The following letter is Congressman Frank's reply to constituents
who contact him regarding United States military action in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001.

I am writing in response to your expression of opinion about what America's response should be to the terrible mass murders inflicted on us on September 11.

Essentially, I believe that America has an obligation to ourselves and others to use military force to put an end to the reign of terror which Osama bin Laden has loosed on the world. We should note that his victims did not begin with the approximately 5,000 people killed in the U.S. on September 11. Three years ago, he engineered the bombing of two American Embassies in Africa, which killed nearly 300 entirely innocent Africans, as well as some Americans. And he has made clear his intention to continue to kill large numbers of innocent people if he can, not just Americans, but residents of many countries and continents.

Because I believe we have the obligation to prevent him from further killings, I supported the resolution that Congress voted to authorize the President to respond militarily. But several things about that resolution should be noted. First, in Constitutional terms, it made no difference. The courts have consistently held over a period of the last few decades that Presidents have the inherent Constitutional power to order the armed forces into combat without explicit Congressional authorization. As a practical matter the courts have said that the War Powers Act which purports to limit the President's authority in this regard is unenforceable. The courts have recognized one Congressional check on Executive Branch authority to send troops into battle -- the binding nature of a Congressional enactment which prevents the use of funds appropriated in any particular year for a particular combat operation. Since Presidents would obviously veto such bills if they were free-standing, this means in fact that only by adding an amendment to an appropriations bill which the President is required to sign can Congress restrain military activity.

This means that the resolution we passed was of political relevance in demonstrating support for some military activity, but in fact neither added to nor detracted from the President's legal authority. This did not make its wording irrelevant. And thus I joined with many others, mostly Democrats but some Republicans, in objecting when the President asked that the resolution express support not simply for response to the terrorism of September 11, but also give a blanket approval to "any action" he might take in the future "to deter or preempt" any future terrorist act.

As I have noted, the President has according to the way the courts have interpreted the Constitution the inherent power to do that. But I do not think it is wise for Congress to give political approval in a blanket way to any future action any President might take, particularly of a deterrent or preemptive nature, since there can legitimately be differences of opinion about this. Fortunately, there were enough of us who felt that way so that the resolution as passed did not include that open-ended future language.

Thus the resolution was an authorization for the President -- really an expression of Congressional support -- for military action against Osama bin Laden. In the debate on that, I expressed my view that we were entitled to take such action, but that we were also obligated as a democratic nation believing in humane values to do this in an appropriate way. I'm enclosing a copy of the remarks I made on that occasion with this letter. This means using force necessary to prevent Osama bin Laden and his network from continuing to kill, but doing it in a way that minimizes -- if possible avoids -- any other loss of life.

I know that some people were concerned in the immediate aftermath that the Bush administration would react excessively. I do not believe that their reaction has been excessive. Indeed, I have been pleased to see Secretary of State Colin Powell given a more prominent role in formulating our response here. Prior to September 11, Secretary Powell appeared, frankly, to be on bureaucratic life-support as he was minimized by far more conservative elements within the administration. But President Bush does appear to have recognized the importance of relying on the Secretary, among others, in the current crisis and I believe that our response in military terms has been a reasonable and measured one.

Indeed, the administration did not take any military action for some time, contrary to the fears of many that purely symbolic action would be taken unwisely, and the administration did make it clear to the brutal, repressive Taliban government that we would settle for them simply allowing us to get custody of Osama bin Laden and his murderous crew. Only when they made it clear that they refused to do that -- not surprisingly since the Taliban government and Osama bin Laden appear to be closely linked allies -- did we begin the bombing.

I have also been pleased to see the administration stressing the importance of continuing a role in Afghanistan once military action is completed, and, I hope, the Taliban government is overthrown. The administration has I believe shown a willingness to change its position on the role of the United States and our allies in situations of this sort, and recognizes that it is important that we engage both financially and politically to help build a post-Taliban Afghanistan that will be a source of stability.

At this point, obviously, no one can know exactly what the military cost will be. But I am reassured that the Administration has taken the appropriate line here, and has focused on using the minimum amount of force necessary to put an end to Osama bin Laden's terrorist activities. This may well mean the use of ground forces by the United States and possibly Britain in conjunction with some of the Afghan opposition. And I will continue to urge that we do whatever is possible to hold to an absolute minimum any loss of life other than those engaged with Osama bin Laden, or seeking to protect him. And I think it is appropriate to note in this context that we have worked with the United Nations, both in getting authorization for the military activity, and in efforts to build a reasonable government for the post-Taliban era in Afghanistan. I believe that President Bush has shown his willingness to resist the arguments of those who seek to use this as a basis for a far wider war, and I will continue to support his resistance to that. It is entirely morally justified for us to put an end to Osama bin Laden's reign of terror, which means that we ideally would capture him and put him on trial in the United States for his mass murders, or failing that, should he resist in a way that makes this necessary, kill him and his followers in battle.

If there were in existence an ongoing independent international court, we could of course bring him there, if he surrendered in a way that allowed this to happen. But there is no such ongoing international institution. What we have are ad hoc international courts that have been created for specific situations. This is analogous to what the United States, Great Britain, France and other allies did after World War II, when we convened the Nuremberg Court. That court did not previously exist, and it was a court created by and controlled by the victors. It proceeded to try and punish the Nazi leaders. An analogous situation here would be for a trial in the United States by an international court that would perhaps include American and British jurors. But those who have argued for such a solution must understand that as with World War II, this comes only at the end of a military campaign and is not a substitute for one. That is, there is no civil process by which we can summon Osama bin Laden and his co-terrorists to appear. We are required in our self-defense physically to pursue him in Afghanistan and only once we have succeeded militarily in doing that, can we proceed with the legal aspects.

In summary then, I think that military action to bring Osama bin Laden either to justice or to his death if that is the course he makes necessary by all out resistance is a course we are obligated to take in self-defense, and to date, I believe that the Bush administration has been reasonable and measured in its application of that approach.

Search on Thomas