Last night, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), the top Democrat on the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, spoke in strong opposition to language in H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act, that would expand war declaration powers for the Executive Branch.  Nadler co-sponsored a bipartisan amendment – along with Reps. Justin Amash (R-MI), John Conyers (D-MI), Walter Jones (R-NC), Barbara Lee (D-CA), and Ron Paul (R-TX) – that would have deleted Section 1034 of the bill which expands the scope, and blurs the definition, of the war on terror.

“How will anyone be able to declare success when the objective itself is so amorphous?” asked Nadler.  “How will we know when we have won the war?....The President must not have the total discretion to take this country to war with anybody, at anytime, under any circumstances under his sole discretion.”

Click here for video of Nadler’s statement.

The following is the text of his statement, as delivered:

“Mr. Speaker, I support this amendment to delete section 1034.  Section 1034 is the equivalent of a new declaration of war, but it contains no clear objective.  No longer would we be seeking out those responsible for the attacks of September 11.  In fact, all references to September 11 are removed.  Instead, it merely affirms that the United States is at war, but it doesn’t say why, it doesn’t say what we are trying to achieve, it doesn’t even mention an identifiable ‘whom’ with whom we are at war.

“Unlike the 2001 AUMF, it does not contain any description of harm that has occurred or that we are seeking to prevent.  How will anyone be able to declare success when the objective itself is so amorphous?   How will we know when we have won the war?

“Section 1034 expands the targets of military action from those responsible for the September 11 attacks to all members of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and  ‘associated forces’ and those who ‘directly support’ ‘associated forces.’

“But ‘associated forces’ is undefined and so is ‘directly support.’  Does it mean providing a meal to a person who later becomes a suicide bomber even though they are not affiliated with Al Qaeda or the Taliban and you had no means of knowing that they were a suicide bomber in the future?  Does the President have unfettered discretion to take this country to war against any country or any group he deems associated with the Taliban?  Under this section it would seem so.

“Mr. Speaker, we must not delegate such power to the President.  Indeed such a broad unlimited delegation is probably unconstitutional.  And we haven’t considered this section in any committee as far as I know, and yet it could profoundly change the scope and duration of our military efforts.

“Mr. Speaker, we should pass this amendment, scrap this provision, and send it back to committee to start all over again if we need a redefinition of the existing AUMF.

“This amendment must pass.  This section must not pass.  The President must not have the total discretion to take this country to war with anybody, at anytime, under any circumstances under his sole discretion.”

                                                           ###