force, and the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force
Senate Armed Services Committee
May 16, 2013
Witnesses:
- Robert S. Taylor, Acting General Counsel, Department of Defense
Clips
47:45 Sen. John McCain (R-AZ):
This hearing is about a resolution that was passed coming up on 12 years ago, and I think it is important for all of my colleagues to read that again, which says “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.’’ This authorization was about those who planned and orchestrated the attacks of 2001. Here we are 12 years later and you and the Secretary come before us and tell us that you do not think it needs to be updated. Well, clearly it does, and I would refer you to this morning’s Washington Post editorial revising the terms of war, the authorization to use force against al Qaeda should be updated, not discarded. Because it has been so long and General Nagata, you would agree the nature of this conflict has changed dramatically, spread throughout northern Africa and the Maghreb, and penetrated into other nations all throughout the Middle East. The situation has dramatically changed.
1:14:25 Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA):
Does the AUMF expire by presidential declaration, congressional action, or the occurrence of an actual event in the world?
Robert Taylor:
It is a statute. We have not determined that the conflict has come to an end. Precisely how that would be written and established is unclear.
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA):
It is clear that if Congress retracted the AUMF, at that point the authority would come to an end, correct?
Robert Taylor:
That is correct.
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA):
There would still be the international Law of War and other doctrine that the President and Congress could operate under. But aside from Congress retracting the AUMF, whether there is an actual event or could the President take some action that would end the AUMF, that has not yet been determined.
Robert Taylor:
That is correct, but if, for example, the President were to issue a declaration stating that the conflict against al Qaeda has been concluded, I would think that that would constitute an end.
1:17:00 Sen. Angus King (I-ME):
The Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 clearly says that Congress has the power to declare war. This authorization, the AUMF, is very limited, and you keep using the term “associated forces.” You used it 13 times in your statement. That is not in the AUMF. You said at one point it suits us very well. I assume it does suit you very well because you are reading it to cover everything and anything. Then you said at another point, even if the AUMF does not apply, the general law of war applies, and we can take these action. So my question is: how do you possibly square this with the requirement of the Constitution that the Congress has the power to declare war? This is one of the most fundamental divisions in our constitutional scheme that Congress has the power to declare war. The President is the Commander in Chief and prosecutes the war. But you are reading this AUMF in such a way as to apply clearly outside of what it says.
2:08:35 Kenneth Roth:
While I fully recognize the seriousness of the threats facing this Nation, I also want to stress the importance of pursuing those threats in a way that maximizes the protection of our rights. I am concerned here not simply about the actions of the U.S. Government but also about the precedents that the U.S. Government sets for other governments that may pay much less attention to the rights of their citizens or others. Just to illustrate the concern, there are many serious security threats that are out in the world, not just terrorism, but also drug traffickers, international criminal gangs, and the like. What is to stop a nation from simply declaring a war against, say, a drug trafficking organization, not the metaphorical war against drugs that we are all used to, but a real war?
Senate Session
November 29, 2012
Clips
10:36:10 Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC):
And the basic question is: Is fighting al-Qaida fighting a crime or fighting a war? I believe with all of my heart and soul that they do not want our property, they do not want our cars, they do not want our bank accounts, they want to destroy us. They hate what we stand for.
10:36:40 Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC):
The goal here is if you capture an American citizen who has sided with the enemy that we preserve the ability of our military intelligence community to find out what they know about future attacks and present attacks. The goal of a criminal prosecution is to find justice under a criminal statute. The goal in time of war is to win. I do not believe in torturing people to get good information, but I do believe in interrogating them for military purposes if they have sided with the enemy.
10:38:30 Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC):
This war will last probably longer than most of us. It is an ideological struggle. There is no capital to conquer, like Berlin and Japan. There is no air force to shoot down. There is no navy to sink. It is about an ideology that must be contained and fought, an ideology, unfortunately, that will be attractive to some Americans as it was in other wars.
The Due Process Guarantee Act: Banning Indefinite Detention of Americans
Senate Judiciary Committee
February 29, 2012
Witnesses:
- Lorraine K. Bannai, Professor of Legal Skills & Director, Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality Seattle University School of Law
Clips
21:20 **Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT):
I was disappointed that the Senate rejected several efforts to amend or remove these measures as we debated the bill. One of the amendments that did pass during the NDAA debate was offered by Senator Feinstein. Her amendment clarifies that nothing in the NDAA changed the status quo with regard to the authority of the Government to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens or others arrested within the United States.
28:25 Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA):
Much of the precedent on this matter dates back to the World War II case concerning a U.S. citizen who was among eight Nazi soldiers that landed on the beach of New Jersey with a goal of sabotaging American interests. These individuals, including the American citizen, were tried by President Roosevelt’s administration in a military commission and sentenced to death. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the Court held that enemy belligerents, including the American citizens, were tried in a proper venue—a military commission—and upheld the sentence.
29:00 Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA):
In 2004, the Supreme Court, by a vote of 6–3, found that an American citizens named Hamdi, captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan and detained in the U.S., had a right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus to challenge detention. But a plurality of the Court, in an opinion by Justice O’Connor, also held that the President had the authority to detain Hamdi because Congress had passed an Authorization for the Use of Military Force following the 9/11 attacks.
And the Hamdi plurality recognized that detention for the duration of the conflict was part of the ‘‘longstanding law of war principles.’’ Justice O’Connor’s opinion also made no distinction based upon an individual citizen’s finding that, ‘‘There is no bar to this Nation holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant.’’
30:13 Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA):
But in Hamdi and Padilla, the Supreme Court said that an American citizen in military custody in the United States has a right to challenge his detention via a writ of habeas corpus.
36:45 Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA):
In 1971, Congress passed and President Nixon signed into law something called the ‘‘Non-Detention Act of 1971,’’ and subsequently Ronald Reagan made an official apology when he was President of the United States. The Non-Detention Act clearly states this, and I quote—it is very brief: ‘‘No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress.’’
37:20 Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA):
Now, what happened was in the Armed Services Committee an amendment was put in the defense authorization bill which essentially used the resolution to authorize force to apply the laws of war also to the United States. And in the laws of war, a suspect on the battlefield can be held, detained, without charge until the end of hostilities. This had never been the case in the United States. So on the floor that day, there was considerable debate.
38:40 Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA):
The Hamdi decision by the Supreme Court was by its own terms limited to the circumstances of an American picked up on the battlefield in Afghanistan. The four-Justice plurality in Hamdi clearly stated, and I quote: ‘‘[The Government] has made clear, however, that, for purposes of this case, the ‘enemy combatant’ that it is to detain is an individual who, it alleges, was ‘part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition partners’ in Afghanistan and who ‘engaged in an armed conflict against the United States’ there. We therefore answer only the narrow question before us: whether the detention of citizens falling within that definition is authorized.’’
So Hamdi in itself was very narrow and really related to the battlefield in Afghanistan only.
40:25 Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA):
There was widespread outrage at the notion that the defense authorization bill or the AUMF would authorize the military to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without charge or trial. I believe that message clearly got out there and was reflected in the number of calls and letters that came in. So the time is really now to end the legal ambiguity and state clearly once and for all that the AUMF or other authorities do not authorize such indefinite detention of Americans in America. To accomplish this, a number of us joined to introduce the bill we are considering today, the Due Process Guarantee Act. This picks up right where the Non-Detention Act of 1971 leaves off. It amends that Act to provide clearly that no military authorization will allow for the indefinite detention of United States citizens or green card holders who are apprehended inside the United States. It does not change current law for terrorist detainees captured outside the United States.
42:44 Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA):
As I understand it, under the Supreme Court precedent of Yick Wo v. Hopkins in 1886 and other cases, individuals residing in the United States, both legally and illegally, have the same due process protections as citizens under the Constitution. Therefore, some argue that this legislation should provide coterminous protection to all persons in the United States whether lawfully or unlawfully present. But, candidly, the question is whether we can pass such a bill to cover others besides United States citizens and green card holders. If there would be, I am all for it.
44:00 Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA):
The criminal justice system has at least the following four options at its disposal to detain suspected terrorists who may be in the United States legally: one, they can be charged with a crime and held; two, they can be held for violating immigration laws; three, they can be held as material witnesses as part of Federal grand jury proceedings; and, four, they can be held under the PATRIOT Act for 6 months at a time.
44:30 Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA):
As we know, the Bush administration tried to expand the circumstances under which United States citizens could be held in indefinite detention. United States citizen Jose Padilla was detained without charge in a military prison for 3 years, even though he was arrested inside the United States. Amid considerable controversy regarding the legality of his detention, Padilla was ultimately transferred out of military custody and tried and convicted in a civilian Federal court.
53:50 Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA):
Before and after the passage of the Defense Authorization Act, there was concern among Members of Congress and people from all walks of life, including the military, the law enforcement community, and others, that the language in the bill left open the possibility that U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents could be indefinitely detained without charge or trial.
54:40 Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA):
President Obama was so concerned with the language in the NDAA that he wrote a Presidential signing statement about the detainee provisions, stating, ‘‘I want to clarify that my administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My administration will interpret Section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of wars, and other applicable laws.’’
55:20 Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA):
While I take President Obama at his word, subsequent administrations will not be bound by this signing statement.
1:06:50 Lorraine Bannai: Seventy years ago this month, President Roosevelt issued the military a blank check, delegating to it the authority to take whatever actions it wished against whomever it saw fit. Orders were issued subjecting Japanese Americans to curfew and then removal. In Hirabayashi v. United States and Korematsu v. United States, the Supreme Court upheld those orders, deferring to the military judgment that they were necessary. Forty years later, Fred Korematsu and Gordon Hirabayashi were exonerated on proof that the Government had withheld from the court material evidence bearing on the issue of military necessity. In essence, even as the military orders lacked factual basis, Japanese Americans languished in camps, many for over 3 years.
Senate Session
December 1, 2011
Clips
1:56:40 Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC):
I would argue that the homeland is part of the battlefield, and we should protect the homeland above anything else.
1:57:25 Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC):
I am just saying, to any American citizen: If you want to help al-Qaida, you do so at your own peril. You can get killed in the process. You can get detained indefinitely. When you are being questioned by the CIA, the FBI or the Department of Defense about where you trained and what you did and what you know and you say to the interrogator: I want my lawyer, the interrogator will say: You don’t have a right to a lawyer because you are a military threat.
Senate Session, Part 1
November 29, 2011
Clips
49:00 Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY):
Material assistance includes virtually anything of value: legal, political advice, education, books, newspapers, lodging, or otherwise. The Supreme Court sustained the constitutionality of this sweeping prohibition. We have laws on the books that can prosecute terrorists before they commit acts of terrorism. Al-Qaida adherents may be detained, prosecuted, and convicted for conspiring to violate the material assistance prohibition. In fact, we have already done this. Jose Padilla, for instance, was convicted and sentenced to 17 years in prison for conspiring to provide material assistance to al-Qaida.
52:40 Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY):
9/11 did not succeed because we granted terrorists due process. In fact, 9/11 did not succeed because al-Qaida was so formidable but because of human error. The Defense Department withheld intelligence from the FBI. No warrants were denied. The warrants were not even requested. The FBI failed to act on repeated pleas from its field agents who were in possession of a laptop that may well have had information that may well have prevented 9/11. But no judge ever turned down a warrant.
Our criminal system did not fail. No one ever asked for a warrant to look at Moussaoui’s computer in August, a month before 9/11. These are not failures of our law. These are not failures of our Constitution. These are not reasons we should scrap our Constitution and simply send people accused of terrorism to Guantanamo Bay—American citizens. These are failures of imperfect men and women in bloated bureaucracies. No amount of liberty sacrificed at the altar of the state will ever change that.
54:50 Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY):
Finally, the detainee provisions of the Defense authorization bill do another grave harm to freedom. They imply perpetual war for the first time in the history of the United States. No benchmarks are established that would ever terminate the conflict with al-Qaida, the Taliban, or other foreign terrorist organizations. In fact, this bill explicitly says that no part of this bill is to imply any restriction on the authorization of force.
When will the wars ever end? When will these provisions end? No congressional view is allowed or imagined. No victory is defined. No peace is possible if victory is made impossible by definition.
Senate Session, Part 2
November 29, 2011
Clips
1:55:00 Sen. Al Franken (D-MN):
In the weeks following September 11, the Justice Department made extraordinary use of its powers to arrest and detain individuals. We arrested hundreds of people for alleged immigration violations and dozens more under a material witness statute. None of these individuals were charged with a crime. All of this happened without the military detention scheme envisioned in this bill. This was also a mistake and one that should not be repeated.
How the Administration’s Failed Detainee Policies Have Hurt the Fight Against Terrorism: Putting the Fight Against Terrorism on Sound Legal Foundations
Senate Judiciary Committee
July 16, 2008
Witnesses:
- Kate Martin, Director, Center for National Security Studies
- David B. Rivkin, Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP
- Will Gunn (Retired), United States Air Force
Clips
8:49 Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA):
The issues arising out of Guantanamo I fear are going to be with the United States for a long time.
21:06 Will Gunn:
One of the things that happened in the early days was that the administration President made a determination that all of the individuals that were captured in Afghanistan as well as throughout the global war on terrorism were unlawful enemy combatants. Therefore, they were not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions.
21:27 Will Gunn:
Another decision was made that Article 5 tribunals, as called for under the Geneva Conventions, would not be conducted.
22:24 Will Gunn:
The system did not have a military judge, it did not allow for any type of independent judicial review, and there were other problems as well. Since then, the Military Commissions Act has been passed, and some of these problems have been corrected, but others remain.
27:14 Kate Martin:
I think that the individuals who crafted that policy in secret, without consultation with the Congress, viewed the constitutional system of checks and balances and the rule of law as an obstacle to the United States’ ability to defend itself.
27:53 Kate Martin:
Underlying all the claims, underlying all the detention actions, which this Committee is well aware of, the detentions and seizures in Afghanistan without following the standard rules of war requiring Article 5 hearings, underlying the seizures and kidnapping of individuals from the streets of Europe with no due process to be transported to secret prisons and abused, and underlying the claims that the President has the authority to seize U.S. citizens and anyone else in the United States and hold them secretly for years without access to any kind of process is the claim that because we are at war, those actions are permitted and necessary.
49:03 Kate Martin:
I think that both the U.S. citizen and the legal resident of the United States who were seized and held incommunicado for a number of years as enemy combatants were not given the due process that is required by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the Constitution, and–
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ):
The statement was that we enjoy the most–that detainees held by the United States enjoy more protections than those granted by any other country, and you disagreed. I am just wondering, OK, where is their greater protection than what the United States has provided?
Kate Martin:
The countries of Europe, when they prosecute people for crimes who are alleged to be in the same position as many of these detainees–I think that the problem, Senator, respectfully, is that many of the detainees are not enemy combatants. And so it doesn’t answer the question to say do they have the same process as prisoners of war. That is one question. But they are not being held as prisoners of war–
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ):
Let me–
Kate Martin:
–and they are not–you know, they are criminals, not POWs.
1:10:46 Kate Martin:
And I think if you look at the reason why the Supreme Court, a conservative Supreme Court, rebuffed the government and restored the habeas rights, is because Guantanamo was set up to be a place beyond the reach of law. It was not set up as a POW camp. It was not set up as a camp for prisoners held as combatants under the traditional laws of war. It was set up as a place where the administration could warehouse people subject to no law, and the Supreme Court said that since the Magna Carta, the president may not pick up anybody he chooses anywhere in the world and hold them indefinitely without any court looking at the legality of the detention.
1:11:47 David Rivkin:
First of all, it’s a canard that the reason Guantanamo was chosen was solely because of what was believed at the time quite reasonably a lack of Article Three Court jurisdiction. The key reason Guantanamo was chosen is because it solves the NIMBY problem. Because it’s dangerous, I don’t think anybody would disagree, to hold several hundred enemy combatants. Remember, over history with the IRA trying to liberate their colleagues. And as a matter of fact, don’t take my word for it. Last time I checked, there was a vote last year in the Senate, 94-3, against moving any detainees here.
1:14:27 David Rivkin:
A number of people will be held not to be enemy combatants. I stipulate that, everybody agrees with that. Because of of restrictions on transferring people to deferred countries where they might be mistreated, we cannot find home for them. And under immigration laws and the teaching of Zadvydas [v. Davis], you basically can hold people for six months. So in not too distant future, Mr. Chairman, we’re going to face a spectacle, unless you change the law, of giving some kind of a parole or asylum in the United States to a bunch of people who are not necessarily innocent shepherds and aid workers.
1:29:57 David Rivkin:
Let the habeas process work its way. A number of people would be determined not to be enemy combatants, at least the government have failed to do that. You need to decide if you want to change immigration law to enable the U.S. to hold them in immigration custody or not. That’s your decision.
1:30:34 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI):
Just for the record, maybe you can fill me in if it’s not correct. I’m not aware of a single human being who’s ever escaped from a federal correctional institution ever.
David Rivkin:
It’s not so much escape, Senator Whitehouse, with all due respect. It is a very real possibility that it would be a very unsuccessful but very bloody effort to rescue them, just like all the efforts to rescue IRA terrorists.
Coercive Interrogation Techniques: Do They Work, Are They Reliable, and What Did the FBI Know About Them?
Senate Judiciary Committee
June 10th, 2008
Clips
10:15 Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA):
Just a moment on the timeline. On October 1 (note: I believe she misspoke here, and she’s talking about memos that came out on August 1), 2002, the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel completed the so-called Yoo-Bybee memos, providing a legal justification for coercive interrogation techniques and torture. On September 25th and 26th, just about a month later, month and a half, DoD General Counsel Haines, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, and Vice Presidential Counsel David Addington visited Guantanamo and witnessed detainee interrogations. On November 23, 2002, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld verbally authorized harsh interrogations of Mohammed El Khatani, a high-value detainee at Guantanamo. On November 27, 2002, Haines recommended that Secretary Rumsfeld formally authorize coercive interrogation techniques at Guantanamo. On December 2, 2002, Secretary Rumsfeld approved in writing the coercive interrogations at Guantanamo.
15:41 Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA):
My sense is that decades from now, historians will look back upon this period in our history for the very vast increase of executive power.
Detention at Guantanamo Bay
May 20, 2008
House Foreign Affairs Committee
Witnesses:
- Baher Azmy, Professor, Seton Hall Law School
- Glenn M. Sulmasy, National Security and Human Rights Fellow, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
- Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham, Fink and Abraham, LLP (Retired Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army, Reserve
Clips
14:30 Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA):
I don’t believe many of the charges that have been leveled at Guantanamo. I don’t believe them.
53:50 Glenn Sulmasy:
The Supreme Court also became involved in Hamdi and Rasul, creating minor adjustments, until the Hamdan case came along in 2006, which declared military commissions unlawful as presently constructed. Congress did react and, in bipartisan fashion, enacted the Military Commissions Act in October 2006, just 4 months after the decision by the Supreme Court in Hamdan. The MCA addressed the two major concerns by the Court: One, that Congress must approve the military commissions; and second, that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions must apply. It is under this legislation, the MCA, that the commissions currently are operating.
The clip of Murat Kurnaz’s testimony played in the show was edited for length. View the full video or transcript.
1:13:00 Murat Kurnaz:
In 2000, when I was about 18 years old, I became more and more interested in Islam, but not in any political sense.
…
I wanted to learn to read the Koran in Arabic and to pray.
…
I made contact in Bremen with the Muslim missionary group called Jama’at al Tablighi. My impression was that this was a peaceful and not political group which spread the message of Islam in a peaceful way.
…
They suggested that I go to Pakistan. It is cheap and they have many of their schools and their teachers there.
…
Despite the terrorist attack of 9/11, I was not worried about traveling to Pakistan in October 2001.
…
I never went to Afghanistan and I never met with anyone from al-Qaeda or the Taliban. I also never came in touch with any weapons and I never committed any crime. I had a return ticket to Germany to rejoin my family and live there. On my way back to Germany, I was arrested by Pakistani police. I was traveling on a bus with many other civilian passengers. The police stopped the bus and removed me.
…
After few days, I was handed over to the border to U.S. forces. I was soon transferred to the United States Military base in Kandahar, Afghanistan and then later to Guantanamo. I was later told by a U.S. interrogator that the U.S. paid $3,000 bond for me. In the American prison camp in Kandahar, I was shocked by the awful treatment prisoners received. I had very high impression of Americans all my life. So I couldn’t believe Americans will do these kinds of things. It was wintertime and freezing cold. And I had just shorts and no blanket. I was beaten repeatedly. During interrogations my head was dunked under water to simulate drowning, and electroshocks were sent through my feet. At one point, I was chained and hung by my hands for a long time. During the time I hung in the air, a doctor sometimes checked if I was okay. Then I would be hung up again. The guards accused me of being affiliated with Mohammed Atta. They thought that because we are both from Germany and Muslims, we must have worked with him. This was ridiculous and without any basis in reality. But the hanging was punishment for not admitting this and coercion to try to force me to admit it. The pain from mistreatment was beyond belief. I know that others died from this kind of treatment. From Kandahar, I was transferred to Guantanamo and from Guantanamo the conditions and the treatment were barely fit for animals and certainly not for human beings. I was deprived of sleep and food for a long time, for long intervals. I was forced to being in solitary confinement for long periods of time for no reason and subjected to extreme cold and heat. I was subjected to religious and sexual humiliation. I was beaten multiple times. The guards forced me to accept medication that I did not want.
…
From 2002 until my lawyer visited in 2004 in Guantanamo, I had no idea anyone even knew Guantanamo existed or that I was alive.
…
I also now know that both the United States Government and the German Government knew I was innocent as early as 2002.
…
Even though I was innocent, and even though both governments knew I was innocent,
I spent almost 5 years in American prison camps.
2:01:30 Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY):
When you were released, they asked you to sign documents admitting guilt?
Murat Kurnaz: Yes. Shortly before they brought me to the plane, they brought me in a room and brought me those same papers and told me if I am going to sign I will leave that place, and if not I will stay for the rest of my life over there.
2:13:00 Baher Azmy:
Under the enemy combatant definition used as part of the CSRT (Combatant Status Review Tribunals), mere support is enough. There need not be knowledge, there need not be materiality, and there need not be intent. And you don’t have to believe me, the government conceded as much in part of this litigation when they conceded that hypothetical example involving a little old lady from Switzerland.
Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA):
The little old lady from Switzerland. Tell us, please, about the little old lady from Switzerland.
Baher Azmy:
Suppose she writes a check to what she believes is an Afghan charity that turns out to be a front for the Taliban or al-Qaeda. Could this person be an enemy combatant under the definition used in the CSRT? The government has said yes. Because there is no intent or knowledge requirement. Could this woman be taken to Guantanamo, Judge Green asks? The government says yes.
2:57:45 Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham:
At the opening session of the Nuremberg trials, Justice Jackson exclaimed, ‘‘We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow.’’ Mr. Chairman, what is the history by which history will judge us?
3:31:30 Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham:
But quite frankly, by my involvement in OARDEC (Office for the Administrative Review of the Detention of Enemy Combatants) for 6 months, I, no matter what anybody else has to say about it, put him there. I put him there because I was a member of an organization that allowed the process that was put in place to continue unabated, not only during the 6 months that I was there, but years later, a process that allowed, by simple justification of its own existence, to declare people to be reasonably, rationally and legally held without any evidence whatsoever. Madam Congresswoman, as far as I am concerned, if he dies without the truth of the nature of the claims against him being properly reviewed, that death is on my hands.
House Floor
September 14, 2001
Clips
Sen. Barbara Lee (D-CA):
I rise today with a heavy heart, one that is filled with sorrow for the families and loved ones who were killed and injured in New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. Only the most foolish or the most callous would not understand the grief that has gripped the American people and millions across the world. This unspeakable attack on the United States has forced me to rely on my moral compass, my conscience, and my God for direction. September 11 changed the world. Our deepest fears now haunt us. Yet I am convinced that military action will not prevent further acts of international terrorism against the United States. I know that this use-of-force resolution will pass although we all know that the President can wage a war even without this resolution. However difficult this vote may be, some of us must urge the use of restraint. There must be some of us who say, let’s step back for a moment and think through the implications of our actions today—let us more fully understand its consequences. We are not dealing with a conventional war. We cannot respond in a conventional manner. I do not want to see this spiral out of control. This crisis involves issues of national security, foreign policy, public safety, intelligence gathering, economics, and murder. Our response must be equally multi-faceted. We must not rush to judgment. Far too many innocent people have already died. Our country is in mourning. If we rush to launch a counter-attack, we run too great a risk that women, children, and other non-combatants will be caught in the crossfire. Nor can we let our justified anger over these outrageous acts by vicious murderers inflame prejudice against all Arab Americans, Muslims, Southeast Asians, or any other people because of their race, religion, or ethnicity. Finally, we must be careful not to embark on an open-ended war with neither an exit strategy nor a focused target. We cannot repeat past mistakes. In 1964, Congress gave President Lyndon Johnson the power to ‘‘take all necessary measures’’ to repel attacks and prevent further aggression. In so doing, this House abandoned its own constitutional responsibilities and launched our country into years of undeclared war in Vietnam. At that time, Senator Wayne Morse, one of two lonely votes against the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, declared, ‘‘I believe that history will record that we have made a grave mistake in subverting and circumventing the Constitution of the United States . . . . I believe that within the next century, future generations will look with dismay and great disappointment upon a Congress which is now about to make such a historic mistake.’’ Senator Morse was correct, and I fear we make the same mistake today. And I fear the consequences. I have agonized over this vote. But I came to grips with it in the very painful yet beautiful memorial service today at the National Cathedral. As a member of the clergy so eloquently said, ‘‘As we act, let us not become the evil that we deplore.’’
Music
Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito
