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) >