Source: Direct Submission
Email: "Boyle, Francis"
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 08:32:53 -0500
Title: NO RUSH TO WAR!/O'Reilly Factor/FOX/13Sept2001
TEXT:
SHOW: THE O'REILLY FACTOR (20:29)
September 13, 2001 Thursday
Transcript # 091303cb.256
SECTION: News; Domestic
HEADLINE: America Unites
How Should the U.S. Bring Terrorists to Justice?
GUESTS: Sam Husseini, Francis Boyle
BYLINE: Bill O'Reilly
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM
AND MAY BE UPDATED.
O'REILLY: While most Americans are united in their support of
President Bush and the desire to bring Osama bin Laden and other
terrorists to justice, there are some differing voices.
Joining us now from Washington is Sam Husseini, the former spokesman
for the Arab Anti -- American Anti-Discrimination Committee, and
from Urbana, Illinois, is Francis Boyle, an international law
professor at the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign.......... ....
O'REILLY: Cut his mike. All right, now, Mr. Boyle, Professor Boyle,
let's have a little bit more of a rational discussion here. That was
absurd.
The United States now has to take action against certain segments in
this world who we know have been harbouring people like Osama bin
Laden. That's going to happen. How will you react to that?
FRANCIS BOYLE, LAW PROFESSOR: Well, first I think you have to look
at the law involved. Clearly what we have here, under United States
domestic law and statutes, is an act of international terrorism that
should be treated as such. It is not yet elevated to an act of war.
For an act of war, we need proof that a foreign state actually
ordered or launched an attack upon the United States of America. So
far, we do not yet have that evidence. We could...
O'REILLY: All right, now why are you, why are you, why are you
taking this position when you know forces have attacked the United
States. Now, maybe they don't have a country, but they are forces.
They have attacked the United States, all right? Without warning,
without provocation. Civilian targets. They've done everything that
an act of war does.
So, I'm saying that because we live in a different world now, where
borders don't really matter, where terrorism is the weapon of
choice, that you would declare war -- if I were President Bush, I
would declare war on any hostile forces, notice those words,
professor, hostile forces to the United States. I would have a
blanket declaration of war so I could go in and kill those people.
Would I be wrong?
BOYLE: Well, Bill, so far you'll note Congress has been unwilling to
declare war. And indeed, this matter is being debated right now.
Right now, it appears that what they are seeking is not a full
declaration of war, but only what we law professors call an
imperfect declaration, which means a limited use of military force
under the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
Precisely for the problem that we don't know if any state was
involved and we still do not know who was responsible for this
undoubted terrorist attack upon the United States of America.
O'REILLY: All right, but we have the secretary of state saying that
Osama bin Laden now has been linked into and, you know, we don't
have all the intelligence information, as President Bush said today.
He's not going to give us, and he shouldn't, the people of America
all the information that they have. But when the secretary of state
gets up and says, look, we know this guy was involved to some
extent, I believe him.
And he's a wanted man, professor. He's been wanted for eight years.
The Clinton administration didn't have the heart to get him and in
the first few months the Bush administration didn't either. We now
know, and you just heard the FBI agent say that Afghanistan has been
involved for years harbouring and training these kinds of people.
Certainly, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Iran, Iraq, those five
countries, certainly have been hostile to the United States and
given safe harbour to these terrorists. That's a fact.
BOYLE: Well, let me point out, the secretary of state was very
careful in the words he used. He said Osama bin Laden was a suspect.
He did not accuse him. And, again, under these circumstances...
O'REILLY: No, he didn't use the word suspect. He used another word.
BOYLE: The account I read in, just off the wire service, said
suspect. But let me continue my point. Under these circumstances,
where we have 5,000 Americans dead and we could have many more
Americans killed in a conflict, we have to be very careful, Congress
and the American people and the president, in not to over-escalate
the rhetoric, here.
We have to look at this very rationally. This is a democracy. We
have a right to see what the evidence is and proceed in a very slow
and deliberate manner.
O'REILLY: No, we don't. We do not, as a republic, we don't have the
right to see what the evidence is if the evidence is of a national
security situation, as you know.
Now, I'm trusting my government to do the right thing, here. I am
trusting. But I think it's beyond a doubt right now, beyond a
reasonable doubt, which is, as you know, a court of law standard,
that there are at least five, North Korea you could put in to, six
states in the world that have harboured continually these
terrorists.
Now, we know that this was a well-coordinated effort. Our initial
intelligence shows that some of the people that have been arrested
have ties to Osama bin Laden. We know, as you just heard the FBI
agent say, that the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center was tied
in to a guy who knew bin Laden. So, bin Laden -- I agree with you,
that you don't want to be a hothead. You don't want to overreact.
You don't want to lob a missile at the pharmaceutical plant in the
Sudan, which was terrible, and that was the one good point, or fair
point, that Mr. Husseini made, you don't want to do that.
But, on the other hand, professor, I think Americans are rightful,
are right, to demand action against states that we know in the past
have harboured these individuals and there's a warrant out for Osama
bin Laden's arrest. So, if he is in Afghanistan, I would give that
government a couple of days to hand him over, and if they did not,
I'd go in.
BOYLE: Well, again. The American people are right. We need to see
the evidence. I remember people saying a generation ago, during the
Vietnam war, I trusted my government. And I think people of my
generation found out that that was wrong. We needed more evidence.
O'REILLY: All right. Professor, let me stop you there, though. This
is another point that Mr. Husseini tried to make. Just because the
United States of America has made mistakes in the past, does not
mean that we cannot defend ourselves now.
This is a unique situation in history. We have now been attacked by
forces without borders, OK? We've been attacked. And it hasn't been
a military attack, it's been an attack on civilians. The reason, the
sole reason a federal government exists is to protect the people of
the United States. And as I said in my "Talking Points" memo, they
haven't really done the job, for political reasons.
But now's the time to correct those things. So, there's going to be
a reckoning, Professor. You know it's going to happen. I know it's
going to happen. And it's going to come down on Osama bin Laden
first and maybe some of these rouge states later. Will you support
that action?
BOYLE: Before I support a war that will jeopardize the lives of tens
of thousands of our servicemen and women, I want to see the evidence
that we are relying on to justify this. So far, I do not see it. I
see allegations. I see innuendo. I see winks and I see nods, but I
do not see the evidence that you need under international law and
the United States constitution so far to go to war. Maybe that
evidence will be there, but it is not there now.
My recommendation to Congress is to slow down, let's see what
develops and let's see what this evidence is before we knowingly go
out and not only kill large numbers of people, perhaps in
Afghanistan and other countries, but undoubtedly in our own armed
forces.
58,000 men of my generation will killed in Vietnam because of
irresponsible behavior by the Johnson administration rushing that
Tonkin Gulf resolution through Congress, exactly what we're seeing
now. And we need to pull back and stop and think and ask the hard
questions and demand to see the evidence first, before we march off
to war.
O'REILLY: All right, so it's not enough that people arrested in the
bombings of the embassies in Africa testified in court that Osama
bin Laden was behind and financed and coordinated those bombings.
That evidence is not enough for you?
BOYLE: Well, Africa is a very is a very different story than what
happened in the World Trade Center.
O'REILLY: No, it's not. He's wanted, he's wanted in the United
States for the bombings of those two embassies. Is that evidence
enough for you, professor, for the United States to go in and get
this man? Is it enough?
BOYLE: That, that matter was treated and handled as an act of
international terrorism in accordance with the normal laws and
procedures of the United States of America as a question of domestic
and international law enforcement. And I am suggesting that is the
way we need to proceed here...
O'REILLY: Well, wait. You're dodging the question professor.
BOYLE: ... unless we have evidence that...
O'REILLY: Wait, professor. Professor. This is a no spin zone. Hold
it. Hold it. Even out in Urbana Champagne, the no spin zone rules.
You're dodging the question. There is an absolutely rock solid
arrest warrant out for this man. Evidence in court, testimony by
people who did the bombings that this man was behind it. Is that
enough evidence for you to have the United States go in and get him
now? Is it enough?
BOYLE: The United States has been attempting to secure his
extradition from Afghanistan. I support...
O'REILLY: Yeah, that's long enough.
BOYLE: I support that approach as international...
O'REILLY: Come on already, I mean, eight years, we've been
attempting to extradite this guy. Now's the time to tell the Afghans
you've got 48 hours or 72 hours to turn him over. You don't turn him
over, we're coming in and getting him. You try to stop us, and
you're toast. Enough is enough, professor.
BOYLE: That's vigilantism. It is not what the United States of
America is supposed to stand for. We are supposed to stand...
O'REILLY: No, what that is is protecting the country from terrorists
who kill civilians.
BOYLE: ... for rule of law.
O'REILLY: It's not vigilantism.
BOYLE: We are supposed to stand for rule of law, and that is clearly
vigilantism. There is a Security Council, there is Congress, there
are procedures and there are laws, and they are there to protect all
of us here in the United States as well as...
O'REILLY: So, you're telling me...
BOYLE: ... as well as our servicemen and women. Look, Bill, if we
allegedly, as you put it, go in, you are not going in, I am not
going in. It's going to be young men and women serving in our armed
forces...
O'REILLY: And that's their job. To protect us. But, professor, let
me, you know, what you're saying is, whoa, whoa, whoa, hold it. Hold
it. Hold it. Hold it.
B0YLE: ... with the constitution and the laws of the United States.
O'REILLY: We're not violating any laws here, professor. No one is
going to violate the law. There is going to be a state of war
induced against states, states, terroristic states, who have
attacked us. And what you're saying is, though, and correct me if
I'm wrong, you're saying that even though there is a legitimate
warrant out for Osama bin Laden's arrest, and even though most
civilized nations would honor that warrant and turn him over to us,
extradite him to us, the vast majority of nations on earth would do
that, you still are opposed for the United States to demand that the
Taliban government arrest this man and turn him over? You are
opposed to that?
BOYLE: During the Gulf War, President Bush's father, who has far
more experience that the current president Bush, got a Security
Council resolution authorizing the United States of America to use
force to expel Iraq from Kuwait. Second, President Bush's father got
a War Powers Authorization Resolution from Congress that gave him
the constitutional authority to use military force to enforce that
Security Council resolution.
What I'm calling for here is the same adherence to international law
and the United States constitution that the first President Bush
adhered to in dealing with Iraq.
O'REILLY: Well, you'll get that, professor. That's just a formality.
There -- nobody on Capitol Hill right now, they're not going to --
there's no profile of courages up there anyway, usually. They're
going to give President Bush what he wants. If he wants a War Powers
Act, they're going to give it to him. He wants a declaration,
they're going to give it to him.
BOYLE: Actually, they're arguing about it right now...
O'REILLY: They're going to give it to him. But I'm not interested in
that, because it's going to happen. It's going to happen.
BOYLE: The reports -- no, the reports I read was that this President
Bush initially asked for a blank check, and Congress balked because
they had been suckered once before...
O'REILLY: All right, I'm not -- speculation is not what I'm in --
all right, professor. I don't want to speculate. I'm just going to
say in my opinion he's going to have the authority to go in and get
Osama bin Laden and his pals, wherever they are. He will get that
authority, whether it takes a day or a week, he'll get it. And once
he gets it, now, that's what I want to talk about here. Once he gets
it, are you and others like you going to say, oh, no, we shouldn't
do this, even though we have proof of the man's -- masterminded the
bombings in Africa and the Cole,testimony in Yemen, are you going to
still say, even after the authority is granted by Congress, which it
will be, no, don't do it, let Afghanistan handle him? Are you going
to still do that, professor?
BOYLE: Second, like his father, his father also got authorization
from the United States, the United Nations Security Council under
chapter seven of the United Nations charter...
O'REILLY: Oh, you want to go to U.N. now? You want the U.N. involved
now.
BOYLE: Is exactly what his father did...
O'REILLY: So what?
BOYLE: And that's exactly right.
O'REILLY: His father made a huge mistake by not taking out Sadam
Hussein when he could of.
BOYLE: His father adhered to the required procedures under the
United States constitution and the United Nations charter that is a
treaty and the supreme law of our land. I expect the current
President Bush to do exactly what his father did before he starts
engaging in a massive military campaign in Iraq or against other
countries...
O'REILLY: All right, I don't know whether he's going to go -- I know
he's not going to let the U.N. dictate. He might go for a consensus.
He's already got it with Putin and all of our NATO allies, he's
already go that. Whether he goes -- I think it would be a mistake
to let -- empowering the U.N. in this situation.
BOYLE: Then why did his father do this?
O'REILLY: I'm going -- we're going to wrap this up with this. I'm
going to give my last summation and then you can give yours, I'll
give you the last word on it.
This is a fugitive we're dealing with here. He has now been tied in
by U.S. intelligence agencies, according to Attorney General
Ashcroft and the secretary of state, tied into this horrendous
bombing here in New York. The United States must make a response to
this, and I am agreeing with you in a sense, it can't be a
knee-jerk. It's got to be done in a methodical way.
Congress will go along, they may debate it or whatever, but they
will go along in either a War Powers, special War Powers Act or a
declaration of war against forces hostile to the United States. Then
they will go in and they will take him. This man you're looking at
on the TV screen is a dead man. He should be a dead man. You don't
do what he did and be allowed to walk around this earth.
Now, I'm distressed, professor, by your reliance, reliance on the
strict letter of propriety, when we've got 10,000 people laying in
the street about 22 miles from me right now. I want deliberation. I
want methodical discipline, but I also want action. We know who this
guy is. We know the governments that are protecting him. We know the
other rouge states that have terrorist camps there. They all have to
be dealt with, in my opinion. I'll give you the last word.
BOYLE: Sure, I agree with you, Bill. He is a fugitive from justice
and this should be handled as a matter as other fugitives from
justice of international law enforcement. If indeed there is
evidence that a foreign state orchestrated and ordered an attack
against the United States then clearly that is an act of war that
should be dealt with as such...
O'REILLY: What about harbouring?
BOYLE: Right now...
O'REILLY: Is harbouring an act of war?
BOYLE: In my opinion, no. And under the current circumstances, I
don't see it.
O'REILLY: All right, professor.
BOYLE: I think there is a distinction here.
O'REILLY: OK, all right, wrap it up, if you would.
BOYLE: I agree -- I agree that the -- if we go to war in a hasty
manner here, we could see thousands of U.S. military personnel being
killed without proper authorization by Congress or by the United
Nations Security Council.
O'REILLY: OK.
BOYLE: Our founding fathers decided that the most awesome decision
we would ever make would be to go to war, and we have to be very
careful in making that decision.
O'REILLY: All right, professor, I appreciate it very much. Thank you
for your point of view.
BOYLE: Thank you, Bill.
Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign, IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954(voice)
217-244-1478(fax)
fboyle@law.uiuc.edu
