By the authority vested in me as President and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution (Public Law 107-40, 115 Stat. 224) and sections 821 and 836 of title 10, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Findings.

(a) International terrorists, including members of al Qaida, have carried out attacks on United States diplomatic and military personnel and facilities abroad and on citizens and property within the United States on a scale that has created a state of armed conflict that requires the use of the United States Armed Forces.

(b) In light of grave acts of terrorism and threats of terrorism, including the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, on the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense in the national capital region, on the World Trade Center in New York, and on civilian aircraft such as in Pennsylvania, I proclaimed a national emergency on September 14, 2001 (Proc. 7463, Declaration of National Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks).

(c) Individuals acting alone and in concert involved in international terrorism possess both the capability and the intention to undertake further terrorist attacks against the United States that, if not detected and prevented, will cause mass deaths, mass injuries, and massive destruction of property, and may place at risk the continuity of the operations of the United States Government.

(d) The ability of the United States to protect the United States and its citizens, and to help its allies and other cooperating nations protect their nations and their citizens, from such further terrorist attacks depends in significant part upon using the United States Armed Forces to identify terrorists and those who support them, to disrupt their activities, and to eliminate their ability to conduct or support such attacks.

(e) To protect the United States and its citizens, and for the effective conduct of military operations and prevention of terrorist attacks, it is necessary for individuals subject to this order pursuant to section 2 hereof to be detained, and, when tried, to be tried for violations of the laws of war and other applicable laws by military tribunals.

(f) Given the danger to the safety of the United States and the nature of international terrorism, and to the extent provided by and under this order, I find consistent with section 836 of title 10, United States Code, that it is not practicable to apply in military commissions under this order the principles of law and the rules of evidence generally recognized in the trial of criminal cases in the United States district courts.

(g) Having fully considered the magnitude of the potential deaths, injuries, and property destruction that would result from potential acts of terrorism against the United States, and the probability that such acts will occur, I have determined that an extraordinary emergency exists for national defense purposes, that this emergency constitutes an urgent and compelling government interest, and that issuance of this order is necessary to meet the emergency.

Sec. 2. Definition and Policy.

(a) The term "individual subject to this order" shall mean any individual who is not a United States citizen with respect to whom I determine from time to time in writing that:

(1) there is reason to believe that such individual, at the relevant times,

(i) is or was a member of the organization known as al Qaida;

(ii) has engaged in, aided or abetted, or conspired to commit, acts of international terrorism, or acts in preparation therefor, that have caused, threaten to cause, or have as their aim to cause, injury to or adverse effects on the United States, its citizens, national security, foreign policy, or economy; or (iii) has knowingly harbored one or more individuals described in subparagraphs (i) or (ii) of subsection 2(a)(1) of this order; and

(2) it is in the interest of the United States that such individual be subject to this order.

(b) It is the policy of the United States that the Secretary of Defense shall take all necessary measures to ensure that any individual subject to this order is detained in accordance with section 3, and, if the individual is to be tried, that such individual is tried only in accordance with section 4.

(c) It is further the policy of the United States that any individual subject to this order who is not already under the control of the Secretary of Defense but who is under the control of any other officer or agent of the United States or any State shall, upon delivery of a copy of such written determination to such officer or agent, forthwith be placed under the control of the Secretary of Defense.

Sec. 3. Detention Authority of the Secretary of Defense. Any individual subject to this order shall be --

(a) detained at an appropriate location designated by the Secretary of Defense outside or within the United States;

(b) treated humanely, without any adverse distinction based on race, color, religion, gender, birth, wealth, or any similar criteria;

(c) afforded adequate food, drinking water, shelter, clothing, and medical treatment;

(d) allowed the free exercise of religion consistent with the requirements of such detention; and

(e) detained in accordance with such other conditions as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe.

Sec. 4. Authority of the Secretary of Defense Regarding Trials of Individuals Subject to this Order.

(a) Any individual subject to this order shall, when tried, be tried by military commission for any and all offenses triable by military commission that such individual is alleged to have committed, and may be punished in accordance with the penalties provided under applicable law, including life imprisonment or death.

(b) As a military function and in light of the findings in section 1, including subsection (f) thereof, the Secretary of Defense shall issue such orders and regulations, including orders for the appointment of one or more military commissions, as may be necessary to carry out subsection (a) of this section.

(c) Orders and regulations issued under subsection (b) of this section shall include, but not be limited to, rules for the conduct of the proceedings of military commissions, including pretrial, trial, and post-trial procedures, modes of proof, issuance of process, and qualifications of attorneys, which shall at a minimum provide for --

(1) military commissions to sit at any time and any place, consistent with such guidance regarding time and place as the Secretary of Defense may provide;

(2) a full and fair trial, with the military commission sitting as the triers of both fact and law;

(3) admission of such evidence as would, in the opinion of the presiding officer of the military commission (or instead, if any other member of the commission so requests at the time the presiding officer renders that opinion, the opinion of the commission rendered at that time by a majority of the commission), have probative value to a reasonable person;

(4) in a manner consistent with the protection of information classified or classifiable under Executive Order 12958 of April 17, 1995, as amended, or any successor Executive Order, protected by statute or rule from unauthorized disclosure, or otherwise protected by law, (A) the handling of, admission into evidence of, and access to materials and information, and (B) the conduct, closure of, and access to proceedings;

(5) conduct of the prosecution by one or more attorneys designated by the Secretary of Defense and conduct of the defense by attorneys for the individual subject to this order;

(6) conviction only upon the concurrence of two-thirds of the members of the commission present at the time of the vote, a majority being present;

(7) sentencing only upon the concurrence of two-thirds of the members of the commission present at the time of the vote, a majority being present; and

(8) submission of the record of the trial, including any conviction or sentence, for review and final decision by me or by the Secretary of Defense if so designated by me for that purpose.

Sec. 5. Obligation of Other Agencies to Assist the Secretary of Defense.

Departments, agencies, entities, and officers of the United States shall, to the maximum extent permitted by law, provide to the Secretary of Defense such assistance as he may request to implement this order.

Sec. 6. Additional Authorities of the Secretary of Defense.

(a) As a military function and in light of the findings in section 1, the Secretary of Defense shall issue such orders and regulations as may be necessary to carry out any of the provisions of this order.

(b) The Secretary of Defense may perform any of his functions or duties, and may exercise any of the powers provided to him under this order (other than under section 4(c)(8) hereof) in accordance with section 113(d) of title 10, United States Code.

Sec. 7. Relationship to Other Law and Forums.

(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to --

(1) authorize the disclosure of state secrets to any person not otherwise authorized to have access to them;

(2) limit the authority of the President as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces or the power of the President to grant reprieves and pardons; or

(3) limit the lawful authority of the Secretary of Defense, any military commander, or any other officer or agent of the United States or of any State to detain or try any person who is not an individual subject to this order.

(b) With respect to any individual subject to this order --

(1) military tribunals shall have exclusive jurisdiction with respect to offenses by the individual; and

2) the individual shall not be privileged to seek any remedy or maintain any proceeding, directly or indirectly, or to have any such remedy or proceeding sought on the individual=s behalf, in (i) any court of the United States, or any State thereof, (ii) any court of any foreign nation, or (iii) any international tribunal.

(c) This order is not intended to and does not create any right, benefit, or privilege, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by any party, against the United States, its departments, agencies, or other entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.

(d) For purposes of this order, the term "State" includes any State, district, territory, or possession of the United States.

(e) I reserve the authority to direct the Secretary of Defense, at any time hereafter, to transfer to a governmental authority control of any individual subject to this order. Nothing in this order shall be construed to limit the authority of any such governmental authority to prosecute any individual for whom control is transferred.

Sec. 8. Publication.

This order shall be published in the Federal Register.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE, November 13, 2001.

Commentary:
Article 1, Section 8; "The Congress shall have power (cl 9) To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; (cl 10) To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;"

Amendment VI: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.."

On this day, Mr. Bush becomes eligible for articles of impeachment and removal from office for violating the Constitution of the United States.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Despite a White House veto threat, key New York lawmakers said on Tuesday they would press ahead with their bid to get $11 billion more to help their state recover from the Sept. 11 attacks as Vice President Dick Cheney made a final attempt to deter them.

Leaders of a bipartisan group of New York U.S. House of Representatives members said they would push to get the extra money they said was needed for Bush to keep his pledge to provide $20 billion to their state that bore the brunt of the attacks.

Bush's plan for the $40 billion emergency package has $9.6 billion designated for New York, committee aides said. The White House has said that is enough for now, and more money will come to help the reeling state in later spending bills.

I don't like to be in a position where I'm juxtaposed against the president ... but I'm doing this for my state," said Rep. James Walsh of New York, a senior Republican on the House Appropriations Committee who is leading the fight for more money.

But Walsh and Rep. Nita Lowey, the New York Democrat working with him to pass the amendment, said that does not fulfill Bush's commitment for $20 billion.

Commentary: There's an old saying in politics, watch what they do, not what they say. Mr. Bush tells us we'll spend $20 billion to help New York but instead he threatens to veto any spending for New York over the $9.6 billion. Have they no shame?

Following is the text of the letter sent today by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) to Attorney General John Ashcroft about DOJ's new policy on the monitoring of attorney-client conversations involving detainees. Leahy also spoke today by phone with the Attorney General about this issue –

November 9, 2001

The Honorable John Ashcroft
Attorney General

Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:

Since September 11, I have worked closely with you and with the Administration to ensure that the Department of Justice and other law enforcement agencies have all the tools necessary to effectively combat 21st Century terrorism. In working together to craft the USA PATRIOT Act, we had intense and frank discussions about how to meet our shared objective of keeping Americans safe without sacrificing the freedoms which, as the President eloquently said last night, are the defining characteristic of our society. Nowhere in that legislation or in our discussions was there any mention by you or any Administration representative that you intended to move unilaterally and immediately to claim authority to monitor confidential lawyer-client communications.

Since we provided you with new statutory authorities in the USA PATRIOT Act, I have felt a growing concern that the trust and cooperation Congress provided is proving to be a one-way street. You have declined several requests to appear before the Committee to answer questions and have not responded to requests to provide information on such basic points as the number of people -- according to some Department of Justice reports, more than a thousand -- currently detained without trial and without specific criminal charges under your authority. Today, I read in the newspapers that the Administration has decided that it will now provide even less information than before regarding detentions. No one has explained to me how national security compels withholding from Congress and the public – with appropriate protections, if warranted – basic information regarding people who have been detained, arrested and imprisoned.

I am deeply troubled at what appears to be an executive effort to exercise new powers without judicial scrutiny or statutory authorization.

When the detainee's legal adversary -- the government that seeks to deprive him of his liberty -- listens in on his communications with his attorney, that fundamental right, and the adversary process that depends upon it, are profoundly compromised. For this reason, it has long been recognized that the essence of the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel is privacy of communication with counsel, and law enforcement practice throughout our history has recognized that subject only to the most narrow and judicially-scrutinized exceptions, attorney-client communications are immune from government interception....

I appreciate our conversation this morning, but as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I need answers to the grave concerns raised by your new policy.

Please provide answers to these questions:

(1) On what basis are the interceptions of privileged attorney-client communications authorized by your new policy constitutional, and what are the constitutional limits on such interceptions?

(2) What statutory authority supports such interceptions?

(3) What opportunity for prior judicial authorization and judicial review will there be of the legality of such interceptions?

(4) What criteria will you use in deciding whether to certify that "reasonable suspicion exists to believe that an inmate may use communications with attorneys or their agents to further or facilitate acts of violence or terrorism," and in how many cases have you made such a certification?

(5) Your new regulation states that "specific procedural safeguards" will be employed to prevent abuse. Please provide a detailed description of the procedural safeguards that you will make available in all cases.

(6) Did you consider building upon current procedures and seeking court approval for monitoring in those circumstances where it may be justified by the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege and, if so, why did you reject the process of court-supervised monitoring?

(7) When did you first begin monitoring lawyer-client conversations?

Given the grave importance of this matter and its implications for basic civil liberties, I would appreciate a response to these questions by no later than November 13. I would also respectfully suggest that full and responsive answers to my earlier letters of October 25 and 31 and November 7 and 8, 2001, be provided without further delay. I expect the Senate Judiciary Committee will be holding prompt hearings on these matters.

Very truly yours,

PATRICK LEAHY

Chairman

Senate Committee on the Judiciary

SALEM, Ore. (AP) Dr. Peter Rasmussen has vivid memories of an elderly cancer patient who wanted to die because she was terminally ill. He was able to help under Oregon's assisted-suicide law, providing a lethal dose of barbiturates that she took with relatives at her bedside. "There was a lot of reminiscing and telling of family stories. The time was spent saying goodbye, saying 'I love you,"' Rasmussen said.

But he has decided that at least for now he can no longer help terminally ill people hasten their deaths. That's because under a directive issued on Tuesday by Attorney General John Ashcroft, he would sacrifice his right to prescribe federally controlled drugs.

Ashcroft declared that taking the life of a terminally ill patient is not a "legitimate medical purpose" for federally controlled drugs. Doctors who use such drugs to help patients die face suspension or revocation of their licenses to prescribe federally controlled drugs, Ashcroft said.

The Ashcroft decision drew widespread criticism in Oregon, and state Attorney General Hardy Myers said he would file papers on Wednesday in federal court seeking a temporary injunction.

Gov. John Kitzhaber, a supporter of the law, called the directive a "slap in the face to Oregonians" and "an unprecedented federal intrusion on Oregon's ability to regulate the practice of medicine."

White House press secretary Ari Fleischer defended the Bush administration's ruling against questions about its apparent contradiction with President Bush's support for states' rights.

"The president believes that we must value life and promote a culture that respects the sanctity of life at all its stages," Fleischer said. "He has consistently said that he opposes physician-assisted suicide and he believes it is the proper role of the federal government to regulate controlled substances such as narcotics or other dangerous drugs."

Unless an injunction is granted, assisted-suicide advocates and politicians say the law the only one of its kind in the nation is probably on hold because doctors are not likely to run the risk of federal sanctions.

Oregon politicians are up in arms over Ashcroft's move, saying it is an infringement on their state's rights. The assisted-suicide law was approved by voters in two referendums.

FOX NEWS:
The law was narrowly approved by voters in a November 1994 referendum after a bitter debate, and then reaffirmed the decision by a wider margin in 1997. U.S. District Judge Michael R. Hogan ruled the law unconstitutional in 1995, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the decision in 1997 and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal.

Commentary:
The Constitution requires new laws or changes in laws to be passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President. There are no provisions in the Constitution for a president or attorney general to rewrite or otherwise undo state law. Mr. Bush and Mr. Ashcroft violated Article 1 Section  1  , Article 1 Section 7, Article 1 Section 8, Article 2 Section  2  and Article 4 Section  4  of the US Constitution

On this day, Mr. Bush becomes eligible for articles of impeachment and removal from office for violating the Constitution of the United States.

W A S H I N G T O N, Nov. 1 — President Bush issued an order today allowing either an incumbent or a former president to block the release of a former president's papers, a move that alarmed historians, who called it a clampdown on information.

The executive order would require applicants to show a "specific need" for many types of presidential records valued by historians. The White House said the "specific need" requirement only applied if a denial of access was challenged in court. But critics countered that the wording was too ambiguous on that point.

Under the final order, the records of vice presidents would receive similar treatment. Bush's father served as vice president under Reagan before being elected president in 1988.

The reaction from historians was swift, and a quick court challenge was predicted. Representatives of former President Bill Clinton have also objected to the order, saying it marks a retreat from his efforts to make government more open, a Clinton aide said.

The order implements the 1978 Presidential Records Act, which was passed in response to disputes over the records of former President Richard Nixon. The act first applies to the records of Reagan, who left office in January 1989.

Commentary:
The Constitution requires new laws or changes in laws to be passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President. Mr. Bush violated Article 1 Section  1  , Article 1 Section 7 and Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution

On this day, Mr. Bush becomes eligible for impeachment and removal from office for violating the Constitution of the United States.

W A S H I N G T O N, Aug. 15 — Though President Bush campaigned for election by promising the military "help was on the way" after what he called years of neglect, his administration is now finalizing proposals this week for making big cuts in the armed forces.

Navy
Cutting one of its 12 carrier battlegroups, which would mean 6,000-8,000 sailors, 80 airplanes, plus three to five ships that support a carrier.

Army
15,000 troops based in Europe would be eliminated, plus more than 30,000 troops from the National Guard or reserve.

Air Force
Three squadrons of fighters would be cut; about 70 planes and more than 1,000 people.

The Pentagon has been laying the groundwork for these changes by saying it is essential to cut forces if the United States is going to realistically meet overseas commitments.

But as the services themselves fight the proposed cuts, bitter opposition is anticipated on Capitol Hill, even from the president's own party.

Commentary:

Less than a month before the terrorist attack Mr. Bush was attempting to gut the military. The need to cut military spending was forced on him by lower revenue projection made in part by passage of his tax cuts.

N E W Y O R K, Oct. 15 — As Congress debates exactly how it will inject some stimulus into the ailing U.S. economy, one thing seems perfectly clear: the days of budget surpluses are over.

Prior to Sept. 11, the big debate in Washington was whether President Bush's 10-year, $1.35 trillion tax cut would whittle away the country's surplus, sending the country back into the red and prompting lawmakers to dip their hand into Social Security and other padded funds to pay for it. The $38 billion first installment of the Bush tax cut went out to Americans in the form of rebate checks staggered over the summer.

The Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan number-crunching group that had been forecasting a budget surplus of about $313 billion in fiscal 2002 is now predicting a $27 billion shortfall next year. On a 10-year basis, the CBO is now forecasting a barely breakeven budget after what will obviously be lower tax revenues for social security, among other measures currently being contemplated by Congress.

Commentary: After eight years of falling deficits and rising surpluses we see in the first full budget of Mr. Bush a return to deficit spending. The tax cut was not paid for and was passed on the assumption the US would continue the Clinton boom. In both his campaign and as president he lied to the American people when he promised not to spend the Social Security and Medicare surpluses. In a few short months, the US economic giant was thrown into recession. The Administration wants us to believe it was caused by 9/11. This is untrue.

After eight years of peace and prosperity we now have a recession, a war and a projected return to deficit spending. So much for conservatism.

$75 Billion Stimulus Envisioned Package Could Revive Deficit Spending

President Bush said yesterday that he would push for an economic stimulus plan as large as $75 billion, upping the ante for fast-moving legislation that has attracted every lobbyist's wish list.

The stimulus package would be on top of $40 billion already committed to areas harmed by the terrorist attacks and $15 billion to aid airlines. Until the president's announcement, many lawmakers assumed the package would amount to about $50 billion. While the stimulus plan, if enacted, would likely push the budget into deficit, Bush emerged from a meeting in New York with about 30 business executives saying that it was essential to "invigorate this economy."

Democrats, worried about the deficit, said they want to be careful by making only temporary changes in tax policy. But O'Neill indicated that the administration favors enacting permanent changes in tax law, especially those affecting businesses.

Commentary: Since republicans want their stimulus package of tax cuts to be permanent and democrats are worried about the deficits it's safe to claim with absolute certainty that conservatives 1) don't care about the budget, 2) look for any excuse to pay off those who fund their elections, and 3) don't care about stimulating the economy.

When President Clinton proposed a stimulus package in the early 1990's the republicans defeated it. They opposed any new spending regardless of cause. President Clinton asked for extensions in unemployment benefits, which today republicans have no problem passing. President Clinton also asked for more money for small business loans, which republicans opposed. Today, this republican congress gives money away to anyone's aunt who may have known someone who's neighbor might have been near the World Trade Center at around the time of the attack.

By Richard S. Dunham

The economy is ailing, yet Bush is oddly silent. The nation needs the president to mount his bully pulpit and demonstrate some leadership.

The economic news is coming fast and furious these days. In Genoa, Italy, leaders of the major industrialized nations are meeting for their annual G-8 summit. Tops on the agenda: stabilizing a global financial system seemingly on the precipice.

In the U.S., corporate profits are down, layoffs are up. And on July 24, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan again takes the witness stand on Capitol Hill, struggling to convince Wall Street that the central bank's aggressive rate-cutting will have the intended effect -- higher growth, lower inflation.

Plenty to ponder. So what's missing in these headlines? Strangely, the President of the United States. With a tip of the Stetson to Ted Kennedy, who asked a similar question at the 1988 Democratic convention, one might wonder today, when it comes to the economy: "Where is George?"

THE CLINTON MODEL. The U.S. Presidency is arguably the most influential bully pulpit in the world. But George W. Bush definitely hasn't -- in the lingo of another Teddy, Teddy Roosevelt -- done a bully job on economic leadership. Instead, he has used his pulpit to promote pet causes such as funneling federal dollars to religious organizations that provide social services.

Think about it. Bush has given precious few speeches on the state of the economy. Instead, he has focused on political initiatives such as his tax cut or, on rare occasion, trade liberalization. Sixty percent of Americans tell the Pew Research Center that their personal financial situation today is "fair" or "poor," but the President rarely reassures nervous workers.

Commentary:
Who would have thought. Business Week endorsing Bill Clinton's approach to the economy. Someone should check to see if hell froze over.

WIRE: 10/15/2001 4:36 am ET

Since ZAMBOANGA, Philippines (Reuters) - Muslim rebels in the Philippines put a captive U.S. missionary on the telephone to a radio station Monday for the first time -- and then threatened to kill him and his wife if attacked.

The couple, who work for the U.S.-based New Tribes Mission and are from Wichita, Kansas, were kidnapped along with another American and 17 Filipinos from a beach resort in the western Philippines on May 27.

Commentary: Remember the good old days when Americans held hostage were headline news for 444 days? Today, the press couldn't care less.