Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

To the Editor:

Re “A Conflict Without End” (editorial, May 17):

I disagree with your interpretation of legislation, approved by the House Armed Services Committee, 60 to 1, that includes a provision affirming the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force against Al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States.

Your editorial suggests that the provision would allow a future administration “to attack Iran unilaterally.” The provision approved by the committee would not authorize the use of force against Iran or Libya. It would only affirm that the 2001 legislation authorizes the use of force against nations, organizations and persons who are part of or substantially supporting Al Qaeda or the Taliban.

This provision simply affirms in statute the arguments used by President Obama’s administration to justify its detention policies. We intentionally used the same language so there is no doubt surrounding the joint intent of both the executive and legislative branches of government.

You also praise Democratic members of the House for demanding hearings on the matter since the provision was “approved with little scrutiny.” Please note that the full Armed Services Committee held a hearing on March 17, 2011, with the deputy secretary of defense and the Pentagon’s top lawyer, at which this topic was discussed.

BUCK McKEON
Washington, May 18, 2011

The writer, a Republican from California, is chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

Note from KBJ: New York Times editorial opinions are fact-free zones.