O'Reilly And The Law Of The Jungle
By Francis Boyle
11 September, 2011
Countercurrents.org
On the morning of 13 September 2001, that is 48 hours after the terrible
tragedies in New York and Washington, D.C. on September 11th, I received
telephone call from a producer at Fox Television Network News in New York City.
He asked me to go onto The O'Reilly Factor TV program live that evening in order
to debate Bill O'Reilly on the question of war versus peace. O'Reilly would
argue for the United States going to war in reaction to the terrorist attacks on
11 September, and I would argue for a peaceful resolution of this matter.
Up until then I had deliberately declined numerous requests for interviews
about the terrible events of September 11 and what should be done about them
because it was not clear to me precisely what was going on. But unfortunately
The O'Reilly Factor had the Number One ranking in TV viewership for any news
media talk program in America. I felt very strongly as a matter of principle
that at least one person from the American Peace Movement had to go onto that
program and argue the case directly to the American people that the United
States of America must not go to war despite the terrible tragedy that had been
inflicted upon us all.
I had debated O'Reilly before so I was fully aware of the type of abuse to
expect from him. So for the next few hours I negotiated with O'Reilly through
his producer as to the terms and conditions of my appearance and our debate,
which they agreed to. At the time I did not realize that O'Reilly was setting me
up to be fired as he would next successfully do to Professor Sami Al-Arian soon
after debating me.
After our debate had concluded, I returned from the campus television studio to
my office in order to shut the computer down, and then go home for what little
remained of the evening. When I arrived in my office, I found that my voice mail
message system had been flooded with mean, nasty, vicious complaints and
threats. The same was true for my e-mail in-box. I deleted all these messages as
best I could, and then finally went home to watch the rest of O'Reilly's 9/11
coverage that evening on Fox with my wife. By then he was replaying selected
segments of our debate and asking for hostile commentaries from Newt Gingrich
and Jeane Kirkpatrick. We turned off the TV in disgust when O'Reilly publicly
accused me of being an Al Qaeda supporter. My understanding was that Fox then
continued to rebroadcast a tape of this outright character assassination upon me
for the rest of the night.
When I returned to my office the next day, so many complaints had been filed
and accumulated with numerous university officials that the then Dean of my law
school issued a public statement repudiating me and then placing it on the law
school's web-site. Obviously the then Dean of my law school believed that a Law
Professor should advocate the Law of the Jungle instead of the Rule of Law. He
is now "deaning" elsewhere, just like a previous Dean who had tried to get rid
of me because of my fervid belief in the Rule of Law and public activities in
support thereof.
On the positive side, however, my besting of O'Reilly in the debate led to my
being inundated by requests for interviews from mainstream and progressive news
media sources all over the world. This plethora of interviews have continued
apace until today during the course of all the terrible events that have
transpired in the world since September 11: the war against Afghanistan; the
global war on terrorism; massive assaults on international law, human rights,
civil rights, civil liberties, and the United States Constitution; the war
against Iraq; Guantanamo; kangaroo courts; the Bush Jr. torture scandal, etc.
I have done the best I can to oppose this Bush Jr. juggernaut of nihilism--now
continued and expanded by Obama.
Ultimately it will be up to the American people to decide the future direction
of the United States of America and thus indirectly, because of America's
preponderant power, unfairly for the rest of the world.
The present danger still remains Machiavellian power politics. The only known
antidote is international law, international organizations, human rights, and
the United States Constitution. In our thermonuclear age, humankind's
existential choice is that stark, ominous, and compelling. As Americans, we must
not hesitate to apply this imperative regimen immediately before it becomes too
late for the continuation of our human species itself.
The Rush to War
SHOW: THE O'REILLY FACTOR (20:29) September 13, 2001 Thursday Transcript #
091303cb.256
SECTION: News; Domestic
LENGTH: 3973 words
HEADLINE: America Unites: How Should the U.S. Bring Terrorists to Justice?
GUESTS: Sam Huessini, Francis Boyle
BYLINE: Bill O'Reilly
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 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 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.
Comments are not moderated. Please be responsible and civil in your postings and stay within the topic discussed in the article too. If you find inappropriate comments, just Flag (Report) them and they will move into moderation que.
