60 Words

Key takeaways

The 60-word sentence in the AUMF signed after 9/11 has had a lasting and profound impact on U.S. military policy and legal authority.
Legal interpretations, especially of phrases like 'associated forces,' have allowed the U.S. to justify ongoing military actions in various countries for over two decades.
There is significant concern about the lack of transparency and democratic oversight in decisions about who is targeted and at war, often based on classified information and secret lists.
Efforts are underway, particularly by legislators like Barbara Lee, to repeal or reform the AUMF to better regulate and end the indefinite wars based on these broad legal powers.

Summary

The Power and Consequences of Language in War

This section explores how a single, 60-word sentence—the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)—signed shortly after 9/11, has profoundly influenced the U.S. military actions and legal frameworks over the past two decades. It highlights how this seemingly simple sentence has become the legal foundation for actions such as Guantanamo Bay detention, drone strikes, and secret operations, blurring the lines between war and peace and raising complex legal and ethical questions.

The Political and Legal Process Behind the AUMF

This part examines the hurried political processes in the aftermath of 9/11, including the debates within Congress and the influence of historical precedents like the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. Key figures such as Congresswoman Barbara Lee and others reflect on their votes and concerns, especially regarding the vague language of the AUMF and its potential for broad, unchecked military power. The episode discusses the role of lawyers, classified discussions, and the secretive decision-making processes, including ‘civets’ (video teleconferences), that decide who is targeted in ongoing operations.

Interpreting and Expanding the Meaning of the AUMF

This section delves into how the original language of the AUMF has been interpreted and expanded over time. The phrase 'associated forces' has become a catch-all which allows the executive branch to justify military actions against groups not explicitly mentioned in the text. It looks at how these interpretations have led to a persistent, unwinnable war with no clear end, and discusses contemporary debates about redefining or repealing the AUMF to end ongoing military operations.

Challenges to Democratic Oversight and Future Implications

The discussion highlights concerns about transparency, accountability, and the erosion of traditional declarations of war. It emphasizes how the authority to determine who is at war now lies largely with unelected legal and military officials, often behind closed doors, and with classified lists of enemy groups. The episode reflects on the future implications of these legal frameworks, including debates about ending the war, and the ongoing efforts by lawmakers like Barbara Lee to repeal or reform the AUMF.

Show notes

We’re coming up on the 25th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, and it had us thinking about an episode we produced in 2014. It’s the story of one sentence, written in the hours after September 11th, 2001, 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.

LATERAL CUTS -
Really anything from our sister show, More Perfect

EPISODE CREDITS:
Reported by - Kelsey Padgett
with help from - Matt Kielty
Produced by - Matt Kielty
with help from - Kelsey Padgett

Sign up for our newsletter!! It includes short essays, recommendations, and details about other ways to interact with the show. Signup (https://radiolab.org/newsletter)!

Radiolab is supported by listeners like you. Support Radiolab by becoming a member of The Lab (https://members.radiolab.org/) today.

Follow our show on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook @radiolab, and share your thoughts with us by emailing radiolab@wnyc.org.

Leadership support for Radiolab’s science programming is provided by the Simons Foundation and the John Templeton Foundation. Foundational support for Radiolab was provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.