• The movie falsely identifies American Airlines as the carrier that let Mohamed Atta on board despite a security warning. The movie also puts the event at the wrong airport. The airport was in Portland, Maine, and Atta boarded a US Airways flight (facts contained on Page 1 of the 9/11 Commission Report!).


• The movie contains a scene of a Talibani firing bullets at the projected image of President Clinton’s head.


• The movie contains a scene where Clinton’s National Security Advisor Sandy Berger refuses to give the CIA permission to kill Usama bin Laden, even though an agent has bin Laden in his crosshairs. This event never happened.


• The movie even misspells Madeleine Albright’s name.

• This article by Joe Conason at Slate offers an excellent overview of the movie’s most egregious errors. As Atrios says, just click on the damn ad.


• Media Matters for America breaks down the movie’s fabrications around the planned Tarnak Farms operation. Also, falsehoods in scenes involving Sandy Berger and Madeleine Albright and a range of others from night two of the broadcast.


• Richard Clarke statement slams PT9/11. It begins: “As someone who was directly involved in almost every event depicted in the fictionalized docudrama, ‘The Path to 9-11,’ I believe it is an egregious distortion that does a deep disservice both to history and to those in both the Clinton and Bush administrations who are depicted.” Read the full thing here.


• A letter to Bob Iger from President Clinton’s office.


• American Airlines condemns the movie.


• Article at The Nation chronicling the “Docudrama’s Right Wing Roots.”


• Digby notes another stupid error and an equally stupid attempt to correct it.

Now, I’m no lawyer or Constitutional scholar. You might be best advised to consult with your local Congress-critter for a more definitive answer. But here are the facts as best I can tell:

(a) On September 18, 2001, a week after the 9/11 attacks, Congress authorized the use of military force “against those nations, organizations, or persons [the President] determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

(b) On October 16, 2002, Congress issued another authorization of military force, this time for the purpose of ”(1) defend[ing] the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforc[ing] all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.” The language of the resolution urges the President to first seek a diplomatic solution.

(c) The 1973 War Powers Resolution makes a distinction between a “Declaration of War” and “specific statutory authorization,” and from what I can tell, Congress issued the latter. No formal Declaration of War exists in the U.S. today. (If you discover otherwise, please use the comments section to point me to the relevant document.)

So we’re in a military action, not a war. Not that it makes much difference to the people who are getting shot at—certainly to them this is a war. But domestically, this fine point makes a huge difference. President Bush might be able to claim certain privileges in a period of extraordinary threat to the U.S. (i.e., wartime) that he’s not allowed otherwise, like suspending habeas corpus or spying on Americans without a warrant.

Let me just say that I think I understand that in the real world, there’s not much practical difference between a “Declaration of War” and a “statutory authorization.” I’m making the point here that I believe there should be a difference. I’m saying that we should set a higher standard for engaging in war, and we should meet a high bar of justification when we cede any authority from one branch of government to another. In public, members of the Administration are repeating the phrase “We’re at war” endlessly as prelude to the justification of actions that make my stomach turn. I believe that, as a matter of policy, we should draw some clear and careful lines around the act of war; this country should not be allowed to edge its way sideways into war.

Here’s the thing, too: I’ve never felt that my day-to-day life has been altered one bit by this conflict. I have a couple of casual acquaintances who are active military, but I don’t really know or come in contact with anyone who knows anyone involved in the military. I haven’t been asked to sacrifice, to participate in scrap metal drives or victory gardens. I’ve been asked to go shopping, to go on with my life, to keep the economic wheels turning.

But now the stakes have been raised. Now the sacrifice that I’m being asked to make is the suspension of civil liberties. I’m supposed to cede my claim to the protections enumerated in the [Bill of Rights] and the Constitution. I’m supposed to accept that the Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply anymore, and that the separation of powers is no longer operative. I’m supposed to abide by the erosion of the rights of free assembly and free speech.

So I’m trying to understand this. When did my Congress declare war? And with whom? And when will it end? If you want me to give up my liberty, then follow the rules: lets debate the declaration of war, let’s discuss what we need to do to resolve the crisis, and let’s decide how we will declare victory.

Until that happens, I maintain that we are not at war, and my Constitution and my Bill of Rights are still in effect, and no one—not the President or anyone—has the right to declare them null and void.

Further reading:

• Someone please teach Instapundit what a “war declaration” is, by Glenn Greenwald


• The Imperious President – TomPaine.com


• Wikipedia text of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (also see the Talk Page)


• Wikipedia article Declaration of War by the United States


• Ask MetaFilter: Are We “At War”?


• The Truth About War


• New York Times 1/29/06 editorial (see War Changes Everything


• The War on Terror, WashingtonMonthly.com.