The Clinton Wars: The Constitution, Congress, and War Powers

5. Terrorism

99 5 Terrorism: Usama Bin Laden Bill Clinton’s strikes on Usama Bin Laden represented a very different sort of military action than the other uses of force considered thus far. The president had multilateral support from either the United Nations or NATO prior to the use of force in Somalia, Haiti, and Bosnia. The responsibilities of the president and Congress in carrying out the “constitutional processes” required for American military participation in such operations were clearly articulated in the 1945 and 1949 treaties addressed in Chapter 1. In the cases discussed so far, the WPR also applied because of the presence of “hostilities,” because American troops were “equipped for combat,” or because of the UN Chapter 7 authorization to use force. When the WPR was created, however, its authors obviously could not anticipate the many different types of threats that exist today. For example, the WPR does not speak specifically to the constitutional duties of either branch of government in response to acts of “terrorism” directed against the United States. The WPR does grant the president the right to use force when there is a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization, or a “national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”1 According to the last exception, a terrorist strike on the United States would allow for an immediate military response from the president according to the WPR. This position corresponds with James Madison’s notes, which indicated that the president should be allowed to respond defensively to aggression against the nation. Yet, as specified by the WPR, presidential consultation with Congress is required in “every possible instance,” regardless of the enemy.2 Although the WPR does not specifically say so, it follows that if any uncertainty exists about the identity of a terrorist perpetrator, or in the event that there is not an immediate need to retaliate against a terrorist, it would be “possible” 100 The Clinton Wars to consult with Congress, and therefore it should be consulted. In sum, the president does have unilateral authority to respond to terrorism if the nation’s “territories or possessions” have been attacked, but this authority may be slightly tempered depending on the particular circumstances . During the Clinton administration, the threat of terrorism became a more prominent security concern for Americans, as reflected in numerous public opinion polls.3 This was especially true in the days prior to the New Year’s celebrations for the year 2000, when worldwide “terrorist alerts” were issued by the U.S. State Department. Two years earlier , President Clinton’s decision to strike the alleged terrorist outposts of Usama Bin Laden was one of the most important steps taken against a terrorist actor during his presidency and thus presents a useful case to examine regarding the role of war powers and the use of force against terrorists. This strike was also conducted unilaterally, without the approval of either the United Nations or NATO. Because of the close similarities with President Ronald Reagan’s 1986 strikes against Libyan leader and widely recognized terrorist supporter Muammar Qaddafi, this chapter also presents a comparison between these two uses of force, which is helpful for understanding Clinton’s interplay with Congress and the relevance of the WPR during his presidency. U.S. Foreign Policy and Terrorism When the Clinton administration took office, terrorism was not considered one of the central security threats to the nation. By the end of Clinton’s first term, however, the federal building in Oklahoma City had been bombed; Japanese terrorist Aum Shinruki had killed twelve and injured five thousand others on a Japanese subway; and in 1993 New York City’s World Trade Center had been victimized by terrorists . Moreover, in 1996, nineteen American servicemen were killed in Dahran, Saudi Arabia, when terrorists exploded a car bomb near an American military complex.4 These events among others exposed the United States and the world to new levels of terrorism. The importance of terrorism in American national security has evolved considerably over the last twenty-five years. In 1979, terrorism reached new heights during the American hostage crisis in Iran, when loyalists of the Ayatollah Khomeini overtook the American embassy in Tehran Terrorism: Usama Bin Laden 101 and held fifty-two Americans captive for 444 days. In the mid-1980s, terrorism again gained prominence among perceived threats to the United States as a result of...