What lessons, first of all, just tell us about that day and what lessons can be learned about the sort of silos between intelligence and law enforcement slash FBI slash operational intelligence?

So we heard a little bit of it this morning on the first panel with, you know, I think we know a lot of the failures, not all the failures, but some of the failures were just between the FBI and the CIA not connecting the dots.

CIA, foreign intelligence knew that bin Laden and Al Qaeda wanted to attack the United States.

And here we had the FBI learning about people turning to take off planes, but not to land them.

So I came into the White House in the beginning of 2001 and spent eight months spending a lot of time, I was the NSC general counsel, a lot of things to focus on, but on Al-Qaeda.

It was certainly senior Bush White House officials had been briefed by the Clinton administration, briefed by John McLaughlin, George Tenet at the CIA about the Al-Qaeda threat.

So knew it was a significant threat and we were working on sort of what to do about it.

you're in a sinkhole, stop digging, get the heck out of it and try something else.

Yes.

Uh, but a lesser use of force is to detain them.

Detention is simply lesser included, uh, in the use of force that comes naturally in a military operation.

This is John Bellinger again

... one, the groups move all the time.

And so if you say, "Well, these are associated groups," well then certain people just move from group A to group B.

And they also want to leave these different groups guessing.

But it still raises democratic concerns if the American people don't really know who the executive branch believes is covered by the AUMF.

What role did NATO play in response to the 9-11 attacks?

So NATO really did an extraordinary job.

This was, I would say, NATO's greatest hour.

For the first time ever in history and since, the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5, holding that an attack against one nation is an attack on all.

They agreed unanimously to that after the 9-11 attacks that the attack on the U.S. was an attack on all the NATO members, and that then under the treaty obligated the NATO members to come to the assistance of the United States, and they did.

For the next 14 years, every member of NATO as well as partner members of NATO sent troops to Afghanistan.

Over 100,000 European troops sent to help the United States fight in Afghanistan against al-Qaeda.

Let me turn to John Bellinger and ask what his take is on whether the 2023 statute could be or would be enforced.

What role did NATO play in response to the 9/11 attacks?

So NATO really did an extraordinary job.

This was, I would say, uh, uh, NATO's greatest hour.

Uh, uh, for the first time ever in history and since, uh, the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5, uh, uh, holding that a attack against one nation is an attack on all.

Uh, uh, they agreed unanimously to that, uh, after the 9/11 attacks, that the attack on the US was an attack on all the NATO members, and that then under the treaty obligated the NATO members to come to the assistance of the United States, uh, and they did.

Uh, uh, for the next 14 years, uh, every member of NATO as well as, uh, partner members of NATO, uh, sent troops to Afghanistan.

Uh, o- over 100,000, uh, European troops sent to help the United States, uh, fight in Afghanistan against, uh, Al-Qaeda.

The Europeans, with a combined GDP roughly five times as large as Russia's, are certainly capable of defending themselves, and if America withdrew, they would have little choice but to work out some system for doing so." So John Bellinger, do you agree that Europe would be just fine without the US and NATO or with a, a significantly reduced US contribution to NATO?

Venezuela's president, Nicolás Maduro, called the first attack on a boat, quote, "A military action on civilians who were not at war and were not militarily threatening any country." We don't know who was on the boats or whether they were carrying illegal drugs, as Trump claims, but what legal authority is the president using to order these attacks without any prior approval from the courts or from Congress?

Well, it's unclear, is the answer.

Uh, it, the attack, based on the facts that the White House has put out so far, for both, for both attacks, is, uh, is that it's legally questionable under both US and international law.

The president, after the first attack on, uh, September 2nd, filed a report, uh, with Congress called the War Powers Report, in which he said that he was acting under his constitutional authority under Article II of the Constitution.

He didn't claim any congressional authority.

Uh, and he said that it was an action, uh, in self-defense.

Uh, but he didn't specify, uh, whether the boat or the people on it posed any, uh, particular threat, whether they had conducted an attack or were planning an attack.

So where do you think this is likely to lead?

Here's how John Bollinger responds.

Is it a theoretical possibility that the federal government might try to go and do that? I suppose it's theoretically possible but there's no evidence that that happened here.

There's no evidence that that has happened in the 100 years since Missouri versus Holland.

He would say, "Look, consider-"

"...

the practical impact that a decision might have that would cut back on the President's treaty power.

Other countries are already highly suspicious of the United States' ability to deliver on its, uh, treaty commitments anyway."