Radiolab - 60 Words, 20 Years

Episode Date: September 10, 2021

It has now been 20 years since September 11th, 2001. So we’re bringing you a Peabody Award-winning story from our archives about one sentence, written in the hours after the attacks, that has led to the longest war in U.S. history. We examine how just 60 words of legal language have blurred the line between war and peace. In the hours after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, a lawyer sat down in front of a computer and started writing a legal justification for taking action against those responsible. The language that he drafted and that President George W. Bush signed into law - called the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) -  has at its heart one single sentence, 60 words long. Over the last decade, those 60 words have become the legal foundation for the "war on terror." In this collaboration with BuzzFeed, reporter Gregory Johnsen tells us the story of how this has come to be one of the most important, confusing, troubling sentences of the last two decades. We go into the meetings that took place in the chaotic days just after 9/11, speak with Congresswoman Barbara Lee and former Congressman Ron Dellums about the vote on the AUMF. We hear from former White House and State Department lawyers John Bellinger & Harold Koh. We learn how this legal language unleashed Guantanamo, Navy Seal raids and drone strikes. And we speak with journalist Daniel Klaidman, legal expert Benjamin Wittes and Virginia Senator Tim Kaine about how these words came to be interpreted, and what they mean for the future of war and peace. Finally, we check back in with Congresswoman Lee, and talk to Yale law professor and national security expert Oona Hathaway, about how to move on from the original sixty words. Original episode produced by Matt Kielty and Kelsey Padgett with original music by Dylan Keefe. Update reported and produced by Sarah Qari and Soren Wheeler. Special thanks to Brian Finucane. Support Radiolab by becoming a member today at Radiolab.org/donate. 

Wait, you're listening to Radio Lab from WNYC. Hi, I'm Lula Miller. And I'm Lutthiff Nasser. This is Radio Lab and today we are imminently approaching the 20th anniversary of 9-Eleven. And as we've been watching over the last couple of weeks, the American withdrawal from the war in Afghanistan, which started shortly after those attacks, our producer Sara Kari came to us and suggested that we rerun

one of our old episodes. Oh yeah, I mean, I feel really strongly about this story. I, you know, it, I feel like 60 words as an episode like means a lot to me and like, and part of it is. The episode is called 60 words and it's about a set of actual words that were written down in the couple days after 9-11 that completely changed how and against whom the US can use military force. Now that show was actually released back in 2014 before Sarah was a producer here, so she heard it as a listener.

It just hit me so hard, and I think that was like a real moment for me where I was like, this is the kind of story that I want to be making because of my experience of 9-11 and what a big part of my childhood, it feels like it was like. And so how where were you when 9-11 happened? Like I was in the second grade and it was like literally like maybe day four or five of Islamic school, like my parents had enrolled my brother and I in this like full-time Islamic school in Jersey, which is basically, you know, like Catholic school,

but like instead of Catholicism part, it's all just like Islamic studies classes. And so that was like a totally new experience. I went from like being at a school where I was like, the only brown kid to like all of a sudden being like, in a school where I was the only brown kid to all of a sudden being in a class. I was almost slim kids, right? And I remember a TV getting wheeled into the classroom, seeing the twin towers on the TV, everything just being very hushed in class and everyone being very, very afraid.

And we got sent home like within a few hours. And then I remember being at home, asking my parents what was going on. Like, wait, but like how could these people be Muslim? Like we're Muslim. And then what happened was that especially because of being at an Islamic school, the narrative around me became, you have to now represent your religion to the rest of the world.

You have to show people what Muslims actually are and that narrative that... Don't embarrass the rest of us. Don't embarrass the rest of us or just show people that we're not that. So much pressure on a little kid on anyone. Yeah, exactly. That just became a constant part of my life over and over. And part of it was always hearing about some conflict or other. Like now the US is going to have gone to Sun. Now the US is fighting al Qaeda. Now the US is in Pakistan, killing a sob in

Latin. Like now the US is fighting ISIS. Like it was just this constant thing of the United States is now constantly present in these Muslim countries to fight terrorism. And when I first heard 60 words, it just felt like learning about the Genesis moment of it all. It just felt like learning about of it all, like it just felt like learning about the hidden thing that started the Forever War. That's why it just had such a huge impact on me and gave me a sense of like, this is the kind of thing I want to do as a journalist is like shed light on this kind of stuff. All right. So I guess should we just listen now and then you're going to give us some updates at the end. Yeah, totally.

Let's listen to the original. I guess we should also say that the producers who worked on it, Matt Kielty and Kelsey Pageet, you won't hear them in the episode, but they did amazing, amazing reporting and producing to make this happen. Yes, Kelsey, yes, Matt. Okay, great. Okay, Matt. Okay, great. Okay, ready? Hey, I'm Chad Abumarani.

I'm Robert Kroelich. And this is Radio Lab. Today we've got a story about the crazy power of words. In particular, 60 words. In no sense. That is, well, you could say, defined America for the last 12 years. And the place to start is a difficult one. This just in, you were looking at obviously a very disturbing life shot there. September 11th, 2001, 846 a.m.

A plane has crashed into the World Trade Center. We don't know anything more than that. We don't know it. This is a day that anyone who is old enough to remember does remember. We can remember where we were, who we were with. So you have no idea where the right hand is. I don't even know the one, another plane just hit. Right? Oh my gosh, another plane has just hit. And of course, we can remember how we felt. Tell me what you just saw. Oh, me.

You fell down. The spokesman. Oh my god! What happened? It is the worst attack ever on American soil. But... If you really want to understand the world we live in now, you've got to jump ahead one day to September 12th to a corner office in the White House where there's a lawyer sitting at a computer trying to figure out how are we going to declare war?

And one of the things that everybody realizes after sort of an initial discussion is yes, we'd like to declare war but we have no idea upon whom we should declare war. That is Gregory Johnson. The Michael Hastings National Security Reporting Fellow at Buzzfeed. Now, the reason this lawyer, man by the name of Timothy Flanagan, the reason Flanagan is sitting at a computer in an office is because then President George Bush had to do something, he had to act, and he didn't want to act alone. He wanted congressional approval. Right. I mean, technically in an emergency,

the president can defend the country. He is the commander-in-chief, after all. He doesn't have to go to Congress and say, hey, do I have authorization to use force? Not an emergency. That's Ben Wittis, by the way. Senior fellow in government studies at the Brookings Institution.

But President Bush needed Congress on his side, he felt. You know, it was important that we project unity, that we were all standing together as one. And second, if this was an act of war, the power to declare war in the Constitution is given to Congress, not to the executive. And when Congress declares war, suddenly the president has a very clear and powerful mandate.

Now, the Declaration of War is kind of a dead instrument of international law. I mean, nobody's declared war since World War II. But the modern incarnation of the Declaration of War is the authorization to use force. The authorization to use force, what's called the authorization for the use of military force, or as it's commonly referred to, the AUMF. Right, so our lawyer in the White House, Flanagan.

He's given a task, go write an AUMF that Congress can send to the president. He really has no idea, so he goes back to the last time that the US did this. Last time Congress passed one of these things. He does a quick sort of search on his computer. Boom, finds it, 1991, rack the Gulf War. Flanagan grabs the text.

And then he copies that into a word document, and that becomes his template. He makes some cuts, he makes some changes, he deletes some words, and then he hits sent. Our war on terror. A just war. And he sets in motion this bewildering series of events. By US drone striking, linked to al-Qaeda, in the war, bringing the troops home now. This madness that is basically the world we live in.

That's how the values of 15 members of a wedding procession were killed by US. And if you're like me. Bizarre even sadistic treatment. If you're like me and you find yourself flippin' through the channels, see the news, basically ignoring it, then every so often thinking, wait a second.

Terrorism targets in Africa. From Libya now, the US Air Force. We're drone strike in southern Somalia. Wait, wait, how are we doing this in all these different places? 100 presenters are on a hunger strike. And like that. And protest of their indefinite detention. How are we detaining people for so long?

You mean, is it okay to do that? We're just who signed off on this? Yeah. You know, and it turns out we all did because it was in that document. This is the legal foundation for everything that the US has done, everything from Guantanamo Bay to drone strikes, to secret renditions, to seal rates.

It's all been hung off these 60 words. And that's the crazy part, the body body of this document the part that really matters And the reason that when I was reading Gregory's reporting on this I was like what? Is it it all goes back to one single sentence 60 words one sentence? Can you read it? Absolutely 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 persons in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism

against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons. 60 words. Today, a collaboration with Buzzfeed. And with reporter Gregory Johnson. We're going to try to decode those words. And ask, where do those words come from? And how could they come to mean what they mean? Which is not what you think they mean.

And how did they end up leading us into what is arguably the longest war in American history? Nobody saw it coming, absolutely no, but that's the weirdest part. Well, nobody minus one. Let's start there. Maybe you should introduce us to Barbara Lee. Right, Barbara Lee is a congresswoman from right around Berkeley, California. Here we are on the other side.

Hello. Hello, hello. Hi, it's Barbara. And she is someone who has been in many ways a lifelong activist. Going all the way back to when she was 15 and high school in San Fernando Valley. Because I wanted to be a cheerleader. But you know, since this was the early 60s.

You had to have certain criteria like, at least whether it was stated or not, blonde and blue eyes. That would have been hard for you, I would figure. Yeah, that was really hard. So I went to the NAACP. She got them to pressure the school to change the rules. And I won. And she became the first black cheerleader at her high school. Yeah, yeah. That's just by way of introduction.

Fast forward many years, she becomes a congresswoman. She gets elected to a second term. And on that day, there is smoke pouring out of the Pentagon. She was at the Capitol. No one knew where to go. So the police office just said run run run go go go. This was an apparent terrorist attack on our country. So I ran out of the Capitol down Pennsylvania Avenue. I remember looking back and saw a lot of smoke which was you know

the Pentagon. You know clearly the country's under attack. Clearly, people have died. Clearly, we've got to deal with whoever did this. Whatever it takes. Fests forward two days, September 13th, Barberlees back at the Capitol to meet with her democratic colleagues to review that document that Flanagan had sent over. The mood in the room was very somber and very angry. The thing we have to keep in mind when we're talking about this is all of this was done within 72 hours after the worst terrorist attack in the United States history. And very confused. What would be the appropriate response?

So as she and her colleagues read those 60 words, there was a lot of debate going on back and forth. Oh yes, oh yes, from everyone. Because this actually wasn't the first draft, Flanagan had sent one over the night before. September 12, 2001, and that one was something that almost no one agreed to. According to Gregory, that early draft had a few extra lines in it. One gave the president the power to preempt any future acts of aggression against the United States. And Barberley and her colleagues knew that, look, so many things can be packed into this word aggression.

That if we sign on to this, that if we give the president this power, the president may never have to come back to Congress ever again and request authorization for military force, because he can say that anything is aggression and we're also giving him the power to preempt. So they kicked it back to the White House, Flanagan took out those words. And now they have this new draft. That the president is authorized

to use all necessary and appropriate force. Which is what you heard. But still when Barbara read that and saw phrases like all necessary and appropriate force, you thought, what does that even mean? I said this is too broad, it's not definitive, it's open ended. And as she was speaking, this is taking place

in the basement of the Capitol building. She sees some of her democratic colleagues start to nod. Yeah, people were nodding, people were nodding. Because everybody there knew the danger of ill-defined words. You just had to go back 50 years. To the Gulf of Tonkin. to the Gulf of Tonkin. Yep. Gulf of Tonkin.

In Tonkin. Tonkin, with an N. Yes. To explain. My fellow American, as President and Commander-in-Chief. 1964, LBJ announces that two American ships, two US destroyers, parked in the Gulf of Tonkin off the coast of Vietnam, were torpedoed by North Vietnamese boats.

Many people now argue that one of these attacks never even happened. Nonetheless, President Johnson wanted to strike back, so he asked Congress, which they did, giving him the power to quote, take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression. Making it clear that our government is united in its determination to take all necessary measures in support of freedom and in defense of peace in Southeast Asia. Now, it is the broad language of that document, most people believe, that opened the door

to the worst part of the Vietnam War. The rangers and marines took casualties mostly from hidden snipers. The thousands and thousands of casualties you see dropping in, there's not you can do. Arific atrocities. Chargers have been made that troops killed as many as 567 South Vietnamese civilians during a sweep in March 1968.

And in a television interview in 1969 when President Johnson was asked to justify it all, he said you can't just blame him. Congress gave us this authority in August 1964. To do whatever may be necessary, that's pretty far reaching. That's the sky of the limit. So the lessons of Gulf of Tangan and Vietnam, that was very much in the air, in that meeting on September 13th, 2001.

Several key leaders hoped to avoid a repeat of the 1964 Tonkin Gulf Resolution. So it was understandable that when Barbara Lee stood up and said to her colleagues, she was worried about some of this language. People were nodding. People were nodding. So there was a lot of uncertainty about what to do.

But in the end, those concerns were ultimately outweighed by another desire. We've got to be unified with the president. We can't show political divisions. Let's have the nation. Let's have Congress speaking with one voice. It was a time for unity and for action And so walking out of that democratic caucus meeting on the evening of September 13th congressional leadership decided that these 60 words This is the version. There's no going back to the drawing board and so

At 10 16 a.m. September 14th 2001 Senate will come to order the Senate is gabbled into session clerk will call the roll in one. The Senate is gabbled into session. The clerk will call the roll. DASHAL calls a vote. Mr. Akaka. Mr. Allard. Mr. Allen. There are 98 senators on the floor. Mr. Durban. Mr. Vonevich. All 98 of them vote. Yay.

No senator voted in the negative. So was a sweep. Yeah. Later in the day of the resolution would go to the house where Barber Lee was a representative. Dashiell had actually rushed the vote through the Senate because the White House is called for a national prayer meeting at the National Cathedral for the victims of 9-11. That's supposed to start right at noon. And so right after the vote, all the senators pour out of the Capitol and get onto the buses, I'm trying to get through the drizzle. It was actually raining that day. No, at that moment, Barbara Lee,

she hadn't decided how it is that she was going to vote. I struggled with it. For the previous two nights, September 12th and 13th, she'd stayed up late, calling back to advisors to friends in California. We talked every day. Including this guy. This is Ron Delums. I served for over 27 years in the US House of Representatives. Barbara used to be his chief of staff and when he resigned, she won his congressional seat.

You know, she would say, well, what about this and what do you think about that? And we kind of talked through the emotional state of the country that we are feeling pain, anger, we're shocked. Both Barbara and Ron were trained as psychiatric social workers, so they both knew that when a person is feeling all of those things, it's generally better to do nothing. Yes, psychology 101, you don't make decisions when you're mourning, afraid. On the other hand. I believe, you know, in unity too.

I want to be unified with the president when the country is under attack. I understood. He didn't tell me, he didn't say which way I should vote. But I did say to her, Barbara, however you vote, I will always respect you, you will always be friend, you will always be family. So at that moment, with the memorial service about to start in a few hours till the house vote, Barbara Lee was at the Capitol. I was in the cloakroom.

And since she wasn't sure how she was going to vote, she planned to skip the memorial service. She wanted to stay, she wanted to think. And then, I don't know what it was. It may have been the spirit moving me. I don't know, but it's the very last minute. She was drinking actually a can of ginger ale at the time. I say, I think I'm going to go. And I just ran out.

I probably was the last one on the bus. I had the can of ginger ale in my hand and ran down the steps and got on the bus. She got to the cathedral, the house bus has arrived about 30 minutes or so before the opening. And so for 30 minutes, she's in the cathedral about halfway back listening to the organ. Thinking about the families and those who were killed. There are people around her who are sort of whispering the pain and anguish, the few people who are crying.

Well, I said, I got a prayer over this and she's just wrestling with her vote. Her heart is saying one thing, this is too broad, and her head is saying unity. How is it that you can be against the President at this point? Speaking of the President, eventually President Bush takes the podium. We are here in the middle hour of our grief. Just three days removed from these events, Americans do not yet have the distance of history, but our responsibility to history is already clear to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil. And then as soon as President Bush steps down, everyone in the congregation stands up.

And they sing the battle hymn of the Republic. Which is a very powerful, a very moving piece of music. But it's not the sort of thing that is typically sung at a memorial service. powerful, a very moving piece of music. But it's not the sort of thing that is typically sung at a memorial service. It's a very forward and almost aggressive sounding. That's the phrase terrible swift sword. Yeah. Oh my God, it was not quite what I expected in a memorial service. But the second speaker. A reverend by the name of Nathan Baxter,

got up and he gave a reading from Jeremiah 31. When ancient Israel suffered the excruciating pain and tragedy of militant aggression and destruction, hearing that all over again takes me right back there. And I remember a voice is heard in Rema. I'm meant to be. I'm better weeping. Rachel weeping for her children. For her children.

When he spoke, that's when to me it was a memorial. And then he started to pray. For the healing of our grief-stricken hearts, for the souls and sacred memory of those who have been lost. And he said something that really struck Barber Leigh. Let us also pray for divine wisdom. He said, as we act, we not become the evil we deplore. That evil that we deplore.

When he said that, I became very, it was the sense of peace and calm came over me. And Barbara Lee says it was right then that she knew what she'd do. The clerk will report the title. House Joint Resolution 64, Joint Resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed. Later that evening, the House opens up its debate on the AUMF. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, which authorizes the President to use all force necessary... In Congressperson after Congressperson. Mr. Speaker, stands up. I rise in support of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to fully endorse and authorize the use of force. One after another. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the authorization. I rise today in support of this resolution. We will rally behind our President. Sixteen in a row, until... ...Jell Womb from California is recognized for a minute and a half. We get to Barberley.

Mr. Speaker, members, I rise today really with a very heavy heart. One that is filled with sorrow for the families and the loved ones who were killed and injured this week. Only the most foolish and the most chaos would not understand the grief that has really gripped our people and millions across the world. Now I have agonized over this vote, but I came to grips with it today and I came to grips

with opposing this resolution during the very painful yet very beautiful memorial service. As a member of the clergy so eloquently said, as we act, let us not become the evil that we deplore. Just after the vote Barbara Lee says she was in the cloakroom again, and she starts getting accosted by colleagues. All of these friends are coming up to her and saying, you've got to go back, you cannot vote this way. That's not changing my vote.

One of them actually said to her, look, you've done so much on HIV, you've done so much on AIDS, this vote is going to take you out. Think of the bigger picture they're saying you're dead yet but that's the right vote i'm not going to give any president the authority to go to war we don't know what we're doing you know the only congress can declare war help me on this guys uh... has the house vote okay house is just now finished that vote

and uh... we see one no vote during the final vote for the House was 420 to one. We know it's a Democrat we don't yet know who we'll figure that out. Barbara Lee was the only person in the Senate or the House to cast a no vote. That must have been a very lonely moment. To be perfectly honest with you, I said some prayers for my friend. This was the right thing to do. And, you know, votes like this, you have to be ready to pay the consequences. Over the next few weeks and months, her office was inundated with letters.

Farbroughly, you are a traitor and a disgrace to the office that you hold. You can find all these letters archived at Mills College. You are a blade on American society, the terrorist yourself. So much hatred. I don't know why you decided to place yourself into the camp of terrorists. Those attacks came and they came and they came. Subject headline. What's your ****?

Death threats. Now off to hell with you. You've been addicted to Arnold wannabeans. The tax came and they came and they came. Subject headline. What's your ****? Death threats. Now off to hell with you. You've been addicted to Arnold wannabeans. So I had to have security day and night. Up yours. Thanks for supporting the child and hey, hand away properly.

What are you? What do you believe in? If you go to Mills College in Oakland and we send a reporter there, you will find 60,000 letters. They're not all negatives, but most are. But Congressman Lee says she never faltered because right after the vote, she was in her office.

My dad called me, Lieutenant Colonel retired in the Army. He said, I'm really proud of you. You know, my dad had been in Korea and World War II. And he sees it the way I see it, because I really wasn't sure what he was saying, because you know, I really wasn't sure what he was saying because you know I really wasn't sure. She thought, alright. Daddy's proud of me. Now we should note that Barre Lee is still a congresswoman,

she did not pay the price for that no vote. And whatever you think of her vote, whether you think it was the right thing to do, or the wrong thing to do, what is interesting to me is that as we're sitting here looking back on 12 years of war, she was sitting there 12 years ago looking forward. And maybe she saw something about how this would play out, about how these words, these 60 words would start to grow and expand. That's next. This is Gregory Johnson.

My name is Benjamin Widis. Radio Lab is supported in part by the National Science Foundation and the Alfred P Sloan Foundation. In enhancing public understanding of science and technology in the modern world, more information about Sloan and www.Sloan.org. And this message. Hey, I'm Chad Abumrod. I'm Robert Crowich. This is Radio Lab and today 60 words. This is a collaboration with Buzzfeed and reporter Gregory Johnson. The story is based on an article that Gregory wrote

about the 60 simple words that have really defined American counterterrorism for more than a decade. It's called the authorization for use of military force that's shortened to AUMF, and it was passed by Congress three days after September 11th. Here it is again read by Senator John McCain. 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 11th 2001 or Harvard such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations organizations All right, so why would we be looking at that boring ass sentence? He seems even was almost bored of saying it. Yeah, he does Can I just be honest with you boring ass sentence. He seems even was almost bored of saying it. Yeah, he does. Can I just be honest with you for a second?

Yeah. I generally move through the world with the assumption, which has been proven over and over again to be true, that I don't know how the world works. Like somehow I miss that day in school or something. Are you referring to something in specific? No, I'm free to a general sense that somehow, like, Oz is out there behind the curtain,

pulling the levers, and I'm just always gonna be stuck on this side, you know? Yeah. I think it's what motivates the show for me, is that, like, I feel kind of stupid most of the time, and these shows are a way to engage the world and really examine the world. Right, exactly.

And when it comes to these matters of national security, I really feel clueless. And so when I read Gregory's article, I felt like I understood something crucial for the first time, but the way words actually operate in the world. Because like again, this sentence, this totally boring sentence, this is the legal foundation for everything that the US has done, everything from Guantanamo Bay to drone strikes, to secret renditions, to seal rates. It's all been hung off these 60 words. One lawyer who was in the Bush administration said, look, this sentence is like a Christmas tree.

All sorts of things have been hung off of this. But how? How? Like, because you read the thing and you don't see any mention of Guantanamo Bay in those 60 words. It doesn't mention detention. It doesn't mention drone strikes. It doesn't mention drone strikes against American citizens.

Okay, so that guy, this is one of the first folks we call to help us decode this. That's John Belinger. I served as the legal advisor for the National Security Council from 2001 to 2005, and as the legal advisor for the Department of State from 2005 to 2009. You can't do any speed dating with a credential like that because the date will be over. That's my congressional testimony, voice.

We often like, so the detention isn't anywhere in this document. So how do you read detention from these 60 words? The argument with which I am comfortable as a legal matter is this. He says, if you go eight words into those 60 words and you get to the phrase, all necessary and appropriate force. All necessary appropriate force. You got to ask yourself, what is force? What does that mean? What do you, you know what force is?

I punch you in the face. That's amusing force. That's one kind of force. You can use force to kill people, but a lesser use of force is to detain them. Detention is simply lesser included in the use of force that comes naturally in a military operation. It's like a subset of force, basically. So if you're authorized to use force to kill people, you are also by default authorized to use force to detain them. Essentially to knock them out of the battle in other ways. And that that force is both necessary and it's appropriate. And the courts have upheld that. So that one word force, that is how you justify Guantanamo Bay.

A la Condeversi surrounding Guantanamo Bay continues. The authorization to use Military Force Act has... What happens at Military Commission's Office? ...have been the legal basis for the detention of thousands of individuals. Now many of them have been detained for more than 10 years. None have been changed. And the words detention are never mentioned. Okay, so that's detention.

Now if it gets even trickier if you go just a few words past, all necessary and appropriate force, to what? You get to the mention of the enemy, who the force is supposed to be used against, right? And it seems to be very limited language. You mean, maybe we can't shoot everybody or anybody? No, only the people who planned, authorized, committed,

or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on september eleven two thousand one harbored and that sounds much more sounds very much tethered to nine eleven yeah which is why a lot of congressmen and women voted for it Joe Biden on the day of the vote september uh... fourteen two thousand one he says look people don't freak out about this language it's relates relates to the incident, and there's broad authority relating the incident. It does not relate to all terrorism every place. Because we're just talking about Al-Qaeda who did this

and the Taliban who have harbored them, right? No. Not necessarily. Gregory Johnson again. Over time, what's happened is there's been this other sort of catch-all category that has been read into these 60 words, even though it appears nowhere in these 60 words. And that catch-all category is associated forces.

Associated forces. Yeah. What we've been calling these 61st and 62nd words. What's the meaning of this? We'll see. And if you define the enemy as al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces, it's a whole different ballgame. Yeah.

So when you read all those words, it did not include the phrase. But associated forces is nowhere in the text. So where does it put it? So then why could people cite something that isn't in the text? Yeah, this is one of the enduring mysteries of this. So the earliest example that we could find of those two words is in a 2004 memo from Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. He defines the enemy as Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces. But the truth is it may have just been there

from the beginning. What do you mean? Because according to Ben Wittis from the Brookings Institution, there is a concept in the laws of war called co-belligerency. It's the idea that if you're at war with Person A and Person B is on Person A is side in the war. You're also legally at war with Person B. Makes perfect sense if you think of it in traditional war terms, because like we're at war with Germany, Italy joins their side, so by default, we're at war with Italy B. Makes perfect sense if you think of it in traditional war terms because like we're at war with Germany, Italy joins their side so by default we're at war with Italy too. Right. So just transpose that here. If we're at war with this group called Elkaita and a certain

set of groups that aren't them, join the war on Elkaita's side, then you are legally at war with them. If you don't think about that too hard, it is crystal clear. But then the question that it has arisen over time is how broad do you make that circle? Because the problem, obviously, is that we're not talking about nation-states anymore. We're talking about groups. So, okay. How close does the link to al-Qaeda and the people who carried out September 11th have to be? So, if you have someone who's connected to someone

who's connected to someone who's connected to someone who is connected to September 11th, is that enough or is it only three links? Or can you be an associate and an associate? Now we can't exactly know how broadly the Obama and Bush administrations have defined those words. We'll talk about why in a second.

But you just have to look at the news. Right. And you could see that we started with a war that was in Afghanistan, and then it spread to a lot of different places. Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen. Yeah, and in Yemen, there's a lot of debate and a lot of discussion. But is this legal? Does this have anything to do with September 11th anymore? Because now the group in Yemen,

Al Qaeda and the Arabian Peninsula, which is a group that was first formed in 2009, they have their own hierarchy and their own structure, and it's not clear how, in what fashion, they take orders from either Osama bin Laden, while he was still alive, or now I am in al-Qaeda. So does this make them an associated force or does it make them part of Al-Qaeda? The answer, at least on. Good morning everyone, it is Friday,

September 30th, 2011, market down on your calendar. September 30th, 2011, seemed to be yes when the US assassinated two members of the group. This is not confirmed yet, but it could very well have been a US predator drone strike that is a US government attack. and to put all this in context between 2002 and 2014 according to some estimates There've been about 65 drone strikes in Yemen

killing about 400 people And so much hinges on how you define those words so much is in the definition I asked the Pentagon. I said, who, what are the list of associated forces? So al-Qaeda, yes, the US is a war that's clear. What about the other groups? El Shabab, al-Qaeda in Iraq, al-Qaeda in the Islamic Magrab, armed Islamic group Abu Sayyaf, Jame'ah, Azamiyyah, brotherhood of this, brotherhood of that. Who, who are these groups? Who is the US at war with? And the Pentagon emailed me back and they said the list is classified and not for public release. Wait, so we, who we are at war with and the pentagon emailed me back and they said the list is classified and offer public release

wait so we who we are at war with we don't know i wait so you're saying when you approach the pentagon they say that they they they will not tell you the names of the people were at war against well maybe they should and maybe that's a valuable well they don't you want to know as a citizen of America who were fighting on the other hand

Do I want to know as the as if the United States has determined that I am dangerous to it If it announces then that would give me a certain amount of Notice which I may perhaps would be disadvantageous to the United States It could also though act as a disincentive for you to take action. Maybe, but maybe not. Maybe they will just get quieter, more dangerous. I mean, it's true there might be reasons for this. They have not wanted to provide a public list

because they, this is John Belingerian. One, the groups move all the time. And so if you say, well, these are associated groups. Well, then certain people just move from group A to group B and they also want to leave these different groups guessing. But it still raises democratic concerns if the American people don't really know who the executive branch believes is covered by the AUMF. In a democracy and in a representative democracy that has to be weighed out, should the citizens of the United States know who it is that the United States

is targeting for death around the world, who it is that the United States is technically at war with, should war be a decision that the citizens of a democracy of a representative democracy have a say in it? Well, we're a representative democracy, as you just said. So I'm assuming that the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee knows every item on that list. I'm not so sure. Good morning, everybody.

The committee meets today to receive testimony on the law of armed conflict. One of the more interesting Senate hearings took place in early 2013. Including the status of the 2001 authorization for the use of military force the AUMF was the Senate Armed Services Committee Senator Karl Levin of Michigan's chairman of the committee senator McCain is on the committee I'd like to welcome our witnesses and Gregory says the senators call the couple of defense department officials to answer questions members committee Thank you for the opportunity to testify about the legal framework for the U.S. military operations to defend our nation. Because they wanted to know, like, now that we're 12 years into this war, how are you using

this document? Does it need to be changed? So the Department of Defense officials, and there were four of them, came and said, look, I believe that existing authorities are adequate for this armed conflict. Don't revisit this sentence. Don't repeal it. This sentence is sufficient. It gives us all the power that we need. Against Al-Qaeda and associated forces.

And as they're laying out their case, they say those two words. Associated forces, associated forces, and associated forces over associated forces, and over, and associated forces, and associated forces, and associated forces, and their associated forces, associated forces, and associated forces and associated forces and associated forces and the associated forces associated forces and associated forces. Instead of just nodding along a lot of the senators were like, what?

Gentlemen, I've only been here five months but this is the most astounding and most astoundingly disturbing hearing that I've been to since I've been here. You guys have essentially rewritten the Constitution here today. That's Angus King, independent senator from Maine. And you keep using the term associated forces. You use it 13 times in your statement. That is not in the AUMF. And you said at one point, it suits us very well.

I assume it does suit you very well because you're reading it to cover everything and anything. But one of the most striking moments of this hearing is when the head of the committee, Senator Carl Levin, turns to one of the DOD officials and asks him is there a list Now does there an existing list of groups that are affiliated with al Qaeda? Senator, I'm not sure there's a list per se I'm very familiar with the organizations that we do consider Right now are affiliated al Qaeda and I could provide you that list. Would you give us that list?

Yes, sir. We can do that. And when you add it or subtract names from that list, would you let us know? We can do that as well, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Let me just see if I understand what you just said. At a committee hearing, a US senator asks specifically, so who's on the list of people who are allowed to kill? Right. That suggested that the Senate Armed Services Committee, who had oversight, really had no idea.

Which means, one are like, all right, if we don't have any idea who we're at war with, and the Senate Armed Services Committee doesn't seem to have any idea, then who does? Well, one of the things that became clear to me, as I was reporting on this story, was that many of the people who were making these decisions had never been elected by anyone to any position and they were the ones who were making the decision not the elected representative and so who are they? I guess so yeah.

So we were rooting around for a while looking for an answer to that question. Until we found this guy, this is Daniel Clydeman, he's a journalist. And I've covered national security and counterterrorism for many years. And based on hundreds of confidential interviews that became his book killer capture, he was able to paint a picture for us of who makes these decisions and how. He told us about these meetings. You say it's the STVS meetings. What are they who's in the room?

How do the events unfold? Well, these are, they, they call them civets meetings in the vernacular of the bureaucracy. It stands for secure video teleconference meetings. He described them as a sort of a massive top secret Google Hangout chat, where literally hundreds of people from throughout the National Security bureaucracy

log in to decide who's on the list and who isn't, and who should live, and who should die. You said literally hundreds? Literally hundreds of people. Now, many of them are back benches. They're not participating in the call, but they're taking notes before they get together in this meeting.

Many of the folks at this meeting he says are given little packets of information on each target. They call them baseball cards because they sort of look like it. You got a picture and some stats. Like Yogi Barra on one side and then you got his batting average and his hometown on the back.

Well, the terrorist equivalent of all of that. So who is this person? Where does he rank? And what kinds of operations has he been involved in in the past? Eventually a general will come on the screen and say here's our target. Objective Akron. and where it is he ranked and what kinds of operations has he been involved in in the past. Eventually a general will come on the screen and say here's our target. Objective Akron. For some reason he says they always refer to the targets by the name of American cities.

Objective Toledo. General might say, target is in Yemen, we have a drone overhead. There's an opportunity to kill this person. Can we legally do it? And the fascinating thing, although maybe it won't come as much for surprise, is that the people he's making this pitch to are not generals, but... Lawyers. There are lawyers everywhere.

That is just a basic fact of modern warfare, says John Belinger. You now have lawyers on the ground. With artillery units, tank commanders. Lawyers in Kevlar, lawyers in helicopters. There are lawyers really almost behind every bomb. Just lawyers everywhere. Yeah, and that's a very good thing. That's Harold Koe, he was the top lawyer at the State Department from 2009 to 2013.

Because it means that we're not just shooting away at people willing, nilly or because we're angry at them or anything. It's a considered careful decision. Now Harold Koe, according to Dan Cliveman's reporting, was in those civet speedings, and he would often be the one to answer the general's questions. Can we legally kill this person? So we asked him, like, if lawyers are now the ones deciding

who we are at war with and who we aren't, how do you do it? And unfortunately for us, I don't think I'm getting into that on this call. There are multiple methods, but I'm not going to go into that. He said he couldn't comment on any of it because it's classified. But... Herald Coe is a creative lawyer.

Courtney Dan Clyman, who spoke with a lot of people familiar with the process, Coe in particular had a fascinating way of determining who is and is not an associated force. In other words, we are or aren't at war with, and it seems to be less about the groups as a whole and more about individuals within the group. For example, seniority. That was an important issue. For Co, if you're gonna target a guy,

he has to be a senior member of group like Al-Qaeda. Right. He has to be able to give orders and he has to be unique within the organization. You couldn't simply under Haroldell Coast theory go after, say, a driver or a cook who was in Al-Qaeda or even foot soldiers because they were fungible. Meaning they could be easily replaced. Another criteria was whether they were externally oriented.

For Co, if they were just participants in a civil war, you couldn't target them. But if they were targeting Westerners or Western interests, then yes. So if you take Dan Clydeman's account of Harold Coe's criteria as a representative, and we personally have no way of verifying it, but if you take that as the norm,

then maybe there is a strong vetting process in place. But I interviewed numerous people who participated in these meetings, and one of the things that I heard over and over again was that there was this kind of an extrable momentum toward killing, and that the military people in these meetings could speak with a kind of a tone of do or die urgency. In fact, two of the people who I quote in my book used exactly the same metaphor to describe that sense of momentum that was very difficult to resist. It was like standing on a train track with a train hurtling toward them at 100 miles an hour.

Then I guess the important question for me is like, how often do they say no? Well, the answer has been 99 times yes and one time no or 50 times yes and 50 times no. How many knows are there? Well, look, I did not come across many, many examples. But he did tell us about this one instance. This was a meeting between the top lawyer at the Defense Department, a man named Jay Johnson, and the top lawyer at the State Department who was then Harold Coe.

And according to Dan Sources, Harold Coe and Jay Johnson were faced with determining the fate of a 40-year-old man, roughly 40, named... Sheikh Muhtar Robo. I think that's the way he says his name. I'm not sure. He was a member of the Smiley Group El Shabab. And for context... roughly 40, named Sheikh Muhtar Robo. He was a member of the Smali Group El Shabab. In for context, a few months before this conversation, El Shabab bombed a rugby club and a restaurant at the same time in Uganda, killing 74 people.

Broken chairs smashed tables, and the sounds of pain as rescues search for the living and the dead. So that had just happened. And according to Dan Clydeman at this moment in intelligence circles, there was a debate raging as to whether al-Shabab should or should not be considered an associated force.

At the time, their leader had sworn allegiance to Osama bin Laden, but their agenda was primarily a local agenda. They had never struck out against the United States or against American interests in the region. You've got the top lawyer at the State Department and the top lawyer at the Pentagon facing off as to whether this fellow robo from El Shabob should live or die. How does this work? Does somebody just like, does someone pound the table?

Yes, this was a very heated meeting. Jay Johnson argued vehemently that Robo was covered under the AUMF. He was after all a founding member of El Shbab. Harold Koe vehemently disagreed. Herald Coe's conclusion, based on the evidence and the intelligence that he saw, was that Robo was not externally focused. In fact, he belonged to a faction of El Shabab that was arguing against attacking the United States and other Western interests. So, according to Clyde Menn these two men went back and forth and back and forth until eventually, Herald Coe just drew a hard line and essentially said, look, if you do this, you need to know that you will be doing it over the unambiguous objections of the State Department's legal advisor.

The unambiguous move. And that's very strong language coming from a lawyer. And the signal that it sent to the White House was you will be taking military action, even though the top lawyer at the State Department said that you will be taking military action, even though the top lawyer at the state's barn has said that this would be an illegal action. Okay, so what happened? Did they decide not to? They did not do it.

This is not academic. It's lives depend on which way the decision goes. I don't know. I don't know. I'm afraid of the movement that I think that the people decision goes. We'll continue in a moment. Science reporting on Radio Lab is supported in part by Science Sandbox, a Simons Foundation initiative dedicated to engaging everyone with the process of science.

Okay, I'm Chad Ibu-Mran. I'm Robert Krollwood. This is Radio Lab. Today we've devoted the intro. We're continuing to devote the entire show to a single sentence, one sentence. 60 words. That's all. It's the 2001 authorization to use military force was silent to law on September 18, 2001.

And together with Buzzfeed and reporter Gregory Johnson, we have manhandled these words. Yeah, we have dissected, we have bisected. Tricected. And whatever other kind of sected you could be. Quadrasected. To the AUMF as it's called. Yes.

And you know, we've looked at how the sentence has defined our last 12 years of counterterrorism. And now? How will it define our future? Gentlemen, thank you for being here today. This is a very so when we were thinking about that Senator arm services committee hearing We ended up calling someone who sat on the committee Tim Cain senator from Virginia and who was there that day? Yeah, that was a That was a very Kind of hair raising day and senator Cain told us that one of the most hair raising moments for him was when one of his fellow

Senators Lindsey Graham asked one of the most hair-raising moments for him was when one of his fellow Senators, Lindsey Graham, asked one of the Department of Defense officials, Do you agree with me, the war against radical Islam or terror, whatever description you like to provide will go on after the second term of President Obama? In other words, how long do you think this particular war, as declared in the section, is going to go on? Senator, my judgment, this is going to go on for quite a while and yes, beyond the second term of the president and beyond this term of Congress. Yes, sir, I think it's at least 10 to 20 years.

It was chilling. Because like, this is already the longest war in the history of the United States. Longing the Vietnam. And now a DOD official is saying add on 10 or 20 years. So, I said, is it the administration's position that you tell me if if somebody is born after 9-11. Let's imagine in 2030. They join a group that has just become associated with Al Qaeda. In 2030. Is it the administration's position at the AUMF would cover them and those organizations? And without hesitation, the administration witnesses said yes.

As long as they become an associated force under the legal standard that was set out, it's not limited in time, not limited in geography, really troubling. But you know, I'm also troubled by another thing. I mean you know the iconic. It's a New York picture of VJ day kiss and time Square August 14th 1945 there ought to be a day where those who have served in war that you declare that the war is over and then you celebrate them. Are these people happy? That's the only right to express it.

Are you happy? You can ask sometimes by service families like when is this going to end? Do you ever come up? Yes. Yes. Yes. You told us it's something like one in three people in his state of Virginia are connected to the military, so he does get that question a lot.

And the truth is, we all want a VJ day. We need it. And so seven days after that Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, President Obama. It is a great honor. Give a speech. To return to the National Defense University. Where he seems to say basically, it's time. This war, like all wars, must end. That's what history advises. That is why I intend to engage Congress about the existing

authorization to use military force, or AUMF. Basically it announces that he would like to get rid of those 60 words, and in this war. Yeah. But common sense tells you that these are different kind of enemy, not a state, or a government. They make war in a different way. Senator McCain has a great line to go, look, we're in an age of warfare where the war isn't going to end with the signing of a peace treaty on the deck of a destroyer. That's not how it happens these days. There's no clear start and ending. And yet the president, he wants to end the war, says Ben Wittis.

And every war has come to an end. He sees himself as a person who came in to a country fighting two wars and he brought them all to an end And I think he wants to have done that. But how do you how do you do that? How do you end a war when the vast amount of people that you're calling the enemy haven't stopped fighting? So what he does In the May speech and it's extremely clever and by the way it's really well-loyered is he announces a set of rules

going forward for drone strikes america does not take strikes to punish individuals we act against her as who pose a continuing and imminent threat to the american people that he's only going to use drone strikes when there's an imminent threat and the American people that he's only going to use drone strikes when there's an imminent threat. It's well understood by people who understand this kind of stuff that in the Constitution and also an international law

The president is allowed to act unilaterally in self-defense when there is an imminent threat Meaning it's urgent and you can't feasibly capture that person. Ben fears that what President Obama was doing there by stressing that word. And imminent threat to the American people. He said he was laying a new foundation. He was saying, when the AUMF ends and I wanted to end, I do have another way of justifying all these things. Maybe they wouldn't change.

So the drone strikes and the raids would continue. As long as you have a capacious enough understanding of what the word imminent means, you might be able to continue a whole lot of this stuff, and then you don't have to go to Congress at all. And you can say you've ended the war, and the human rights groups will cheer for you. And we're going to mysteriously find that there are a whole lot of imminent threats for

freedom. Thank you very much everybody. God bless you. May God bless the United States of America. And in the context of what happened to those 60 words, you do have to wonder what's going to happen to a word like imminent. And all the while, according to Ben Wittis, and pretty much everyone we spoke with, we haven't really answered the big questions. When do we want to attack the enemy?

Who is the enemy? And if we're going to be fighting them even when we're not technically at war with them, then what's the difference between war and peace? And that's why this whole subject is so unsettling. If you don't know the common sense definition anymore of when you're at war and when you're at peace, then how do you write rules? This was an attempt to begin a war. So it had the usual beginning questions, okay, you who are you? You out there, where?

You for how long till you surrender? I know, you're not gonna surrender. Like all the usual business of warfare is this an apply in this case, so then you have to think of now, what do we do? Yeah, it's just like one long improvisation. Yeah. one long improvisation. Huge thanks to the Sour to Buzzfeed and to their reporter Gregory Johnson. Check out Gregory's piece.

Where we started. We will link to it from RadioLab.org. It's on Buzzfeed as well. It's called 60 Words, and a War Without End, the untold story of the most dangerous sentence in the US history. That is a title right there. Also thanks to the great Dylan Key for original music

and Glenn Cochie for music from his album, Adventure Land. And, oh, and also thank you to Beth Fertig and the WNYC Archives for the 9-11 tape you heard at the top of the hour. This hour was produced by Kelsey Paget and Matthew Kilti and myself, I'm Chad Abu-Brat. I'm Robert Grill, which we'll see you next time.

Okay, so Lulu here again, that was the original story, and now we are back in the present with our producer Sarekari, who has an update for us. Yeah. Well, let's just say like maybe people have an idea about why this matters right at this moment,

but just tell us anyway. Yeah, I mean, we know how it is that we started the Forever War. But like truly, I feel like the question we're all asking ourselves right now is like how do you actually end it? And part of that is born out of the 20th anniversary of 9-11. And then part of it is like observing what has happened in the last few weeks in Afghanistan and watching the US very messily and tragically try to extract itself from this conflict.

And I think, yeah, I think that's the question that I feel I'm still grappling with is like, how do you end it? And you know, it turns out that Barbara Lee, the congresswoman from the original piece, has also been asking herself this question for all these years. Hello, hello. Really? Connecting to audio. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I hold out of it.

Hi, we can chat and I called her up Yeah, it's good to it's good to talk to you in a very different world, although kind of the same world I know and the first thing she told us is that she actually recently sponsored a bill We are here because of the courage of congresswoman Barbara Lee in The house the question is on passage of the bill called HR 256. The eyes have it. That has since passed in the house and now is waiting to be voted on in the Senate that would basically repeal one of the AUMFs that has come about since 9-11. Yes. Wait, what do you mean one of the AUMF.s well it turns out after the two thousand one original sixty words one there was a second a.m.f. in two

thousand two uh... for the iraq military action the invasion and and war and iraq which by the way she also voted against at the time and that's the a.m.f. that she's trying to get repealed right now to repeal the rock resolution basically that's what it says which like I said past the house and it's headed to the senate and maybe it'll come to a vote uh... middle of september and get to the president's desk but that bill wouldn't repeal the original two thousand one a u-m-f which is honestly still the one that we mostly used to justify a military action nowadays does it even matter anyway?

I mean, so it kind of matters because taking it off the books would at least prevent it from being abused in the future. But yeah, no, it's not the original one. And so we asked Barbara Lee, do you have any plans to actually go after the original one and wouldn't it be kind of useless to go after the second and not the first? No, we're going after the first. We're working now. I've introduced the 2001 authorization

repeal. And the big issue there is support. Get to 218 on the floor. It's a heavier lift. It's still such a big hurdle to get rid of those original 60 words. Because the 2001 is Afghanistan. But it's like, like, to me the idea that Osama bin Laden is dead, the US's involvement in Afghanistan is over. We're so far from the thing. We're so far from 9-Eleven now. A testament of which is that someone who is in the second grade is now reporting

a story about it. We're so far from that and to then keep using this sort of zombie legal justification feels like there's like what leg do they have to stand on? I don't know, it seems like a lot harder to justify now, no? Can I jump in as the least informed, but just as a one thing that in terms of legs to stand on, what really struck me in the language was like, in order to prevent against any future acts of international terrorism.

It's like, it's not a thing that was done, but a thing that might happen. Like that feels like a leg that could then just be, it could stand on forever. It feels like there'd always be a case. There'd always be like the lawyers or the whoever saying, like, well, maybe. Yeah, no, totally, totally.

And I think that they have a real interest in maintaining it, even if they say that, like, you know, we want to end this specific war and we don't want to be there, it's still like a tool that can allow them to act fast and without Congress's approval. In a world where situations like the one in Afghanistan are changing day by day, the 2001 AUMF still allows the president and the military to act with so much agility. And like in some ways, you can kind of see their argument.

Because we're just sort of in this open-ended conflict and the whole nature of war has changed, the United States is fighting against like start-up groups of people that didn't exist in 2001 before 9-11. You know, it's not like World War II anymore where like, you know, we begin and we end the war and Congress, according to the Constitution, has the power to declare war.

I guess I'm not even convinced that Congress is the right body of people to do that anymore. There's so much partisanship, there's so much gridlock. It just feels like trying to use the pony express in a world full of cell phones. Like, I mean, I agree, but like, I don't know. Like, the idea that it's like, oh, okay, well, the president has this power

and a bunch of very creative lawyers, like, and like, that's even more terrifying to me. I don't know, this is like, it's like a menu of two really terrible options here. The problem to me feels like if you completely repeal the 2001 AUMF, like, let's say, tomorrow, it just, like, doesn't exist, what is the right tool for declaring military action moving forward? Like, in this world where things move so fast and Congress is so slow and warfare is so

different, what do you do when you need to resort to military action yeah i i hear that one hundred percent because i i certainly sometimes despair that it feels like you know no matter what we do so i ended up talking to this national security expert my name is ona halfway and I teach international law at Yale Law School. And she actually made me feel kind of optimistic that Congress and the administration might be ready to find a new way forward. I guess the one hopeful part of me sees the fact that we're now nearly at the 20-year anniversary of this authorization. nearly at the 20-year anniversary of this authorization. And, you know, anybody who looks at this realizes this was not what Congress thought it was voting for at the time.

And she thinks that Congress might be ripe to come up with something that could actually replace the 2001 AUMF. And that the Biden administration... They're recognizing they're a pretty thin legal ground and that's just not a good either political or legal position for the president to be in so I think they're recognizing it's actually in their interest if they can get a good replacement to be supportive of that. And owner's idea and this is by release, thought too, is that the problem might not be with AUMFs in general. The problem is with those original 60 words that were written in this moment

of doubt and fear and rage and trauma. And what we need instead is an AUMF that's written in a moment of clarity. If we had Congress come in and say, if you want to use force, these are the specifics that we want you to adhere to. This is a criteria. Here are the groups that we're fighting against. Here's how you can add new groups

or take them out. We want you to give us an exit strategy. What an estimated end time would be. Have an actual process whereby Congress actually makes clear that it supports what we're doing. And the cost and consequences have to be laid out. So the idea, so the idea is that, you know, you need an AUMF that is written better, that is more specific and doesn't have language that's wishy-washy. Um, but, I mean, in terms of what that actually looks like on paper, I don't know. It's like when we set our employee goals, like it's like, you know, the smart, like it's what is it?

Like specific, measurable, like we need smart war goals, you know what I mean? No, totally, totally time bound, time bound, that's the end of time bound, all of these things. Like it's literally take our employee handbook and just hand it out to Congress. Like, I think that's what we need. This update was produced and reported by Sara Kari. And the original episode, again, is produced by Kelsey Patchett and Matthew Kilti. Thanks so much for listening. To play the message, press two. Start of message. Hi, it's John Belluncher at Arnold so much for listening. WNYC and distributed by NPR. Radio lab is produced by Chad Abramrad.

Our staff includes Alan Horn, Saren Wheeler, Tim Howard, Renner Ferrell, Molly Webster, Melissa O'Donnell, Dylan Key, Jamie York, Lyn Levy, Andy Mills, and Kelsey Patchett, with help from Ariane Wack, Matt Kelty, Simon Adler, and Kristnell Store. Special thanks to Bruce Cain, Liz Mack, Matt Kelty, Simon Adler, and Kristnell Store. Special thanks to Bruce Cain, Liz Mack, Steve Candell, Ben Smith, and Kerry Adams. That's a wrap.

And this message.