Today, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) stated his strong opposition to language in H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act, which seeks to redefine and expand the war on terror and give the Executive Branch unprecedented authority to wage war.  Nadler called on the House Armed Services Committee to modify language in Chairman Buck McKeon’s current version of the bill, which will be marked up today in that Committee.  Nadler released the following statement:

“The implications of the changes to the defense authorization bill contemplated by the Armed Services Committee today are enormous.  The new language, submitted by Chairman McKeon, would greatly expand authorization for the use of force beyond those responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks.  In fact, the bill drops the reference to 9/11 altogether.  Instead, the new resolution includes references to undefined ‘associated forces.’  Such a vague and unfocused strategy could be read as a blanket declaration for a war without end.  It is unwise to engage in a war without any idea of who the enemy is, and with no limits on either time or place.

“Furthermore, the new language would grant an unprecedented level of power to the Executive Branch to wage war.  This is a dangerous and un-democratic path to embark on, and provides no military advantage in our very legitimate efforts to destroy terrorists who would harm Americans.  Congress must not cede its power to declare war to the Executive Branch.  Any decision to invade another nation for harboring terrorists must be debated and decided upon by Members of Congress.

“While the death of Osama bin Laden will certainly not end our battle against terrorists, we must not – and need not – declare war on the world to continue to seek out, disrupt, and dismantle Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations planning attacks on Americans or our allies.

“Finally, the changes to detainee policy within the legislation would increase the difficulty in bringing suspected terrorists to justice and would authorize the indefinite detention of individuals who may or may not be connected to terrorist groups or activities.  Those suspects would be held until the ‘end of hostilities,’ and would be tried by military tribunals and not in civilian courts.  However, as has been proven repeatedly, civilian courts have a much stronger track record of successfully prosecuting terrorists.”