Seven days after the World Trade Center buildings came down we, as a nation, made a terrible mistake. We were scared, literally in shock after a week of mind-numbing visual bombardment from media uniquely efficacious compared with any other historical period. We all had seen the towers come down, again and again and again. And on September 18 we acted. We acted in fear, in folly, in shock. We, as a nation, in the form of our elected representatives in Congress passed the Joint Authorization for the Use of Military Force, best known simply as AUMF. In many ways this legislation gave substance to the then-new phrase, “War on Terror.”
Passage of AUMF was a mistake. It is time we fixed that mistake.
Understanding AUMF
On its face, AUMF is simply what it’s title suggests, a statement from Congress authorizing the President of the United States of America to use the military to track down and bring to justice the people who perpetrated the attacks of September 11, 2001. But the language of the bill speaks of preventing future acts of international terrorism, and also of using the military against
“…those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks…”(emphasis added.)
One could construe this in a fairly limited fashion, but the words don’t require such a limited view. Instead the words leave vast discretionary power to the President. And this President and his party have chosen to construe these words very broadly, so broadly that by some interpretations Congresswoman Barbara Lee’s brave act of voting against this bill would qualify her as someone against whom the President was authorized to use the powers granted by the bill.
And just what are the powers this administration claims are granted by AUMF? The Supreme Court recently ruled that, at most, AUMF granted the office of the President those powers associated with times of war, but the court also pointed out that even in times of war a President has limits on his or her power. Nonetheless this President continues to claim that he inherently has powers to hold prisoners without access to legal counsel, without charging them, without letting them hear the testimony against them, and that AUMF further ratifies any such exercise of executive authority. Such acts directly violate the laws of our Constitution and, in truth, create the same atmosphere of repression and authoritarianism that the perpetrators of the September 11, 2001 live under.
The Larger Problem
Why You Can’t “War” on “Terror”
Excerpted from Hypertext Webster Gateway:
War, n. 1. A contest between nations or states…armed conflict of sovereign powers. [1913 Webster]
Despite a modern trend to use the word for any conflict, such as “price wars” between competing retailers, or to end something injurious, such as the famous “war on poverty,” when the Constitution speaks of war it refers to “a contest between nations or states.” But the international criminals who perpetrated the crimes of September 11, 2001 use the word “war” in its rhetorical sense, despite not being a nation or a state or a sovereign power; this is in turn exploited by the current President and his administration to claim powers reserved in the Constitution for conficts between nations and to use them, allegedly, in service of bringing an end to something injurious. By the same reasoning Lyndon Johnson could have asked for the same powers in the “war” on poverty, which kills many more people than all the terrorists of all affiliation will ever kill.
Why Words Matter
By using the rhetoric of war this administration extended the scope of its power while at the same time stifling dissent. Because it is an unavoidable consequence that the words we use influence the conclusions we draw and the actions we take. If instead of pursuing a “war on terror” we were engaged in “bringing to justice” the perpetrators of the September 11, 2001 attacks then there would be no accepting the many abuses of power this administration has engaged in. But so long as you or I or the media or anyone else ratify the rhetoric we will continue to be assaulted by the implications of that rhetoric, and the rights which our Constitution deems inalienable will continue to be eroded.
What You Can Do
Help repeal-aumf.org. Contribute comments, email links to resources, write your representatives, spread the word to everyone you know who might be willing to read this site and participate in the conversation. One plain, clear answer to the questions of where to begin fixing all the things that have been broken under the current administration is “Repeal AUMF.”
What else can you do? Every time you have the opportunity, say the words “repeal AUMF” out loud, to anyone who will listen. Do not pick fights. Do not waste time arguing. Especially don’t debate with people obviously committed to the opportunistic policies the current administration has pursued under cover of this legislation. But any time you think your listener might possibly be able to come to their senses and recognize that we made a horrible mistake that desperately needs fixing, whenever you hear anyone lament about the assault on civil rights or the squandered international good-will the United States enjoyed on September 12, 2001 or any of the myriad other complaints voiced by right-thinking people of all political affiliation, simply say, “Repeal AUMF.”
signedRev. Robert Thomas “beau” Hayes Link