• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

This Single, 60-Word Sentence Started The ‘War On Terror’ — And Much More

RDS

RDS

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
5,398
Reaction score
1,323
Location
Singapore
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Those 60 words mean the US can attack most countries in the world. There are terror cells practically everywhere.

Within 72 hours of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, a White House lawyer had crafted the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).
That law, approved by Congress, gave President George W. Bush the power to start the Iraq War, and ostensibly, the entire War on Terror.
The bulk of the law’s reach boils down to one of the most powerful sentences ever written, only 60 words of the full law:
“That 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 act of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons.”
Click to expand...

This Single, 60-Word Sentence Started The 'War On Terror'
 
Beaudreaux said:
What's your point? I can't tell by your post, what your position is.
Click to expand...

Did you read the whole thing?

This is my point:

Congress voted to give the president this broad power to authorize force on Sept. 13, 2001, just two days after the attacks. California Rep. Barbara Lee, a Democrat, was the only person — out of both the House and Senate — to vote against it, despite its potentially broad implications.

“I said, ‘This is too broad. It’s not definitive.’ It was open-ended,” Lee told Radiolab. She wanted to show unity with the President but worried about the ambiguity of the AUMF.

Lee’s fears, regardless of political ideology, proved to be well-founded. The single sentence from the AUMF, quoted earlier, has given the U.S. government more powers than just retribution for 9/11.
Click to expand...
 
RDS said:
Did you read the whole thing?

This is my point:
Click to expand...

I read it. I was wanting you to put your opinion in your own words. That's what I do. When I know your personal opinion, I'll give you mine.

That's all I meant. I wasn't trying to be contrary.
 
Beaudreaux said:
I read it. I was wanting you to put your opinion in your own words. That's what I do. When I know your personal opinion, I'll give you mine.

That's all I meant. I wasn't trying to be contrary.
Click to expand...
You are pretty smart.
 
The "war on terror" started officially on Sept. 14, 2001 and will last for eternity. The part about those connected with the 9/11/2001 attack is semi-OK (one assumes that the target is Al Qaeda?) but the part about any future act of international terrorism against the US is nothing but open ended authority for the president to use military force for whatever preemptive attack they deem necessary to prevent future terror acts.

Note that acts of terror are not defined or even limitted to non-military targets.

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/033104.pdf

Can anyone define, precisely, what is considered to constitute having aided or harbored a terrorist and who, exactly, can make that determination? Did the flight schools in the US not aid the terrorists?
 
TeleKat said:
You're right, the US did start the war on terror.
Click to expand...

Yes, the US people are the real terrorists. AlQ, Hamas and the Taliban are good guys.
 
ecofarm said:
Yes, the US people are the real terrorists. AlQ, Hamas and the Taliban are good guys.
Click to expand...

Not everything is black and white, eco. In the real world there are grey areas. In this case it's "evil" versus "evil," not "good" versus "evil." The Taliban are brutal and immoral, but so is the US.
 
TeleKat said:
Not everything is black and white, eco. In the real world there are grey areas. In this case it's "evil" versus "evil," not "good" versus "evil." The Taliban are brutal and immoral, but so is the US.
Click to expand...

False equivalence.
 
That 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 act of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons.”

That should be interpreted to mean that only the 9/11 attack participants and arguably the Afghan Taliban government* can be attacked.

*The Afghan government offered to turn over Bin Laden and Al Qeda to an international body and should not have been attacked.
 
RDS said:
Did you read the whole thing?

This is my point:
Click to expand...

Barbara Lee was quite right, and history has proved that.

Just as Russ Feingold was the only Senator to vote against the illegitimate Unpatriot Act.

AUMF is pure sophistry and political nonsense. Article II already empowers the POTUS as Commander-in-Chief. He already had the power to send US troops into battle.

As FDR pointed out, POTUS has the power to wage war, but not the power to declare war.
 
Hard Truth said:
The Afghan government offered to turn over Bin Laden and Al Qeda to an international body and should not have been attacked.
Click to expand...

There was no reason that we should have allowed the Taliban to stay in power. The fact that they were a haven for bin Laden and al-Qaeda in the first place was proof enough that their very rule was a threat to our national security. In any case, the horrible regime's brutality justified an intervention even without factoring in 9/11.
 
The calls for a "war on terrorism" are undermined by the inconvenient fact that the United States is the most prolific perpetrator, and sponsor of terrorism, on earth.
 
MadLib said:
There was no reason that we should have allowed the Taliban to stay in power. The fact that they were a haven for bin Laden and al-Qaeda in the first place was proof enough that their very rule was a threat to our national security. In any case, the horrible regime's brutality justified an intervention even without factoring in 9/11.
Click to expand...

Do you ever wonder why Colin Powell hand-delivered a check to the Taliban for $40 some odd million dollars in April 2001? If they were such bad guys and anti-American?
 
Henry David said:
Do you ever wonder why Colin Powell hand-delivered a check to the Taliban for $40 some odd million dollars in April 2001? If they were such bad guys and anti-American?
Click to expand...

That's the first I've heard of this, but even if it were true it wouldn't matter. We had a weird love/hate relationship with the Taliban: we at first preferred their rule over the warlordism that existed previously, and we most likely did not want to alienate Pakistan (like today), but their grotesque rule and their open alliance with al-Qaeda prevented us from becoming too close. Obviously, if you believe (like me) that 9/11 was planned and staged from Afghanistan, then the Taliban's continued leadership becomes unacceptable.

Also, we were beginning to reach out to the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance shortly before 9/11. If the attacks didn't happen, I wouldn't be surprised if we would have begun to supply serious armaments and perhaps even air support to the rebels.
 
MadLib said:
That's the first I've heard of this, but even if it were true it wouldn't matter. We had a weird love/hate relationship with the Taliban: we at first preferred their rule over the warlordism that existed previously, and we most likely did not want to alienate Pakistan (like today), but their grotesque rule and their open alliance with al-Qaeda prevented us from becoming too close. Obviously, if you believe (like me) that 9/11 was planned and staged from Afghanistan, then the Taliban's continued leadership becomes unacceptable.

Also, we were beginning to reach out to the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance shortly before 9/11. If the attacks didn't happen, I wouldn't be surprised if we would have begun to supply serious armaments and perhaps even air support to the rebels.
Click to expand...

The Taliban's human rights record had literally nothing to do with the Bush administration's decision to overthrow them. The United States has supported regimes with far worse human rights records, and continues to do so.

Also, before the invasion, the Taliban, for all of their numerous faults, were being fairly cooperative.

The Pakistani government was much more supportive, and protective of Osama bin Laden than the Taliban. Should we try to overthrow their government?

Also, consider the precedent; the Chileans, the El Salvadorans, the Vietnamese, the Indonesians, and the Iraqis have far more legitimate greivances with the US than the US had with the Taliban, were they capable, should they be allowed to initiate a 'regime change', here, in the states?
 
Last edited:
NGNM85 said:
The Taliban's human rights record had literally nothing to do with the Bush administration's decision to overthrow them.
Click to expand...
Really? If al-Qaeda had coordinated 9/11 from a country with the human rights record of Norway, do you think we still would have invaded?

The United States has supported regimes with far worse human rights records, and continues to do so.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree that we have allied ourselves with terrible governments in the past, but the Taliban's in a league of its own. It's worse than North Korea, and the only comparable violators that I can think of who were Cold War allies were the Contras and the Khmer Rouge (sort of).
Also, before the invasion, the Taliban, for all of their numerous faults, were being fairly cooperative.
Click to expand...
They were trying to save their own asses, nothing more. Mullah Omar was a staunch ally of bin Laden; I find it unlikely that the Taliban's Afghanistan would become terrorist-free just because its leadership was trying to buy time.
The Pakistani government was much more supportive, and protective of Osama bin Laden than the Taliban. Should we try to overthrow their government?
Click to expand...
Overthrow, no. Undermine and circumvent, yes. Pakistan is a relatively stable nuclear state, and so it needs to be dealt with differently than a bunch of armed militants who couldn't ever take complete control.
Also, consider the precedent; the Chileans, the El Salvadorans, the Vietnamese, the Indonesians, and the Iraqis have far more legitimate greivances with the US than the US had with the Taliban, were they capable, should they be allowed to initiate a 'regime change', here, in the states?
Click to expand...

I'm never a fan of the tu quoque fan, but if we were a fanatic regime that served as a breeding ground for terrorists that continued to attack them, then they'd have every right to do to us what we did to the Taliban.
 
MadLib said:
That's the first I've heard of this, but even if it were true it wouldn't matter. We had a weird love/hate relationship with the Taliban: we at first preferred their rule over the warlordism that existed previously, and we most likely did not want to alienate Pakistan (like today), but their grotesque rule and their open alliance with al-Qaeda prevented us from becoming too close. Obviously, if you believe (like me) that 9/11 was planned and staged from Afghanistan, then the Taliban's continued leadership becomes unacceptable.

Also, we were beginning to reach out to the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance shortly before 9/11. If the attacks didn't happen, I wouldn't be surprised if we would have begun to supply serious armaments and perhaps even air support to the rebels.
Click to expand...

I thank you for a sincere and honest response, but yes--you and I do not share the same illusions, if you know what I mean.

The reason for Colin's delivering that check was to reward the Taliban government for their role in eliminating poppy cultivation in the country. They did that through strict application of Sharia Law, which probably included the cutting off of hands and such for transgressions. In any event, by the end of 2000 they had virtually eliminated the drug trade in Afghanistan.

The cynical amongst us say that the real reason for invading Afghanistan was to restore the black market trade in poppies and heroin that the Taliban had stopped, and that the CIA has dabbled in for centuries.

Sure enough, 2 or 3 years after our invasion, Afghan product was available again, in a big way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom