60 Words

24:08And 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.

24:25Radio Lab is supported by Capital One. With no fees or minimum on checking accounts, it's no wonder the Capital One bank guy is so passionate about banking with Capital One. If he were here, he wouldn't just tell you about no fees or minimums. He'd also talk about how Capital One cafes are open seven days a week to assist with your banking needs. Yep, even on the weekends. It's pretty much all he talks about in a good way. What's in your wallet? Terms apply. See Capital One dot com slash Bank Capital One N-A member FDIC. Radiolab is supported by Smalls. Did you know that some cat foods contain so much carbohydrate filler that they're closer to a granola bar than a prey animal?

25:06It's true. In fact, dry kibble can be 30 to 50 percent carbs, despite cats having almost no dietary need for them. Small's Fresh recipes are over 80 % animal protein, and they never use fillers or artificial ingredients. Their food is so healthy that 88 % of cat parents say that after feeding Small's, they notice that their cat has better digestion, is softer and shinier, and has more energy to play because it's actually good for cats. If you want to invest in your cat's health, Small's is giving you 60 % off your cat's first order, plus free shipping and free treats for life. When you go to smalls.com slash Radiolab, That's 60 % off your first order, plus free shipping and free treats for life.

25:45When you head to smalls.com slash radiolab. This is Ira Glass. On This American Life, one thing we like is a good mystery. Sometimes about really big things, things you hear in the news. But most times, the little mysteries are the best. Our lost and found is currently filled with pants. I don't know. I've never seen this happen. I've got skirts. I've got shorts. This is true. This is true. Mysteries of every size, each week, This American Life, wherever you get your podcasts.

26:21Hey, I'm Jad Abumrad. I'm Robert Krulwich. This is Radiolab, and today... 60 Words. This is a collaboration with BuzzFeed and reporter Gregory Johnson. And 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. And 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 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 or organizations.

27:16All right. So why would we be looking at that boring ass sentence? He seems almost bored at saying it. Yeah, he does. Can I just be honest with you for a second? Yeah.

27:27I 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 referring to a general sense that somehow like Oz is out there behind the curtain pulling levers, and I'm just always going to be stuck on this side, you know? Yeah. I think it's what motivates the show for me, is that 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.

27:59And 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 about the way words actually operate in the world. Because, again, this sentence, this totally boring sentence, this is the legal foundation for everything that the U.S. 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.

28:36But how? 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 is one of the first folks we called to help us decode this. That's John Bellinger. 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.

29:17And we asked him, like, okay, so 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 and appropriate force, yeah. You got to ask yourself, what is force? What does that mean? You know what force is? If 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.

29:57It'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. Well, the controversy surrounding Guantanamo Bay continues. The Authorization to Use Military Force Act has been the legal basis for the detention of thousands of individuals. Now, many of them have been detained for more than 10 years.

30:35None have ever been charged. And the words detention are never mentioned. Okay, so that's detention. 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 11, 2001 are harbored sexual. That sounds much more. Sounds very much tethered to 9-11, right? Yeah. Which is why a lot of congressmen and women voted for it.

31:11Joe Biden, on the day of the vote, September 14, 2001, he says, look, people, don't freak out about this language. It relates to the incident and there's broad authority relating to 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? Nope. 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.

31:53Associated forces. Yeah. What we've been calling the 61st and 62nd words. The 61st and the 62nd. Oui, oui. 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... Associated forces is nowhere in the text. So then why could people cite something that isn't in the text? 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.

32:33But the truth is, it may have just been there from the beginning. What do you mean? Because according to Ben Wittes 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's 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 too. Right. So just transpose that here. If we're at war with this group called Al-Qaeda and a certain set of groups that aren't them join the war on Al-Qaeda's side then you are legally at war with them.

33:18If you don't think about that too hard, it is crystal clear. But then the question that 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 of an associate? Now, we can't exactly know how broadly the Obama and Bush administrations have defined those words.

33:57We'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 about, like, is this legal? Does this have anything to do with September 11th anymore? Because now the group in Yemen, Al-Qaeda in 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 and in what fashion they take orders from either Osama bin Laden while he was still alive or now Ayman al-Dawahari.

34:38So 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. It's September 30th, 2011. Mark it down on your calendar. September 30, 2011, seemed to be yes when the U.S. assassinated two members of the group. This is not confirmed yet, but it could very well have been a U.S. predator drone strike, that is a U.S. government attack. And to put all this in context, between 2002 and 2014, according to some estimates, there have been about 65 drone strikes in Yemen, killing about 400 people. And so much hinges on how you define those words.

35:16So much is in the definition. I asked the Pentagon. I said, what are the list of associated forces? So Al-Qaeda, yes, the U.S. is at war. That's clear. What about the other groups? Al-Shabaab, Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, Armed Islamic Group, Abu Sayyaf, Jamiya, Eslamiyya, Brotherhood of This, Brotherhood of That. Who are these groups? Who is the U.S. at war with? And the Pentagon emailed me back and they said, that list is classified and not for public release. Wait, so who we are at war with is? We don't know. Wait, so you're saying when you approach the Pentagon and ask them?

35:50They say that they will not tell you the names of the people we're at war against. Well, maybe they shouldn't. What do you mean? Don't you want to know as a citizen of America who we're fighting? On the other hand, do I want to know as the – 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 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.

36:32They have not wanted to provide a public list because they – This is John Bellinger again. And 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?

37:13Should war be a decision that the citizens of a democracy, of a representative democracy, have a say in? 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. It was the Senate Armed Services Committee. Senator Carl Levin of Michigan is the chairman of the committee.

37:50Senator McCain is on the committee. I'd like to welcome our witnesses. And Gregory says the senators called a couple of Defense Department officials to answer questions. Members of the 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.

38:20Don'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 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.

38:56You 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, is there an existing list of groups that are affiliated with al-Qaeda?

39:32Senator, 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 with 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 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 U.S. senator asked specifically, so who's on the list of people we're allowed to kill? Right. That suggested that the Senate Armed Services Committee, who had oversight, really had no idea.

40:07Which made us wonder, 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?

40:37I 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 Kleidman. 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 call them civets meetings. in the vernacular of the bureaucracy.

41:12It 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 backbenchers. 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.

41:46Because they sort of look like it. You got a picture and some stats. Like Yogi Berra 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. For some reason, he says, as 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.

42:15Can we legally do it? And the fascinating thing, although maybe it won't come as much of a 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 Bellinger. 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 Koh. 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 willy-nilly or because we're angry at them or anything.

42:58It's a considered, careful decision. Now, Harold Koh, according to Dan Kleibman's reporting, was in those civets meetings, 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 can get 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... Harold Coe is a creative lawyer... According to Dan Kleidman, 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.

43:40In other words, who 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 Coe, if you're going to target a guy, he has to be a senior member of a 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 Harold Koh's 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.

44:19For Koh, 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 Kleidman's account of Harold Ko'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 inexorable momentum toward killing, and that the military people in these meetings could speak with a kind of a tone of do or die urgency.

45:00In 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, how often do they say no? Has the answer been 99 times yes and one time no or 50 times yes and 50 times no? How many no's are there? Well, look, I'd say 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.

45:49And according to Dan's sources, Harold Koh and Jay Johnson were faced with determining the fate of a 40-year-old man, roughly 40, named... Sheikh Mukhtar Robo. I think that's the right way to say his name. I'm not sure. He was a member of the Somali group Al-Shabaab. And for context... World Cup celebrations have turned to tragedy in the Central African nation of Uganda. A few months before this conversation, this is in 2010, Al-Shabaab 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 rescuers search for the living and the dead.

46:27So that had just happened. And according to Dan Kleidman, at this moment in intelligence circles, there was a debate raging as to whether al-Shabaab 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. And they had never struck out against the United States or against American interests in the region. So 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 al-Shabaab should live or die. And how does this work?

47:02Does 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 al-Shabaab. Harold Koh vehemently disagreed. Harold Koh'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 al-Shabaab that was arguing against attacking the United States and other Western interests. So according to Kleidman, these two men went back and forth and back and forth until eventually Harold Koh 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.

47:49The 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 this would be an illegal action. All right. 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.

48:39We'll continue in a moment.

48:46Radio Lab is supported by Capital One. With no fees or minimum on checking accounts, it's no wonder the Capital One bank guy is so passionate about banking with Capital One. If he were here, he wouldn't just tell you about no fees or minimums. He'd also talk about how Capital One cafes are open seven days a week to assist with your banking needs. Yep, even on the weekends. It's pretty much all he talks about. in a good way. What's in your wallet? Terms apply. See Capital One dot com slash Bank Capital One N A member FDIC. This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. You know something I would like to wake up tomorrow and be better at?

49:24Speaking another language. One of the things that holds me back is, you know, feeling vulnerable that I'm going to mess up my pronunciation or how I look in front of other people or getting something wrong. And so in the process, I get self-conscious and I cut myself off and I don't end up speaking the language at all. So I actually get worse, not better. Getting better at something is a feeling defined by you. And for BetterHelp, it's a BetterHelp therapist who really gets you. It's a focus on global emotional well-being with thousands of therapists and millions of members in over 100 countries.

50:03It's progress. Sign up and get 10 % off at betterhelp.com slash radiolab. That's betterhelp.com slash radiolab. Radiolab is supported by Smalls. Did you know that some cat foods contain so much carbohydrate filler that they're closer to a granola bar than a prey animal? It's true. In fact, dry kibble can be 30 to 50 percent carbs despite cats having almost no dietary need for them. Small's fresh recipes are over 80 percent animal protein and they never use fillers or artificial ingredients. Their food is so healthy that 88 percent of cat parents say that after feeding Small's they notice that their cat has better digestion, is softer and shinier, and has more energy to play because it's actually good for cats.

50:46If you want to invest in your cat's health, Small's is giving you 60 percent off your cat's first order plus free shipping and free treats for life when you go to smalls.com slash Radiolab. That's 60 % off your first order, plus free shipping and free treats for life when you head to smalls.com slash Radiolab. This is Ira Glass of This American Life. Do you know our show? Okay, well either way I'm going to tell you about it. We make stories. Old-fashioned stories that hopefully pull you in at the beginning with funny moments and feelings and people in surprising situations and then you just want to find out what is going to happen and cannot stop listening.

51:25That's right. I'm talking about stories to make you miss appointments and ignore your loved ones. This American Life, every week, wherever you get your podcasts.

51:51military force was signed into law on September 18th, 2001. And together with BuzzFeed and reporter Gregory Johnson, we have manhandled these words. Yeah, we have dissected, we have bisected. Trisected. And whatever other kind of sected you could do. 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 important... So when we were thinking about that Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, we ended up calling someone who sat on the committee.

52:23Tim Kaine, senator from Virginia. And who was there that day. Yeah, that was a very kind of hair-raising day. And Senator Kaine 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 Department of Defense officials. Do you agree with me the war against radical Islam or terror, whatever description you'd 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 this section, is going to go on? Senator, in my judgment, this is going to go on for quite a while, and yes, beyond the second term of the president.

53:01And 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. Longer than 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 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 that the AUMF would cover them and those organizations? And without hesitation, the administration witnesses said yes.

53:43As 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 E.J. Day Kiss in Times Square.

54:09August 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 word to express it. Are you happy?

54:28You get asked sometimes by service families, like, when is this going to end? Does it ever come up? Yes. Yes. Yes. He told us that 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... ...gave 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. And that is why I intend to engage Congress about the existing authorization to use military force, or AUMF.

55:19Basically, he announces that he would like to get rid of those 60 words and end this war. Yeah. But common sense tells you that these are different kind of enemy, not a state or a government. They just sort of, they make war in a different way. Senator McCain has a great line. He goes, 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 Wittes. 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.

56:03But 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 lawyered, is he announces a set of rules going forward for drone strikes. America does not take strikes to punish individuals. We act against terrorists 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 it's well understood by people who understand this kind of stuff that in the Constitution and also in 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.

56:58Ben fears that what President Obama was doing there by stressing that word. An imminent threat to the American people. Is it he was laying a new foundation. He was saying when the AUMF ends, and I want it 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.

57:42and 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.

57:59And 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 Wittes 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?

58:37and that's why this whole subject is so unsettling like 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 how do you write rules? Yeah. This was an attempt to begin a war and so it had the usual beginning questions. Okay, you, who are you? You out there, where? You for how long until you surrender? No, you're not going to surrender. Like all the usual business of warfare is it doesn't apply in this case so then you have to think now what do we do? Yeah. It's just like one long improvisation. Yeah.

59:42Hey, it's Madigan here in the present. There are a lot of updates here and also, depressingly, a lot that has stayed the same. So Obama never did get rid of the AUMF. In fact, he sort of stretched it out even further. About a year after he made that speech calling to end the AUMF, his administration started using it to justify fighting ISIS, arguing ISIS was a successor to al-Qaeda, even though al-Qaeda publicly rejected ISIS. obviously the U.S. withdrew from Afghanistan in 2021 under President Biden you probably remember that didn't go too well it was basically a disaster and on top of that it still left us in this bizarre place with this AUMF hanging open despite the fact that so many people claimed the war was now over it definitely wasn't the VJ day that Tim Kaine was hoping for and Barbara Lee our one lonely congresswoman who voted against the AUMF has continued fighting against it.

1:00:43Our producer Sarakari actually talked to Barbara a few years back. Hello, hello. Oh, it's connecting to audio. All right, hold on a minute. Hold on a minute. Hi, we can hear you. Right as Barbara was sponsoring a bill to repeal actually a different AUMF, so we just told you this whole story of the AUMF after 9-11. This one came in 2002. For the Iraq military action, the invasion and war in Iraq. And just last year, in December 2025, Congress finally passed it, clawing back that second authorization. But as for our big AUMF, like the original one, there are multiple efforts still to repeal or replace it.

1:01:21Barbara Lee herself introduced a repeal bill. She's actually no longer even a congresswoman now. She became the first black woman elected mayor of Oakland in 2025. But her bill is still out there. There are several other attempts. And as of now, they're all still pending. So the 2001 AUMF remains fully intact today. It is still there on the books exactly as broad as it was in 2001. So those are the updates. I'm Matt Kilty. Thanks for listening. Huge thanks this hour to BuzzFeed and to their reporter, Gregory Johnson. Check out Gregory's piece. It's where we started with this. We will link to it from radiolab.org.

1:02:02It's on BuzzFeed as well. It's called 60 Words and a War Without End, the untold story of the most dangerous sentence in U.S. history. That is a title right there. Also, thanks to the great Dylan Keefe for original music and Glenn Cochie for music from his album Adventureland. This hour was produced by Kelsey Badgett and Matthew Kilty and myself, Jad Abubrad. I'm Robert Rolich. Thank you for listening. Hi, I'm Jonquil, and I'm from Brooklyn. And here are the staff credits. Radio Lab is hosted by Lulu Miller and Latif Nasa. Soren Wheeler is our Executive Editor. Sarah Sandback is our Executive Director.

1:02:41Our Managing Editor is Pat Walters. Dylan Keefe is our Director of Sound Design. Our staff includes Jeremy Bloom, W. Harry Fortuna, David Gable, Maria Paz Gutierrez, Sindhu Nyanam Sambandan, Matt Keelty, Mona Madgauka, Annie McEwan, Alex Neeson, Sarah Kari, Natalia Ramirez, Joanna Strogatz, Anisa Vitsa, Ariane Wack, Molly Webster, and Jessica Young, with help from Gabi Santos and Maya Appleby-Malamet. Our fact checkers are Norabel Blidia, Hilary Elkins, Rachel Gross, Diane Kelly, Emily Krieger, Natalie Middleton, and Sophie Samai.

1:03:28Hi, I'm Aubrey calling from Salt Lake City, Utah. 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.